So-called tech talent shortage...

Interesting read at Stan Sorscher: Conjuring a High-Tech Labor Shortage

In summary[FONT=Georgia, Century, Times, serif], "...[/FONT]as a result, they have a "problem" with labor shortage, it's a problem of their own making [sic companies themselves]."

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

MSP-IT

Iristheangel wrote: »

Personally, I like CDW's approach to how to groom experts: they offer to pay tuition, certifications, etc for an agreement if the employee agrees to stay on for two years or pay everything back within 60 days of quitting. Those certifications also influence their bonuses and raises. That gives the employer some guaranteed ROI on what they give their employee, gives the employee some motivation for some free training, experts are groomed, and everyone walks away happy. Sadly, the majority of companies are not like this

Who is CDW and how do I get a job there?

networker050184

ptilsen wrote: »

No kidding, and exactly what I, for one (and probably the mods) was hoping this would not devolve into.

Yep let's keep it on topic.

ptilsen wrote: »

I do believe there is a real scarcity, both in IT specifically and high tech in general, and this ultimately works in our favor, but it's not to the extent employers are claiming. They don't need to hand out visas to find it workers. It's just perceived as a better, more cost-effective solution than training and hiring average domestic grads.

Maybe we just look at it from different angles, but I don't see why its a bad thing for companies to want to fill their positions with qualified workers. I don't want to hire a guy for a highly technical position that needs training from the ground up. Getting up to speed on a few things is one thing, but a new grad would not fit in a lot of positions that rely heavily on past experiences to make sound decisions.

it_consultant

bdub wrote: »

Thats a bit of a broad and sweeping generalization which I think is a bit unfounded considering India can barely provide basic amenities to much of their own population. If as a people they were so hard working you'd think that would not be the case. But that is a bit off subject.

More on subject I am always reminded of something one of my martial arts instructors told me about his European students that I think is a good analogy and seems to apply to more than just martial arts, and that is that on average his European students are more capable, well rounded, and hard working martial artists but they have fewer superstars. America is good at producing "superstars" and unfortunately we also seems to produce a lot of people that are on the other end of the spectrum.

But I think one point to consider when discussing foreign workers is that, generally those that come over to the US are not the norm in their country either. Its the people that are highly motivated and work hard that seek out a better life in general no matter where they are or where they are from.

I will point out (with the exception of the outsourced people at my wife's work) that I am comparing foreign born born engineers to American engineers where both work in America. It is a sweeping generalization but the stereotype exists for a reason. It isn't like this one particular engineer is the first lazy American programmer I have seen in my career. Across the board we are entitled compared to foreign workers and employers take note of this. What did Bill Gates say, they don't just hire Indians because there are more of them, they hire them because they are better.

My personal opinion is that across the board American's are underpaid whether they are native or not. That is a different discussion. We are talking about the perception that there are plenty of American engineers ready to take jobs and MS and other companies refuse to hire them. We are making that statement assuming those waiting for jobs are actually quality engineers. I am taking the unpopular stance that while they might be qualified they are either lazy or unhireable. The original article made no judgement about whether the engineers saying they cant get work are good engineers. I have been in the business long enough to know a lot of recruiters, they don't admit it publicly but when they recruit for programming jobs they would love to get a blue eyed white boy from Harvard for their clients, but they can't find those guys. What is left over in the job market (for native borns) is just not presentable.

ptilsen

networker050184 wrote: »

Maybe we just look at it from different angles, but I don't see why its a bad thing for companies to want to fill their positions with qualified workers. I don't want to hire a guy for a highly technical position that needs training from the ground up. Getting up to speed on a few things is one thing, but a new grad would not fit in a lot of positions that rely heavily on past experiences to make sound decisions.

I don't see that differently at all. It is completely understandable that companies want to hire people who can do a given job. When I made job descriptions for high-level systems engineers, I didn't cater it to college grads because we weren't in the market of training college grads to be experienced system engineers. We needed five or more years of experience, and MS certifications or the ability to certify soon (partnership requirements).

However, I think a lot of employers take this to an extreme. I would have gladly hired anyone with a CCNA, MCSA, 1-3 years of experience, a college education, or the right combination for a mid-level position and helped them grow into any gaps. The right attitude and some tech savvy would be enough to get hired for the low-level positions. A CIS or similar degree alone would be enough, for the most part. What a lot of employers do is say, we need you to have specifically X-Y years in Sharepoint, Active Directory, routing, and Java development, and so on, to get hired. Or you need to already be a senior-level database administrator to be one at all. Or, as the article exampled, you need to already work with 2.2GHz antennas. Working with 1.9GHz is too unrelated. That attitude is what's wrong with high tech. A company should be happy to take someone with the right foundation and let them learn new details.

I'm not saying take grads and let them head up your #1 engineering project, but I am saying you don't need a guy with ten years of Exchange experience and MCSE Messaging or MCITP:EMA to be your admin. That guy who did a little of Exchange along with nineteen other semi-related things generalist Windows/networking tasks can probably grow into a great Exchange admin with nothing but on the job training, even self-on-the-job-training or off-the-job-self-study. The hyper-specificity of positions means candidates who have great foundations can't get better jobs or jobs at all that they could quite competently do.

Imagine an even more ridiculous, but completely plausible example: A software engineer who has mostly worked in C++ or C# applies for a job primarily developing in Java. In a lot of situations, that engineer, who could easily do the Java job (probably better than a "qualified Java engineer" could), probably wouldn't even get through the filter (be it human or otherwise) because his resume isn't filled with the word Java.

bdub

it_consultant wrote: »

I will point out (with the exception of the outsourced people at my wife's work) that I am comparing foreign born born engineers to American engineers where both work in America. It is a sweeping generalization but the stereotype exists for a reason. It isn't like this one particular engineer is the first lazy American programmer I have seen in my career. Across the board we are entitled compared to foreign workers and employers take note of this. What did Bill Gates say, they don't just hire Indians because there are more of them, they hire them because they are better.

My personal opinion is that across the board American's are underpaid whether they are native or not. That is a different discussion. We are talking about the perception that there are plenty of American engineers ready to take jobs and MS and other companies refuse to hire them. We are making that statement assuming those waiting for jobs are actually quality engineers. I am taking the unpopular stance that while they might be qualified they are either lazy or unhireable. The original article made no judgement about whether the engineers saying they cant get work are good engineers. I have been in the business long enough to know a lot of recruiters, they don't admit it publicly but when they recruit for programming jobs they would love to get a blue eyed white boy from Harvard for their clients, but they can't find those guys. What is left over in the job market (for native borns) is just not presentable.

Yet there is a cap of 65,000 H1B visas a year right? How many Indian born software engineers in America are there compared to American born engineers? I doubt its even comparable to a point where you can generalize. Those that get the chance to come here likely are going to feel highly obligated to work their ass off in order to stay and keep working here. I think this stereotype has little to do with the fact they are Indian.

And as far as anecdotal evidence goes, one of the last jobs I had with a software company they had several Indian born workers there, several who were DBA's and one that was a software engineer. The software engineer was the complete opposite of this stereotype you are discussing and has since moved back to India.

cygnus21

ptilsen wrote: »

However, I think a lot of employers take this to an extreme. I would have gladly hired anyone with a CCNA, MCSA, 1-3 years of experience, a college education, or the right combination for a mid-level position and helped them grow into any gaps. The right attitude and some tech savvy would be enough to get hired for the low-level positions. A CIS or similar degree alone would be enough, for the most part. What a lot of employers do is say, we need you to have specifically X-Y years in Sharepoint, Active Directory, routing, and Java development, and so on, to get hired. Or you need to already be a senior-level database administrator to be one at all. Or, as the article exampled, you need to already work with 2.2GHz antennas. Working with 1.9GHz is too unrelated. That attitude is what's wrong with high tech. A company should be happy to take someone with the right foundation and let them learn new details.

I wish you were the norm. It is so hard to get in even at the entry level right now that I almost gave up and we towards another career path. I interviewed with one job, and the feedback I got was that really liked me and I interviewed well, but I didn't have "the right type of experience" so they passed. How on gods green earth am I supposed to get the right experience if no one will hire me. I am doing what I can to improve my skill set on my own, but so many of the postings want "x years of y experience in a corporate environment" that is feels like no matter how much self study I do I am still not good enough for them. I can only imagine it gets worse as you look to move up.

That just goes back to employers not wanting to take a chance on developing someone and helping them achieve. I think if they did that more they would get happier employees and less job hopping. Lets face it hiring is expensive and the less they have to do the better. I don't see why they don't take the assets that they have and move them up. It seems that the attitude only makes the good ones move out.

RobertKaucher

I just want to chime in here. This is an exceptionally complex subject that I think needs to be approached in nuanced way. I don't think any answers like "raise salaries" will be the only solution to this because it is so complex. Certainly that's going to be a part of it, though.

Here is just an example:

What if there is a shortage of skilled IT professionals in Birmingham, Alabama but an abundance of them in Cincinnati, Ohio? Personally, in my current situation, there is no salary high enough that could convince me to move to Alabama. But let's imagine that it was possible for me. Imagine I am a mid-level software engineer making, say 70K right now. I hit the books and seriously start developing my skills. Would $90K be enough to get me to move myself and my wife away from our families and her son as he is entering college? No. Would they be willing to pay me $100k and pay for my relocation, now we might be talking. But even then it isn't likely going to happen. If you need talent and you need them to be local because of the way your company is structured the kind if talent you need just might not exist in your area.

So why don't people educate themselves? Well, how? I can study up on topic X and lab until I am blue in the face but how do I know that companies in my area will need those skills 6 months once I have completed my studies and certifications? Like most of us, I personally study what I am interested in and what I feel will help my in my career. But I have no hard data to tell me that what I am learning will have a big payoff in 1 to 2 years if I switch companies.

Microsoft and countless other employers are making a conscious business decision to commoditize work, and turn to the labor market to satisfy their precise demand, just-in-time.

But you see that in bold? Well I think training and higher salaries are important pieces of the puzzle but that part of the sentence has a problem.

One thing that I think nearly every company lacks is a program to directly mentor their employees who show talent in certain areas to groom them for the positions that they know they will need to accomplish their strategic goals over the next 3-5 years. I don't mean sending Joe to a training for VMware and then asking him how he liked it. I mean a boss who is actively concerned about the professional prospects of their employees and how this effects the strategic goals of their department on a tactical level.

At a previous job where I was the supervisor I mentored 3 different employees. One who was not in my department at the time. My supervisor, the guy before me, had set this up and mentored me. All 3 of these individuals progress through the company's ranks over a period of at least 4 years. 1 taking over my job when I left and another taking over the assistant supervisory role in another branch. The first guy went on to found his own consumer and small business support shop. We still work together on some jobs to this day. The other two eventually left the company going on to better paying enterprise support positions. Not entry-level help-desk mind you. Guess where this was? The freaking GeekSquad! We had two MCSEs (3 counting me) and multiple MCPs in that place and two part-timers who were software engineers working just to get a discount.

Why was it so different there at that time? Because it was a part of the culture. We took pride in what we learned and how it helped us get better. We took an interest in what the others were learning about and encouraged them. But most of all we had a plan to raise the level of the employees to exceed organizational requirements.

The fact is most people don't know how to do that for themselves. They need a leader to help them learn it.

But if all the leaders are interested in is filling demand as it appears, then good luck. You'll get what you get.

RouteMyPacket

ptilsen wrote:

And you could find more if the pay were even better..... Snip... it

Some seriously good points you make. I see it wwithin my own consulting firm where resources with potential aren't groomed at all. Funny I saw this thread but I blatantly asked why they weren't given opportunities yesterday as I know a few people that could and should enter into the Jr. Sys Admin role from Desktop.

Just as you mentioned, they want that "skilled" resource now, not tomorrow. There is not enough mentoring available in the IT field. I have only once worked with a highly skilled IT pro, the rest of the time I am the top dog or whatever.

What I would give to be surrounded by a team of solid Network Engineers, share ideas etc. but nope I am the sole network engineer running the enterprise. *sigh*

networker050184 wrote: »

Why is it the companies responsability to give them a push? Shouldn't they be pushing themselves?

I have to agree with this as well, I pushed myself to the max at all times and still do. I am always looking for more knowledge and experience. I have tried to stress this to some people I somewhat mentored, with some people it simply doesn't sink in for some reason.

it_consultant

bdub wrote: »

Yet there is a cap of 65,000 H1B visas a year right? How many Indian born software engineers in America are there compared to American born engineers? I doubt its even comparable to a point where you can generalize. Those that get the chance to come here likely are going to feel highly obligated to work their ass off in order to stay and keep working here. I think this stereotype has little to do with the fact they are Indian.

And as far as anecdotal evidence goes, one of the last jobs I had with a software company they had several Indian born workers there, several who were DBA's and one that was a software engineer. The software engineer was the complete opposite of this stereotype you are discussing and has since moved back to India.

Right, lets get all of our ducks in a row. Obviously not every Indian programmer is great and not every American programmer is terrible. I look at two things, the total number of possible engineers available and then the general culture of those people. In America we graduate approximately 233,000 STEM graduates (all STEM disciplines including computer engineering disciplines) and of the foreign born STEM graduates we send half back to their home countries. Right out of the gate we are producing fewer engineers of all types (good, bad, ugly) than India.

Assuming the makeup of workers is similar (the percentages of good to bad is the same for each culture) we will already have fewer good native born engineers than foreign. However, I don't think that the makeup is anywhere near similar. I think that the percentage of lazy and bad engineers from India compared to all engineers is lower. I don't only see this in IT but sectors like medicine and banking - hospitals are like mini united nations(s). This isn't saying anything about the problems India has separate from this, so I am not passing judgment that India is "better" than the US. I am saying that India creates more STEM and generally more math and science workers than we do. I think that, culturally speaking, we value some work ethics a little differently in a way that makes Indians seem more attractive than native born Americans. It isn't just India, South Korea produces STEM graduates at the same rate they produce Kias.

I am passionate about STEM education in particular because I see how clearly our own students are falling behind their peers and then led to believe that their mediocrity is actually excellence. This has bled into the workforce of the under 30 year olds, I should know, I am in that age bracket. Then they get into the workplace and they are outworked regularly and complain people don't hire them or don't hire them for the pay rate they desire. That is separate from the already bad rap Gen-Y(ers) can get for having been coddled our entire childhood into our young adult lives.

bdub

it_consultant wrote: »

Assuming the makeup of workers is similar (the percentages of good to bad is the same for each culture) we will already have fewer good native born engineers than foreign. However, I don't think that the makeup is anywhere near similar. I think that the percentage of lazy and bad engineers from India compared to all engineers is lower. I don't only see this in IT but sectors like medicine and banking - hospitals are like mini united nations(s). This isn't saying anything about the problems India has separate from this, so I am not passing judgment that India is "better" than the US. I am saying that India creates more STEM and generally more math and science workers than we do. I think that, culturally speaking, we value some work ethics a little differently in a way that makes Indians seem more attractive than native born Americans. It isn't just India, South Korea produces STEM graduates at the same rate they produce Kias.

But it isnt just a "cultural thing" that makes foreign workers more attractive for companies, lets be honest, its the fact they can pay them less money. This is also not specific to people from India, its the same with lower skill professions that are being filled with immigrants from Mexico and South America. Before I got into IT I was a cook, during that time I worked with more immigrants than Americans. There is definitely a perception that they are harder working, but this is not necessarily true in my experience and is simply used to justify hiring them over Americans so companies can pay them peanuts and never give them raises. Some of the guys I worked with had never received raises ever, after years of working for the same company. They didnt even realize they should be asking for raises until I told them they should be. So if the question is that they work harder when you take into consideration the level at which they are paid, than yes, they work harder. They typically will work more hours and complain less. But if you ask me if it has anything to do with their culture I would say it has very little to do with their culture and has everything to do with the fact that they know where they are there is an opportunity that does not exist where they came from and they will put up with a lot in order to keep that opportunity.

Wilson502

bdub wrote: »

They typically will work more hours and complain less. But if you ask me if it has anything to do with their culture I would say it has very little to do with their culture and has everything to do with the fact that they know where they are there is an opportunity that does not exist where they came from and they will put up with a lot in order to keep that opportunity.

Exactly, which drags down the standard of living here since employers will pay them less and they complain less, hence why we have seen stagnant wages in this country for the most part for the last 30 years.

About7Narwhal

I will admit that I did not read all of the posts on this thread, but I wanted to add my two cents as I feel people like me are part of the problem. People who need to get the first chance with a company will take lower paying jobs for the opportunity. That said, a company can hire someone in as a Jr. Admin, low ball them, and then train them to be a perfect fit for the company. After that is done, the company can "Promote" the employee and offer a higher salary... which is still lower than had they hired an experienced professional.

The expectations of corporations are high, and the pay is low. The only people who will bend to that kind of situation are the new folks in town. They have no experience and no real skills to offer for pay negotiation and they accept what they are offered on the thin sliver of "Opportunity" held out in front of them. Either that or keep looking at HelpDesk job postings that were clearly not made by someone in IT (eg: Saw a posting Monday asking for 3-5 years experience for an ENTRY LEVEL HD job...).

SteveLord

About7Narwhal wrote: »

(eg: Saw a posting Monday asking for 3-5 years experience for an ENTRY LEVEL HD job...).

Yup. I see similar + degree requirements attached to them.

petedude

undomiel wrote: »

INot too interested in improving themselves and moving up the ladder.

Oddly enough, I also occasionally see people who are hard workers during the day, yet are somehow totally unmotivated to study so they can advance themselves. It's almost as if they're expecting to rack up advancement through seniority and sheer long hours, a notion that's about 30 years outdated now.

Wilson502

SteveLord wrote: »

Yup. I see similar + degree requirements attached to them.

I cant help but laugh when i see those and especially in the expensive areas of cali that are paying wages you cant live on either due to the outrageously high cost of living.

sratakhin

Wilson502 wrote: »

I cant help but laugh when i see those and especially in the expensive areas of cali that are paying wages you cant live on either due to the outrageously high cost of living.

I think it's alright. With the economic situation in some parts of California employers can dictate wages for many jobs due to the high unemployment rate. I still remember how many people I saw at interviews for entry-level positions in 2009. One position was something like an office assistant, and they only paid $8/hr. I talked there with a few people that had degrees from UCI and UCLA and decided not to waste my time on it

That was in Orange County, where the cost of living is very high.

If employers still advertise positions like that, they can probably find enough applicants. Otherwise... What's the point of wasting everybody's time?

Wilson502

I agree, in the central armpit/valley, its more or less the norm, but to see that in the Bay area or Orange county where the COL is outrageously high and there's a hiring boom in IT, i just pass on those cause I was making the same in the valley for similar kind of work. Besides no point in relocating to a higher cost of living area if the job doesn't pay enough for you to live on.

sratakhin

If they can still find people that are willing to work for that kind of money, what's wrong with that?
If they can't - they will eventually pay more, unless they can do without extra help or really stupid

I know the cost of living in OC is very high (used to live there), but it's not the employers' problem.

Wilson502

Nothing "wrong" with it srat, I just dont apply to those places. If a particular job doesnt pay enuff for me to meet the rental income requirements of the area, i just apply for ones that do, simple as that.

bdub

Its funny, right when I got in my car on my way home from work NPR ran a story about this exact topic that was pretty interesting. Heres the link.

Who's Hiring H1-B Visa Workers? It's Not Who You Might Think : All Tech Considered : NPR

Pretty much sums it up I'd say.

ArabianKnight

Did a quick search and found this, makes me furious!!

Desktop Support

]-Industry leading benefits package a long with being a leader in their industry[
- Very competitive base salary plus performance based bonus. Company wants to hire and retain the brightest and motivated employees and understands those employees are paid above market rates.
- Consistently ranked as one of the best companies to work for by employees.]
- Extremely flexible work schedule policy
- Flexible start time & end time
- Fitness center open to employees & their families
- A management style that recognizes, appreciates and believes their employees are their competitive advantage
- Challenging and stimulating projects
- A culture that promotes Work-Life
Qualifications:

2-5 years of Desktop support
Installing Office 2010 on 1,500 desktops
Must have experience installing OS Windows 7 v.
$14,000-$16,000/year

WTF!!!

higherho

I read some of the posts in this thread and wanted to make a comment. My very first job was a help desk and the company really felt the need to bring people up the ladder (train if needed, etc). I consider myself to be very pro active and willing to learn technologies. This helped me not only learn my job faster but the company themselves invested in me (training and it did not cost them a dime) and put me into higher positions. I kept doing well and they kept putting me into higher positions. I honestly think that the company who actually puts the effort into making sure their current employee's are not just sitting around doing nothing is something this industry is lacking. However, at the same time the individual needs to have the passion to grow too.

The irony to my story is the company I worked for never gave me a pay raise for the new positions and so when I basically got all the experience I needed, I left. Though once I left they started offering me more money (Even though they stated before they could not help me). Companies will train their employee's because its cheaper on them

Of course not all companies do that.

The worker needs to have the passion to grow and learn on their own and at work. However, = the company should offer training / experience for their internal employee's to allow them to grow.

sratakhin

ArabianKnight wrote: »

Did a quick search and found this, makes me furious!!

Desktop Support

]-Industry leading benefits package a long with being a leader in their industry[
- Very competitive base salary plus performance based bonus. Company wants to hire and retain the brightest and motivated employees and understands those employees are paid above market rates.
- Consistently ranked as one of the best companies to work for by employees.]
- Extremely flexible work schedule policy
- Flexible start time & end time
- Fitness center open to employees & their families
- A management style that recognizes, appreciates and believes their employees are their competitive advantage
- Challenging and stimulating projects
- A culture that promotes Work-Life
Qualifications:
2-5 years of Desktop support

Installing Office 2010 on 1,500 desktops

Must have experience installing OS Windows 7 v.

$14-16k/year

WTF!!!

Benefits? Like a free company t-shirt that says "I'm a loser"?

Or free fountain drinks?
It's probably $14-16/hr, otherwise it just doesn't make sense. Unless the job is somewhere in Eastern Europe or India, for example.

tpatt100

I think a problem with self improvement is usually you are hired for a job and like my current position self improvement beyond what you need to know/do is pointless for "that" position. I scratch my head sometimes when I am going over documents and constantly ask "why are you doing this?" and I get a reply "because we track it", I ask "why do you track it". I get the response "because management told us". And this was Security.....

I wasn't asking to be a smart a$$ I was honestly asking because I had no freaking clue what the documents were for and when I get an answer I bring up that the document does not actually prove/explain/show what the title of the document says the document is. So I rewrite everything and change all the requirements and explain how NOW the document shows what it says it is supposed to show.

The Security team was promoted from within and they were all Help Desk which I don't care that they were Help Desk but they only used the information they were given when they were promoted into the position. So really they just were passed the torch and nobody thought to try and learn and or improve their current processes. Which is probably why IT is best suited for people who change jobs every few years because otherwise your experience level falls fast due to lack of exposure to new things.

ptilsen

ArabianKnight wrote: »

[*]$14-16k/year

It has to either be part-time or a typo. I mean literally, it has to. That is less than the Federal minimum wage for full-time work. Even if it's 30-something hours at minimum wage, I don't believe that it was intentional. I'm sure it was supposed to be $14-16 /hr, which is still too low but at least in the realm of possibility.

Akaricloud

higherho wrote: »

The irony to my story is the company I worked for never gave me a pay raise for the new positions and so when I basically got all the experience I needed, I left. Though once I left they started offering me more money (Even though they stated before they could not help me). Companies will train their employee's because its cheaper on them Of course not all companies do that.

This is exactly what I've run into twice now. My employers have been willing to throw as much training at me as I wanted and when I actually take advantage of it nothing changes. No opportunity for official advancement or increased pay pretty much means the only way to get ahead is to hop jobs.

Too many employers fail to understand what it takes to keep talent and just write off the cost of high turnover.

ArabianKnight

I double checked it and it clearly states in the job posting sidebar $14,000-$16,000/year! I made the changes on my post. I truly believe they made an error because that is minimum wage or below when broken down by hour.

broli720

I think we are missing the point here. It's not really about motivation or the economy. It all boils down to profits and the laws that have been put in place since the 1970's to help corporations. Since the 1970's corporate profits have risen 200% but wages have not increased. Some say this is because of new technologies and but if that's the case why do I have to put in so much OT on some weeks. It all boils down to profits and the current laws allow corporations to do this. If the market changes then they just pony up money to their SUPER PACS and pay off some more politicians to change them again. That's how it works. Just have to accept it and learn how to play the game.

Wilson502

@broil that is the exact point I was getting at.

tpatt100

Well at least Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar anti-poaching agreement became public knowledge last year.