Paul Sullivan, a video editor, has been invited for numerous interviews from the same company, but has not been offered the job.
Posted on 04/18/2013 6:44:35 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
American employers have a variety of job vacancies, piles of cash and countless well-qualified candidates. But despite a slowly improving economy, many companies remain reluctant to actually hire, stringing job applicants along for weeks or months before they make a decision.
If they ever do.
The number of job openings has increased to levels not seen since the height of the financial crisis, but vacancies are staying unfilled much longer than they used to — an average of 23 business days today compared to a low of 15 in mid-2009, according to a new measure of Labor Department data by the economists Steven J. Davis, Jason Faberman and John Haltiwanger.
Some have attributed the more extended process to a mismatch between the requirements of the four million jobs available and the skills held by many of the 12 million unemployed. That’s probably true in a few high-skilled fields, like nursing or biotech, but for a large majority of positions where candidates are plentiful, the bigger problem seems to be a sort of hiring paralysis.
“There’s a fear that the economy is going to go down again, so the message you get from C.F.O.’s is to be careful about hiring someone,” said John Sullivan, a management professor at San Francisco State University who runs a human resources consulting business. “There’s this great fear of making a mistake, of wasting money in a tight economy.”
As a result, employers are bringing in large numbers of candidates for interview after interview after interview. Data from Glassdoor.com, a site that collects information on hiring at different companies, shows that the average duration of the interview process at major companies like Starbucks, General Mills and Southwest Airlines has roughly doubled since 2010.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“There are 3 million jobs available in America that are not filled because too many of our people don’t have the skills for those jobs.”
— Marco Rubio on Thursday, March 14th, 2013 in a speech at the conservative CPAC conference
SEE HERE:
If they really needed somebody, they’d pay high, get the best guy they could get, and work with him to improve his skills.
But in fact, most places are diddling around, counting the savings every month that they’re getting from all the unfilled positions.
Well clearly then Obama and the government should force these companies to hire people in a specified time and manner. /sarc
All those employers are just being unreasonable.
HA! How many staffers has The New York Slimes laid off lately? Obviously one fewer than it should have.
Every now and then the NYTimes stumbles over the truth.
My company recently placed a job posting for a writing position. We got 1200 applicants!
It’s definitely a tough job market out there. I suppose even more so for those who had endeavors to be journalists.
Interesting link. Rubio is turning out to be quite a huckster.
If he actually knows his stuff, they are probably using him to get free information on how to do things.
Oh, wait. This just in....Investing.com: Initial Jobless Claims Rises to 352,000
This is a interesting post because the lib/Keysian Krugman view is that ‘demand’ which comes from ‘free’ money inserted into the economy forces employers to hire.
Sounds like its not working as planned.
But despite a slowly improving economy,...
Yeah, I suppose if you keep repeating this canard over and over again the dumb liberals in NY will believe it, huh?
The reality is that the economy is a powder keg just waiting to blow. We have $16 trillion in national debt and Helicopter Ben keeps printing money at billions per month! At some near term point the interest rates will go up and that's when the candle will be lit.
From how I see it - one man’s perspective - in my field the skill set we would need for a technical position in my company - are pretty daunting indeed. Obviously there is the sort of nature vs. nurture argument - which is more or less “can they hit the ground running or are they going to take 6-12 months to get up to speed or are they the type of individual that wouldn’t get there in 100 years?”.
The “hit the ground running” guy or gal will be typically snapped up in a heartbeat. But there just aren’t too many of that sort.
So you’re left with trying to decide if the candidate is an “up to speed in 6-12 months” or are they more the type that rode the short bus to school.
And that distinction isn’t all that easy to make based on a two page resume and a bunch of technical interviews.
I've gone through the hiring process many a time.
In the tech world, current dogma is to get a "screening interview", always over the phone. Sometimes it's with an HR weenie, sometimes it's with someone more tech savvy. These rarely last more than a few minutes, they're just to weed out real undesirables.
If you get called back for a second interview, these are almost always onsite. There may be several of them, all scheduled for the same morning - HR, meet the boss, meet the team, maybe meet higher ups. This can take 1/2 day or more. Usually at least a couple of hours.
*Very* infrequently, you might get called back for a 3rd round. Every time this has happened to me, it's because someone who wanted to talk to me, wasn't available for Round #2.
That's it. Company either makes the offer, or not.
If a company called me back 6 times, I'd think that they didn't have their act together, and would doubt I'd want to work there.
However....if I was unemployed....why the heck not? Keep at it....Number 7 is the charm. Meanwhile, it's always good practice to interview.
ObamaCare: Job Killer
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.