In reply to z31maniac :
I think a lot of companies were betting on a forever-pandemic scenario. Which humanity was very nearly dumb enough to pull off!
Which reminds me of an article I ran across this morning, the other side of proving that WFH is more profitable is proving that RTO is less profitable:
https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/02/return_to_office_mandates_do_not_boost_profits/
Residual Taylorism isn't done with us yet.
In reply to GameboyRMH :
I know how important this is to you.
I think it is important to note that that article is specifically about Fortune 500 companies, and less than 1% of people work for F500 companies. Plus, that survey was only of 137 of those 500 companies. It represent a very small percentage of employees in a very specific working environment which may have very little to do with the broader cross section of work environments you are referring to when you say "a lot of companies". What works for F500 companies may have nothing to do with other smaller companies.
Your concern is that employees are being held accountable for bad management, and that companies don't have a reason to make workers RTO. Even if the entire reason to RTO is based solely on the comfort level of incompetent management, that's still a legitimate reason. We don't have to like it, but it's a perfectly legitimate reason to force RTO (by the people who are responsible for decisions like this). The value and results remain to be proven.
I am only familiar with the behind-the-scenes methods of one F500 company. SalesForce. They have 40,000 employees and have NOT made people RTO. It seems to be working pretty well for them.
There is no one size fits all solution. Every company is different, and every employee's needs are different. RTO may be a good decision for some companies and a bad one for others. We shall see.
US added 353,000 jobs last month.
Ran across a very relevant article:
https://www.wired.com/story/why-tech-job-interviews-became-such-a-nightmare/
Also a relevant article, what I've been saying for years
https://canadianautodealer.ca/2024/03/the-auto-industrys-hr-problem/
In reply to Peabody :
The same can be crossed over to the broken HR in US healthcare. Currently in week 3 for a still pending application after the initial HR interview. Month 3 with a specialty equipment company and nothing to say anything. Zero indeed hits. Previous company I applied to gave the same repetitive we went elsewhere email out of randomness after waiting 2 months. Current travel company recruiter is nonproductive unless I change, which to be honest is a temp recruiter as mine is out on maternity leave.
SV reX said:US added 353,000 jobs last month.
I remember reading somewhere when this news came out and it's basically a coked up number. I'll have to find it again....
In reply to Ranger50 :
The sad reality is that it's not industry specific. In most of my experience HR departments have been grossly incompetent.
Ranger50 said:SV reX said:US added 353,000 jobs last month.
I remember reading somewhere when this news came out and it's basically a coked up number. I'll have to find it again....
Gee, ginning the numbers in an election year? Who'd a thought it...
There are LOTS of jobs in the construction industry (and some of them are technically oriented). There are very few office jobs available (project managers, planners, etc aren't needed), but 6 figure hands-on and field positions are abundant (tradesmen, superintendents, foremen, safety managers, etc).
Most of the trade related businesses I am familiar with are scaling down and refusing to bid some new work because they are unable to hire enough staff to man them at ANY price.
I think this issue varies greatly by sector. The jobs that seem to be most effected are office jobs, and jobs that are impacted by automation and AI quickest.
Time for some people to pivot and focus on their transferable skills. Some jobs are definitely going away, but new ones are also being created rapidly. The people who make the transitions the quickest are the ones who will do the best.
I do a lot of work in the automotive industry. Every facility I know of would jump on the opportunity to hire new technicians, BUT they don't need old fashioned wrench turners. They need people who can handle service and diagnostics for modern vehicles (and pay well for them).
The countries infrastructure spending is making waves in construction and manufacturing.
also. Just verbally accepted an offer.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Can you explain that a bit more?
In reply to SV reX :
Which bit?
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Actually, in my region and market, most of the infrastructure stimmy is running out. There is a last gasp of Big Spending right now, but that will die down later this year.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I'm interested in knowing a bit more about how you view the infrastructure stimulus money impacting construction and manufacturing.
In reply to SV reX :
it's all here. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684
I should also mention the Covid supply chain issues. These caused a lot of re shoring into the us. Manufacturing is growing as supply chains become longer and more constrained.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
That says what the bill authorizes. I'm interested in knowing more about your opinion of how that bill has been "making waves in construction and manufacturing".
Are you saying it has created more construction jobs, and perhaps that construction jobs are therefore not a good example because they are a different scenario than IT jobs (for example)?
In reply to SV reX :
No. I was merely stating the causal effects of this. I'm happy to see infrastructure growth.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Ok.
I don't think politicians passing bills for infrastructure stimulus equate to construction jobs in the real world.
Peabody said:In reply to Ranger50 :
The sad reality is that it's not industry specific. In most of my experience HR departments have been grossly incompetent.
HR for the area I work in has been very effective at not actually hiring people they interview, and I don't think they've been great at getting people "in" for interviews (I think they're mostly or completely remote interviewing, still). It basically comes down to offering being at or below competitive (so unless you really want/need to get into a new thing, why bother) and forced 100% on-site for new employees.
Honestly if I had been in a better position when I interviewed in late 2021 I wouldn't have shown up for what they offered either, but yadda yadda here I am and we can't get people to actually work here.
In reply to SV reX :
I'd love to hear your take on it.
here's a list of projects that got funding.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/build/maps-of-progress/
id much rather spend money here than more defense spending.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I think building new infrastructure is a great idea. It's an EXPENSE that we should choose to spend when needed. Tying it to job creation (especially construction jobs) is disingenuous, and politically motivated. Here's why...
Construction infrastructure projects are expensive. They usually include things like roads, bridges, broadband service, etc.
Construction infrastructure projects are usually heavy equipment projects done by large companies.
Heavy equipment costs are high, but the labor cost to run them is not a huge percentage of the cost. So, a $50 million infrastructure project does not create $50 million in labor. Not even close. Maybe $5 million.
The owners of these large heavy equipment companies don't go out and hire a few new guys when they get a new project. They shift some of their existing labor force from other projects as needed. There are lots of delays in construction infrastructure projects. It's not hard for an equipment operator to shift from one project to another and cover several projects as needed. That's not job creation, it's schedule management.
The other problem is that construction jobs are not permanent. If a contractor "creates" a new "job" for a construction worker for a 4 month project, then uses the same worker on the next project for 5 months, then on the next project for 3 months, that's 3 jobs created, right? Of course not. It's 1 employee who worked on 3 different projects. And it's not job creation at all unless a new employee was hired (and hopefully became a permanent position).
Oh, and since infrastructure projects are all completed by large companies, the owners are often already wealthy, and the contracts are often awarded via cronyism. It's not job creation, it's giving profits to friends.
Construction infrastructure projects are used frequently by politicians looking for political gain so they can claim "job creation" when they are really lining the pockets of their cronies.
But yes. I'm glad to see some infrastructure work getting done. A lot of things on that list look like good things.
SV reX said:US added 353,000 jobs last month.
In December Canada added 100 jobs. 100 jobs.
It's a weird job market right now, at least locally. Tradesmen are still in big demand and wages keep climbing. But I'm hearing from friends and family that the job market for unskilled workers is dead, nobody's hiring and they're being told that there are hiring freezes and layoffs. One of my coworkers family came over from India and she's been supporting them because none of them can find work, even in fast food.
Well after 3 weeks, the one place finally gave the standard bs email of "sorry, we chose others." And of course they will not say why. Spineless cocksuckers.
You'll need to log in to post.
