The State Of The Job Market Job Seeking Process Is Reducing Applicants To Desperate Beggars.

[TheMastersNemesis]

The new job market seems more like a terrible gauntlet today. With so many applicants even for the most meager job applicants are stripped of their dignity, their privacy and even of their humanity. Employers seem to be able to demand just about anything of applicants. Will strip searches eventually be common. In effect your very life is strip searched.

Now applicants are subject to endless interrogating interviews, credit checks, psych tests, drug tests, etc. Then they have to wait days in anguish to find out if they got the job or not. In some cases the wait can be weeks. Now you cannot ever see a person but must submit to your resume or application to "the machine" where one wrong or off key word will get your application bounce to the "ether world" or in "file thirteen". And you will never know what the offense was.

Beyond that once you get the job you have to be careful of what you do when not working. An unapproved public word, being in an unapproved political action or even questionable act will get you the "chop". On top of risks of personal behavior refusing even the most outrageous or even illegal employer request you can be fired.

In the era of "immediate disposability" we no know what the Reagan Revolution was all about if you work for a living. Just like FDR once said, "If you are not economically free, you are not free" as a human being. Now that the "market is supreme" as workers we are no longer in any better position than an "aging quarterback's last game".

Sadly the new application and job seeking process is now a "casino". You stand a better chance at the roulette table.

The problem is how do we now change all this abuse now that "de regulation" of everything is the new mode? As long as we refuse to election pro labor or even pro union candidate the country will have to suffer on.

[GeoWilliam750]

1. "The State Of The Job Market Job Seeking Process Is Reducing Applicants To Desperate Beggars"

I think that is the entire point of the Powers that Be

[liberalmike27]

15. Exactly

That's the whole point, in'it.

Export jobs. Encourage births, discourage abortion, allow immigration for labor, but don't give them citizenship, or they'll vote for democrats. Pretend you're for labor, or that you'd do something to help, then negotiate or vote for trade agreements that directly hurt that private sector you're always running on at the mouth, about...but not in any real way.

Wondering: How we get back, from this dark, dark place to where we've arrived?

[hobbit709]

2. Were supposed to be grateful for the crumbs and scraps they give us.

[The Wizard]

3. People forced to take low paying jobs because that's all that's available

are the result of Reagan's failed economic experiment. We are devolving into a system of lords and serfs called feudalism. The widening gap between the wealthy elites and the working class is an invitation to civil unrest that could turn out to be akin to the Reign of Terror.
There are solutions that our elected leaders will not touch because the wealthy elites have them on the payroll with their ill gotten booty going to secret off shore accounts.

[nxylas]

11. I dispute that Reagan's experiment "failed"

I think it worked exactly the way it was supposed to.

[liberalmike27]

17. True

Far too much, including the war in Iraq, are expressed as mistakes. But they weren't "mistakes," at least in the "Oh, thought that would work, but it didn't." They were intended for different purposes, outside of the reasons given.

Wars eliminate excess people. Wars generate economic gains for rich people who own all, or portions of companies that product product for wars. Wars generate distractions from national needs at home. Wars boost other markets, like pharmaceuticals, and medical equipment, communication, war infrastructure, and of course banking makes a mint, loaning money to the government, that wastes it.

So yea, spot-on--these things are done for a reason, and weren't slip ups. They achieved what was intended.

[Adrahil]

4. We need a transition.....

.... The fact is that a combination of automation, the export of skilled jobs, and the destruction of the labor movement (with also suffered from many self-inflicted wounds) as all but destroyed middle-class "working" jobs. There are still some there... Specialty skilled jobs like CNC machinists and welders, but many of these are being offered with shockingly low wages. A local manufacturing enterprise was recently trying to hire experienced welders with multiple crest for $14/hr. $14! Fortunately, they couldn't hire many at that way and were forced to boost the offering to $20/hr. Even that was low for the experience they said they wanted.

I agree with Obama that we need a focused effort on specialized training. Not half-assed vo-tec training, but real training in a skill, complete with certifications. And those training efforts need to be coupled with industry. I hope Uncle Joe's efforts to review training programs offers some real possibilities. Not that Congress will do ANYTHING to help....

[fasttense]

6. But capitalism always pushes specialization.

Welding all day long has got to be boring. Doing anything all day long is mind numbing and absolutely dull. Yet it's what capitalism is pushing each of us to do. You can't just write one good book or mix it up by changing genre. You can't direct people for a couple of hours, work with your hands for a couple of hours, and then turn to sales for a couple of hours. Not if you work for someone else. They hire you for one task or purpose and only one. The ultimate failure of a manager is a manger who ends doing the job he is managing others to do. Even CEOs and executives only do one thing over and over again, though their tasks are more complicated and thus more interesting.

Capitalism is a failed economic system. The test of any good economic system should be that everyone has work or a job, if they want it. No capitalist system has ever been able to do this. It has failed.

[Adrahil]

13. I'm kind of confused at what your suggesting....

... some skill ARE very specialized. For example, a machinist is typically very specialized and the generally speaking, the best at it don't much of anything else. My personal experience is that a Jack of all trades is a master of none. I mean, maybe welding all day IS boring, but if I'm welding up something somebody's life may depend upon, I certainly want it done by a highly qualified craftsmen. Perhaps I misunderstand where you are going with this... can you explain what you'd prefer to see?

[Fumesucker]

22. Some people actually like doing the same thing all the time

It took me a long time to realize that because I'm one of those who doesn't enjoy doing the same thing all the time.

For some people repetitive jobs that don't require a lot of intellectual input are soothing and comforting, for others they are mind numbing and eventually become loathsome.

Trying to force everyone into the same repetitive type job structure is not making best use of human potential as it turns off and alienates at least a plurality of people.

[fasttense]

27. Well, I question that old saying "Jack of all trades Master of none."

"Instead of allowing all people to follow their entrepreneurial spirit into the endeavors that fulfill them, capitalism applauds the small number of entrepreneurs who capture large portions of mass markets. This requires producing things on a mass scale, which imposes a double-uniformity on society: tons and tons of people all purchase the same products, and tons and tons of people all perform the same labor. Such individuality as flourishes amid this system is often extremely superficial.

Have you seen the suburban residential developments that the housing boom shat out all over this country? Have you seen the grey-paneled cubicles, bathed in fluorescent light, clustered in “office parks” so indistinct as to be disorienting? Have you seen the strip malls and service areas and sitcoms? Our ability to purchase products from competing capitalist firms has not produced an optimally various and interesting society."

http://www.alternet.org/visions/7-huge-misconceptions-about-communism-and-capitalism?page=0%2C2

or thanks to xchrom

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024435332

As Marx said, “to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner… without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”

[seabeckind]

37. I agree

The true innovator may not be able to do the specific task but he knows why that task is important and how it relates to the overall effort. He also knows the principles behind that task.

Based on what I have seen in the workplace, too much emphasis seems to be placed on "how" something is done rather than "why" it is done. And I've noticed that the industry doesn't even realize what they are doing...that they are destroying their own future.

The training proposals I have seen out of this admin reinforce that concept at the expense of academic goals.

If I'm not clear, I'm sorry. I can't seem to find the right way to say it. An example might be the PC guys long ago. They learned, mostly on their own, the concepts and principles of computing on a personal level. Just about all formal education and OJT involved mainframes and analog business machines. These innovators, and there were thousands, me included, managed to adapt those high level concepts to the desktop. In order to do that they needed to be the "jack of all trades" (at least in that arena) and make all the different parts fit together.

They needed to know what was going on in the industrial engineering area, the media lab stuff, the PARC, DARPA's stuff, Usenet, the IBM PC group, etc. And all of that was happening outside the conventional corporate environment.

[seabeckind]

7. Specialized training kills innovation

Innovation happens because the education is broad. A person who has specialized training doesn't necessarily see the principles behind the operation. That person also doesn't get the opportunity to see other implementations and is therefore bound to a particular method.

This whole training business is just one more way the corporate culture is trying to shift more of their cost of operation to the employee or our commons. It's a great deal for them and really hurts the macro model.

Maybe Obama might learn more about how to create a good job environment by talking to people other than those who have made the situation what it is. Maybe he needs to offer a little more leadership. Provethose morons who say that gov't can't create jobs wrong. Our entire advancement of the middle class was caused because of gov't leadership and a vision of what we could be.

And then build the infrastructure that those corporations have been robbing to line their pockets. Ala the Rural Electrification Project. The interstate highway system. The canals. The dams.

A new New Deal.

[seabeckind]

12. Afterthought...

The GI Bill provided the means for much of our citizenry to obtain an education that prior to the war would not have occurred.

Maybe Obama should quit talking about how much the people need to go get training and provide a strong gov't drive to help give the student a direct incentive. Determine those fields most necessary for our national interest and give aid and fellowships with a contractual obligation to do public work. Eg, medical training with a placement in needed locales that would eliminate the education debt when the contractual period is over.

Next -- start using executive orders to get rid of that old state's rights idea that the corporations use to bypass national interests.

Vouchers indeed -- but this time for societal needs, not some ....

Long ago our entire eduational thrust shifted because of a beep from space.

[Adrahil]

14. But do you want people to actually DO?

I mean, I like all the words you're saying, but what do they really mean?

I personally think we need to understand that different types of education may be required to different skill sets. I think there is nothing wrong with focusing people on learned a skilled trade. I think part of that training is understanding things like basic project management. Not everyone will want to (or be suited for) managing a work group, but they should at least have some exposure to what's involved.

[seabeckind]

24. That's exactly what I said

Eg, "understanding things like basic project management".

That is education that transcends a specific job requirement. If a company needs a bunch of widget constructors, they won't waste time teaching those employees the interaction of that widget with the trivets coming from another factory, nor will they teach that employee or the general concepts behind workflow management.

It's not worth the expense and even worse -- the hidden hazard. After they have taught that employee those things he can leverage that knowlege by threatening to take his talents to another employer. Or, heaven forbid...increase his salary.

But from a macro standpoint...a societal standpoint, that's exactly what WE want.

If you're looking for a new technology you don't focus all your training on the current technology. You teach {on edit, train was the wrong word} for the concepts and principles behind the technology. Corporations make their profit from the current technology. There is no bottom line benefit from something that doesn't exist.

In order to do that you need a force that isn't driven by the profit model. There was no profit from our space race...only afterwards and as a subsidiary benefit.

Obama is wrong. He's not listening to the people who have altruistic motives. He's listening to those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[Adrahil]

29. I'm not sure Obama would disagree....

.... I mean, he's advocating a more developed post-secondary training system. I didn't hear anything that would preclude a reasonably broad-based training program.

I'd agree that in some cases, it's more important to treat basic principals. But in others, specific training is necessary. For example, learning the basic principals of 3D modelling and CNC programming is useful in a broad sense, but in a shope, we need you to know how to use Solidworks and actually run the milling machine. Also, the practical experience of running the machines in invaluable. Now, you could argue that then you only know how to use THAT software and THAT machine. But if you're training is deep enough, its relatively easy to cross-train someone to the specific software and equipment used in your specific shop.

You are correct that most companies generally will not pay for training they don;t see as directly benefiting their business model. That's not particularly a surprise, but that's why we need to make continuing education an integral part of our national education strategy. Again, I don't hear anything form Obama that would preclude that. In fact, in listening to him, I think those are the kinds of innovations he'd want to support.

[seabeckind]

31. So why doesn't he?

As I said, leadership is deciding where we want to go and then going that way.

Otherwise it's just a soapbox.

[Adrahil]

32. Isn't he? I mean he just announced an effort

to review our national training strategy and to make (and presumably act on, as he can) recommendations. That sounds like a good first step.

[PotatoChip]

33. Have the company train the employee.

Why should an individual use their own money, going into debt, for some very specialized type of labor, for a company who may or may not hire them?

[Adrahil]

38. Not a terrible idea, but....

... there is no current economic pressure on them to do so. Right now, people are getting suckered into high-priced training programs of dubious quality.... it's a commercial enterprise all it's own. It'd be great if companies were willing to train skilled employees, but I think that model is gone.

I personally think we'd be better off looking at something like the German educational model. [link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany#Secondary_education|

[Yavin4]

35. Excellent series of posts.

I work in an IT-related field, and IT almost demands that people to focus on one thing, a programming language, a database management system, a network infrastructure, etc. The field encourages specialized knowledge and ignorance of everything else such as the process, integration, and management of people.

The problem with this approach is that when things become automated or outsourced, these same ITers are shit-out-of-luck when it comes to finding employment in other fields.

[dotymed]

28. Skilled trade Unions

have great training programs that actually employ as well as educate their members. Unfortunately, our Unions are disappearing and are currently under attack.
Many of these Unions require you (at their expense, as a part of their apprenticeship program) to earn an Associates degree by the end of your 3-4 year apprenticeship.

Then you are granted Journeyman status which pays about double the amount earned as a beginning apprentice.

While most Unions have rules about the Journeyman to apprentice ratio on a jobsite these rules are not always strictly enforced. The reason is that the employers prefer to hire apprentices because their pay is much lower, even though it is still more of a living wage than most non-Union professions pay.
Most people do not realize how well trained most Journeymen trade Unionists are. In the long run, a trained Union employee is more cost-effective (even at 2-3 x earnings compared to non-Union (usually non-trained) trade worker. They usually get it right and within code, at a faster pace, the first time. That means a minimum of "re-do's" and call backs. That is why most hospitals, bridges and permanent infrastructure is Union made.

[Adrahil]

30. I agree.

I think unions can and should be an integral part of this effort.

[Triana]

5. The corprats and their GOP puppets LOVE that! n/t

[seabeckind]

8. They'd repeal the 13th amendment if they could

Instead they do it by wage slavery.

[canoeist52]

9. I hated the game of "Musical Chairs" as a child.

I left me with a very uncomfortable feeling. I always wondered why chairs needed to be taken away.

It feels like that now.

[HomerRamone]

23. This ^^ nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. What if you could build your own chair?

[WinkyDink]

36. And place it where? And who would care? (See how that "can-do" spirit is a load of crap?)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. "And place it where?"

Unless the people governing how and where you play any game decide to keep you from making your own decisions -- anywhere you want.

And who would care?

Do you really need other people to "care" before you do something?

(See how that "can-do" spirit is a load of crap?)

Are you waiting for a Deliverer? I hope not because that would be an even bigger load of crap. There are no Deliverers, there are only hucksters who pretend to "care" about you if only you vote for them. They will take your meager campaign contributions and your volunteer hours and then they will sell your interests off to the first big-time lobbyist.

[canoeist52]

46. Hucksters

"hucksters who pretend to "care" about you if only you vote for them. They will take your meager campaign contributions and your volunteer hours and then they will sell your interests off to the first big-time lobbyist."

You get it now?

[WinkyDink]

47. I thought you were speaking of capitalism, as in, needing buyers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. It's not just capitalism that needs buyers.

I defy anyone to show a system where people engage in pointless make-busy work on a mass scale to the improvement of anyone or anything. Unless somebody else wants a thing that thing is valueless.

The analogy that began this sub-thread claimed that the powers that be impose deliberate, artificial resource scarcity to maintain status privilege in a competitive environment. However, it's a poor analogy. In a truly competitive environment a governing body would not impose artificial scarcity. In the terms of the analogy each player could fashion their own chair, i.e. means.

[canoeist52]

39. Don't quite understand what you're advocating here...

but the dismal failure rates of small "chair factories" would deter most of us from this career solution.

Competing with Walmart's subsidized business plan is not viable.

And as woodworker hobbyists, we have made enough chairs - to know that making a profit selling them would be a fantasy.

Or are you advocating the we each build our own "chair" off-the-grid in the libertarian woods?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Well, if you're going to stand there waiting for someone else to hand you a chair

you're going to be standing for a long, long time.

And I know many would like to claim we need a government to wrench from Wal-Mart what is the people's due but the fact that your entire complaint is based on the government subsidizing Wal-Mart in the first place proves that the proposed solution is the exact problem.

[xchrom]

10. du rec.

[n2doc]

16. They outsourced all of the good manufacturing jobs

Then they outsourced all the service jobs they could. This country has been hollowed out, and now we are paying the price. Until government policy stops rewarding companies for outsourcing, nothing will change. Given the President's push for the TPP and other outsourcing bonanzas, I don't see anything changing for the better until he leaves. And HRC will bring the same mentality, so unless she is stopped in the primaries, even more bleakness. Don't even get me started on the Repubs, who are even more gung-ho on this stuff.

[seabeckind]

25. There's the rub.

"she is stopped in the primaries"

She is the anointed one. Any serious threat will be marginalized until it becomes Hobson's choice to us.

Like in 2008. And 2004. And in 2000.

Using the superbowl analogy...we're on one side rooting for our team. Others are on their side rooting for their team.

The guy up in the executive suite doesn't care which team wins because he wins either way.

[daleanime]

18. K&R....

[ArchTeryx]

19. I refer to it as "serve or starve."

That's the Republican (and quite a few Democratic) Congressional ethos. Serve at the pleasure of the rich, or starve. And if you aren't one of the lucky few that is chosen to serve? Well, you can starve anyway, to decrease the surplus population and as an example to others.

Serve or starve.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. We need to make this #1 on our priority list

when reviewing candidate positions. Seriously. It's one of the reasons I've had to vote Green in the past because the Democratic candidate would not firmly come down on the side of labor. And I mean in action, not just in speech. One of the most important action should be taking back all the tax breaks and other favors for the multi-national corporation. Instead, subsidize American manufacturers, large and small. It would be a much better use of our tax dollars. There are lots of answers to reverse this and Elizabeth Warren has spoken about most of them.

Another solution, and I say this every election year, more of US need to run for political office.

Good post, btw.

Edited for gooder grammar.

[Mass]

21. It may be a Reagan problem, but Democratic presidents did not help.

Sure, Clinton got jobs on the table, but it was a bubble and little was done to insure a renewed safety net and jobs staying in the US.

Obama's announcement for what may be one of the worse problems these days (long term employment) got me mad beyond limits: a commission and getting CEOS of very large companies to sign a pledge. Seriously. This is all they have to offer. How about DOING something, or at least offering something that will be targeted to the problem and will get companies to hire long term unemployed people. It may surprise people around Obama, but Google and co are not those who hire the most people. Small and middle size companies are and there are some proven ways to help. But this would mean that somebody at the White House has a clue (meaning they do not come from Goldman Sachs, ...).

[TheMastersNemesis]

26. I Certainly Agree On That. Obama's Major Weakness Is That He Believes In Getting Along

Clinton did not help with his NAFTA push. And Obama is not helping with Arne Duncan at the Ed helm and his support of TPP. They have done a lot of damage by supporting GOP policies.

Having said that Clinton could not have won without running as a new Democrat. Obama made a mistake negotiating. He needed to go left but did not. He should have because he has been accused of being a socialist. That meme has eroded his popularity over time.

As I have said so many times. Dems running openly as strong pro labor progressives do not win. And they really get creamed in the South and in red states where people are the poorest and sickest.

[bvar22]

40. Remember what President Clinton told the Nation while selling "Free Trade" to America?

"The American Worker can compete with any worker in the World!"
Well, THIS is exactly what he was talking about.

The American Worker is now FORCED to compete with every Slave Wage Worker in the World for his/her job!
.
.
.
.
.
Thanks, Bill.

[TheMastersNemesis]

41. I Was Really Pissed When He Pushed That.

Somehow Greenspan and Rubin convinced him that NAFTA was the way to go. How a person of such intelligence could fall for that ploy is amazing. And we all know the consequences.

[dreamnightwind]

42. He fell for nothing

Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Obama are all true believers who needed no convincing by people like Greenspan and Rubin. In fact they chose to associate with those people because they were ideologically aligned. At least that's how I've always looked at it, and I see little evidence to the contrary.

[TheMastersNemesis]

43. You Are Probably Right

And they have been so wrong.

[Egalitarian Thug]

48. He didn't fall for anything. Is it possible that after all this time, all the exposure,

and the blatant acts of betrayal, that you still believe Bill Clinton is anything other than a brilliant public speaker with no center at all?