Required:BA, 5yr IT exp and MCSE; $14hr help desk

rob7278

Ok this shouldn't bother me because- it's a free country and companies have the right to decide their minimum requirements and what they are willing to pay someone; but seriously I get so extremely annoyed when I see this garbage. To me it seems like employers trying to take advantage of a really tough job market (however I do realize that it is more likely a clueless HR person that posts these)

I feel like I want to call some of these postings and say- So let me see if I understand your posting correctly, you require a 4yr degree, also that the applicant be a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and you require that this person have 5yrs IT experience- and for all this you want to pay this person the same amount that you are paying the receptionist that sits at the front desk answering the phones and filing her nails all day, with just a high school diploma?
Even if such a person existed I don't think any employer would even want someone like that- if I were a hiring manager I would be wondering why someone with 4yr degree, MCSE and 5yrs exp woul be willing to take a help desk job for $14 an hr (I don't think they would really be the most motivated/ambitious person around- be careful what you wish for)

MeanDrunkR2D2

I think that it's more of their "Dream" person who has all that and is still willing to take $14 a hour. The only thing they may find if someone has all of those "requirements" is someone who is out of work and is almost out of unemployment insurance to take the job until they find something better.

They won't be able to keep someone with those skills for long unless they are completely inept and cannot get a job anywhere else.

Right now I'm in a crap situation and working at a job that pays even less than that, but it's only because it's a job that helps to pay the bills right now (and barely even that) and once I find something more in line with the pay I'm looking for I'm leaving in a heartbeat. The thing is, they knew that up front that this wasn't going to be a "career" position for me and that I wanted something that would be stable while I find the next move in my career and it does give me good hardware experience that will make me more valuable to another company. My manager told me that he's fine with me using them for the hardware experience and pay for the time being because he's using me as cheap labor and someone who is far more skilled than the normal employee they have.

But, yea, it could just be a stupid HR person who knows all the buzz words and thinks that they are a dime a dozen and are willing to take the pay offered. What ticks me off more was when I graduated college and applying to entry level positions and being shot down immediately because I didn't have 5 years IT experience. For an entry level position. **slaps forehead**

ColbyG

Hahaha.

themagicone

The problem is that someone will take this position, be it because they need to feed their family or whatever. By doing so that employer is going to think "great we don't have to pay our employees anything" and the cycle continues. I seen the same thing in trucking - companies offer cheap freight, most people won't touch it, but because there was one person who did they keep offering it and won't raise rates.

slinuxuzer

Ok, I have to come clean here, I am the A-hole responsible for posting all of these job ad's I had few underlings, but had to let them go when they demanded a .49 cent raise after completing MCDST.

My motivations were simple, just to generate enough false leads that the less adept "IT professionals" could chase, thus allowing me to pursue the real job leads with less competition. I am sorry, but in this sluggish economy you have to think ahead of the curve.

Seriously though, this pisses me off to.

chmorin

slinuxuzer wrote: »

Seriously though, this pisses me off to.

Agreed.

chrisone

maybe they meant 41 an hour and its a typo lol

Devilsbane

A former instructor told me that when they write required they don't mean required. If fact, they don't want you to have all of those skills. They want a person to apply for the job who is underqualified but then is going to work their tail off to make up for it (also for a smaller salary) rather than the completely experience IT guy that believes that he is god and doesn't put forth a lot of effort.

Someone will get this job for that pay, probably not with that exact skill set. Maybe though, like someone before said... If you are out of work and need to feed your family then $14 an hour is a godsend.

rob7278

Ultimately is like themagicone said- employers do it because they can; as long as there are takers, why not low ball people.
There are more fair postings then there are garbage ones, so I don't know why I don't just roll my eyes on move on to the next posting. I guess it's a pride thing- you study your butt off to get certified or devote the time and money to earn a degree and someone comes along and devalues your efforts.

veritas_libertas

MeanDrunkR2D2 wrote: »

I think that it's more of their "Dream" person who has all that and is still willing to take $14 a hour. The only thing they may find if someone has all of those "requirements" is someone who is out of work and is almost out of unemployment insurance to take the job until they find something better.

I think you have nailed it on the head.

earweed

I just think it's really depressing that someone may actually have to take the job with those qualifications.

eMeS

humble2007 wrote: »

A former instructor told me that when they write required they don't mean required. If fact, they don't want you to have all of those skills. They want a person to apply for the job who is underqualified but then is going to work their tail off to make up for it (also for a smaller salary) rather than the completely experience IT guy that believes that he is god and doesn't put forth a lot of effort.

Someone will get this job for that pay, probably not with that exact skill set. Maybe though, like someone before said... If you are out of work and need to feed your family then $14 an hour is a godsend.

I agree mostly, but job descriptions are written this way primarily for legal reasons.

Typically when you write a job posting it's common practice to add many things that can be used to legally disqualify candidates. This is primarily because hiring managers need reasons that pass legal muster for not hiring someone as much or more than they need someone for that position with those specific credentials and experience.

So if you choose to not hire the black Muslim woman who is over 40 with one leg it was because she didn't meet the qualifications, and not because she was a black Muslim woman over 40 with one leg.

Additionally, it could be written that way because they were required to post it, but they already have an incumbent in mind. I see tons of government RFPs that are written in a very similar fashion...they don't want you to bid and they often say so in the way the thing is structured, however, legally they have to offer everyone a chance to bid.

This is also called "playing the game"....

MS

Zartanasaurus

rob7278 wrote: »

To me it seems like employers trying to take advantage of a really tough job market

No one is forcing people to apply for that job.

jamesleecoleman

eMeS wrote: »

I agree mostly, but job descriptions are written this way primarily for legal reasons.

Typically when you write a job posting it's common practice to add many things that can be used to legally disqualify candidates. This is primarily because hiring managers need reasons that pass legal muster for not hiring someone as much or more than they need someone for that position with those specific credentials and experience.

So if you choose to not hire the black Muslim woman who is over 40 with one leg it was because she didn't meet the qualifications, and not because she was a black Muslim woman over 40 with one leg.

Additionally, it could be written that way because they were required to post it, but they already have an incumbent in mind. I see tons of government RFPs that are written in a very similar fashion...they don't want you to bid and they often say so in the way the thing is structured, however, legally they have to offer everyone a chance to bid.

This is also called "playing the game"....

MS

My first job did that because of the persons religion. I was highly upset and was one of the people most affected by the people who made that decision.

mikej412

rob7278 wrote: »

a 4yr degree, also that the applicant be a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and you require that this person have 5yrs IT experience- and for all this you want to pay this person the same amount that you are paying the receptionist that sits at the front desk answering the phones and filing her nails all day, with just a high school diploma?

Don't forget the flip side -- the person who lies about having a degree and dumped their MCSE (if they're not just lying about that too) and their references for their "5 years experience" is a friend of theirs with a $10 pay-as-you-go mobile phone. And they want to do less work than the receptionist that sits at the front desk filing her nails all day and get paid 100K.

And on a good day that company hires that job applicant -- and they both get what they deserve.

Selfmade

mikej412 wrote: »

Don't forget the flip side -- the person who lies about having a degree and dumped their MCSE (if they're not just lying about that too) and their references for their "5 years experience" is a friend of theirs with a $10 pay-as-you-go mobile phone. And they want to do less work than the receptionist that sits at the front desk filing her nails all day and get paid 100K.

And on a good day that company hires that job applicant -- and they both get what they deserve.

and then, they fire him and hire mikej412, who shakes his head upon being hired after seeing all the chaos he has to restore order to

Daniel333

Yeah, my job opened a Florida branch almost 2 years ago. We posted simliar needs and money plus voip support and had no lack of applicants. 50+ apps? The guys we hired are happy to have the jobs.

GamingCrazy

Daniel333 wrote: »

Yeah, my job opened a Florida branch almost 2 years ago. We posted simliar needs and money plus voip support and had no lack of applicants. 50+ apps? The guys we hired are happy to have the jobs.

They obviously aren't looking for full time, I bet they spend more money and resources hiring and then later looking form multiple replacements.

Hyper-Me

"You get what you pay for" doesn't just apply to consumers. They will get a candidate worth 14$/hour (or less), in almost every case.

earweed

I've seen similar posts here except they are for a higher wage (same qualifications deg + exp) and I still apply for them. The lower wage jobs just ask for 3-4 years experience for the entry level job. I don't really see where they think they'll get a GOOD entry level employee who has been doing that same job for that long without being advacnced beyond that.

Cherper

It also depends on the local demographics. I have seen similar ads when looking through the jobs posted in parts of Utah. They have an education glut, so a degree is nothing special. It just helps to weed out some of the applicants.

Daniel333

GamingCrazy wrote: »

They obviously aren't looking for full time, I bet they spend more money and resources hiring and then later looking form multiple replacements.

Full time, no training, no quitters (yet). I'm no economist, but I think it mainly comes down to location and the fact we sponsors work visas. If your company is willing to go through that paperwork you can really line up people up it seems.

JoJoCal19

The reason employers are doing this is simply because they can. When there is high demand of jobs and low supply the wages dive. Like was posted earlier, there are no shortage of applicants and people willing to take the job so they can do that. I do think this is one of the more extreme cases Ive seen but in this job market for IT, its par for the course.

N2IT

rob7278 wrote: »

Ok this shouldn't bother me because- it's a free country and companies have the right to decide their minimum requirements and what they are willing to pay someone; but seriously I get so extremely annoyed when I see this garbage. To me it seems like employers trying to take advantage of a really tough job market (however I do realize that it is more likely a clueless HR person that posts these)

I feel like I want to call some of these postings and say- So let me see if I understand your posting correctly, you require a 4yr degree, also that the applicant be a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and you require that this person have 5yrs IT experience- and for all this you want to pay this person the same amount that you are paying the receptionist that sits at the front desk answering the phones and filing her nails all day, with just a high school diploma?
Even if such a person existed I don't think any employer would even want someone like that- if I were a hiring manager I would be wondering why someone with 4yr degree, MCSE and 5yrs exp woul be willing to take a help desk job for $14 an hr (I don't think they would really be the most motivated/ambitious person around- be careful what you wish for)

Wow

We should of created fake resumes and sent them into that company applying for that job. See which one of us could make the most outragous resume

N2IT

JoJoCal19 wrote: »

The reason employers are doing this is simply because they can. When there is high demand of jobs and low supply the wages dive. Like was posted earlier, there are no shortage of applicants and people willing to take the job so they can do that. I do think this is one of the more extreme cases Ive seen but in this job market for IT, its par for the course.

To be honest with you they can't.

Those days of thinking are shifting away imo. I have had 5 friends/co workers get 20%+ increases in the last 3 months along with another about to defect AT&T to work for Express Scripts to grab a manager/lead Java development role. Infact I forgot to include myself. Not as exciting as those, I was promoted from a government contract position to a tier 2 position last month and received a 8% increase and a lot more hands on technicial knowledge.

Employers may think that model is still current, but in reality it isn't.

Devilsbane

N2IT wrote: »

To be honest with you they can't.

Those days of thinking are shifting away imo. I have had 5 friends/co workers get 20%+ increases in the last 3 months along with another about to defect AT&T to work for Express Scripts to grab a manager/lead Java development role. Infact I forgot to include myself. Not as exciting as those, I was promoted from a government contract position to a tier 2 position last month and received a 8% increase and a lot more hands on technicial knowledge.

Employers may think that model is still current, but in reality it isn't.

I think it works temporarily. You will accept a job for minimal pay because those bills are still coming in, but you will continue the job search. So once a decent offer does come around, company A is out of luck. They might have you for 3 days or for 3 months. It really isn't in the company's best interest though.

motogpman

Daniel, hopefully there are more US workers than Visa'd employees. Especially during these economic times. We do visa work here and it usually bites us in the rear. The company still continues to do it however, but at a lesser volume. From what I have been told, between the forms, dealing with the Gov, and the costs associated, it adds up to be more than it's really worth.

bubble2005

Man that is just inhumane. NO. However only if it is necessary, such as paying off bills, sustaining a family etc this offer should be considered.

Stuppored

JoJoCal19 wrote: »

The reason employers are doing this is simply because they can. When there is high demand of jobs and low supply the wages dive. Like was posted earlier, there are no shortage of applicants and people willing to take the job so they can do that. I do think this is one of the more extreme cases Ive seen but in this job market for IT, its par for the course.

If I could afford it, I'd take that job. Work it like I love it. Make people rely on me. The go to guy. Max out whatever benefits, vacation days and just not show up one day. It would be a sick joke, but it'd be just as bad as the wage they're offering for a skilled individual. Just to help them out, I'd probably change all account passwords that I could... databases, cisco CLI, server admin passwords, etc... and not log them anywhere. Funny thing is that kind of stuff happens more often than you'd think - I'd almost think it would be against the law... but it happens so often like when admins get fired etc..

Silentsoul

Stuppored wrote: »

If I could afford it, I'd take that job. Work it like I love it. Make people rely on me. The go to guy. Max out whatever benefits, vacation days and just not show up one day. It would be a sick joke, but it'd be just as bad as the wage they're offering for a skilled individual. Just to help them out, I'd probably change all account passwords that I could... databases, cisco CLI, server admin passwords, etc... and not log them anywhere. Funny thing is that kind of stuff happens more often than you'd think - I'd almost think it would be against the law... but it happens so often like when admins get fired etc..

That is a pretty shitty mentality to have not only does it make you look like an ass it makes things for future admins harder. You would not prove anything except making yourself look bad. If you don't agree with the job requirements or the pay walk, it's that easy. Also I am pretty sure it is illegal, take a look at what happened with the San Francisco city admin, and he was not even doing it to be an ass. But go ahead, give it a try, and let us know when your civil suit ends if it was worth it.

Iristheangel

Silentsoul wrote: »

That is a pretty shitty mentality to have not only does it make you look like an ass it makes things for future admins harder. You would not prove anything except making yourself look bad. If you don't agree with the job requirements or the pay walk, it's that easy. Also I am pretty sure it is illegal, take a look at what happened with the San Francisco city admin, and he was not even doing it to be an ass. But go ahead, give it a try, and let us know when your civil suit ends if it was worth it.

The SF systems administrator did it on purpose. He actually went out of his way to lock every other system administrator for San Francisco out.

And to the other poster, it IS illegal. The SF systems administrator was charged with "felony computer network tampering." If you leave a company and you didn't disclose the admin passwords or access to management on the way out the door and refuse to do so, you can and most likely be facing some very seriously felony charges.