Labor shortage
41 - 60 of 76 Posts
James...I had a DB pension but that is not what kept me with my employer. New employees had a DC plan.
A DC pension plan is far better than a DB plan for many of today's employees who are expected to have a 3-7 year tenure with an employer and have 5 or more employers over their working careers. Not for the declining number of career employees though.
There are lots of incentive plans out there to keep good employees. Many companies have them. In my case it was significant bonuses for overachievement, employee stock options that have multi year vesting provisions,, and restricted stock units (RSU's).
Bonuses for overachievement increased my DB entitlement by 30 percent. Stock options allowed me to become financially independent and retire at 58/59. RSU's not so much. Not to mention excellent benefits....some of which I have in retirement.
Employers have a choice when it comes to total employee rewards and degree to which those rewards are distributed to employees. Employees also have a choice. They can take maximum advantage of those total rewards or they can change employers, change careers, relocate...whatever.
It is a two way street. Employees are responsible for their own career development. Those that sit back, are afraid to leave their home towns, are not life long learners, don't recognize opportunity, or are reluctant to accept change, challenges, and increased responsibility may experience some disappointments during their working lives.
Joined
·
23,578 Posts
James I believe that you would be very surprised to see some employer stats regarding the percentage of DC monies allocated to employees that go unused Despite the usual HR seminars outlining why participation is a no brainer.
Or the percentage of employees who do not bother to join a company DC program. I found it surprising when I saw the numbers-from my employer's perspective and from the DC investment firm perspective.
Or the percentage of employees who do not join the company stock purchase plan that pays out every six months.
I worked with many engineers. In sales, in consulting, in management.
Or the percentage of employees who do not bother to join a company DC program. I found it surprising when I saw the numbers-from my employer's perspective and from the DC investment firm perspective.
Or the percentage of employees who do not join the company stock purchase plan that pays out every six months.
I worked with many engineers. In sales, in consulting, in management.
Large corporations stopped reading resumes, many years ago. They use an application that emulates a fresh pile of dog droppings.
Managers at the last place I worked would complain about having zero qualified candidates when I knew of good people people with certifications who applied. The last time this happened, I called one of the people who mentioned they applied and asked if his industry certs were up to date. He told me they were so I walked his resume to the managers office with a mention that I worked with this man for 15 years and knew him to be a good man. Six weeks later, that man was working with me and the manager told me how grateful he was for the reference.
At my last place, a very large corporation, they seemed to trigger on resumes with references from fellow employees. I was asked about someone who used me as a reference (without asking) and the person wasn't qualified.
The employment situation is so gummed up with politics it is ridiculous.
Managers at the last place I worked would complain about having zero qualified candidates when I knew of good people people with certifications who applied. The last time this happened, I called one of the people who mentioned they applied and asked if his industry certs were up to date. He told me they were so I walked his resume to the managers office with a mention that I worked with this man for 15 years and knew him to be a good man. Six weeks later, that man was working with me and the manager told me how grateful he was for the reference.
At my last place, a very large corporation, they seemed to trigger on resumes with references from fellow employees. I was asked about someone who used me as a reference (without asking) and the person wasn't qualified.
The employment situation is so gummed up with politics it is ridiculous.
Joined
·
1,023 Posts
My corp is working on gender equity.
For the last six years when we sent positions over to HR to fill, all the candidates we saw were ladies.
Not sayin' they were not competent.
But for junior engineers you would think there would be one guy candidate in 6 years.
The hired ladies, well the last two we hired lasted between two and three years.
We trained them up, then they went to work on the government side, who are most of our clients
For the last six years when we sent positions over to HR to fill, all the candidates we saw were ladies.
Not sayin' they were not competent.
But for junior engineers you would think there would be one guy candidate in 6 years.
The hired ladies, well the last two we hired lasted between two and three years.
We trained them up, then they went to work on the government side, who are most of our clients
Joined
·
12,947 Posts
That sort of "progressive" policy backfires when it is taken to such an extreme. OTOH, focusing on gender equity in numbers isn't worth a dog dropping if the pay scales are not also equitable. They will go to gov't civil service for pay equity.
The company I worked for had many female specialists/supervisors in our technical and business functions, certainly not 50%, but relatively proportional to those seeking employment. We had no quotas. They stayed long term probably due to fair and equitable employment practices, i.e. opportunities and pay equity. It really does not have to be complicated.
The company I worked for had many female specialists/supervisors in our technical and business functions, certainly not 50%, but relatively proportional to those seeking employment. We had no quotas. They stayed long term probably due to fair and equitable employment practices, i.e. opportunities and pay equity. It really does not have to be complicated.
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
I know many companies' algorithms screen out very suitable candidates that would have been given an interview when resumes were read by HR. As someone who has done my fair share of hiring I understand that there can be a ton of applications from people that don't have any of the requirements of the job. Regardless, the system is flawed. I receive job postings from several sites and am aware of numerous positions that are going unfilled. Not sure if it is that compensation doesn't align with expecations. However, if you have a job posted for a couple of months as an employer that tells me you are either not worth working for or you're not paying market rate.
Gender and race quotas are official government policy now.
Racial quotes are literally systematic racism, and Trudeau did it.
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
^ And one wonders why given this kind of so-called "equalities (LMAO)" that exist and likely continue like forever.
‘The higher I rose, the worse it got’: Alberta’s sole female heart surgeon alleges discrimination in complaint against health agency
The above article is behind a paywall but here's a snippet from the title:
‘The higher I rose, the worse it got’: Alberta’s sole female heart surgeon alleges discrimination in complaint against health agency
The above article is behind a paywall but here's a snippet from the title:
I have no doubt that it is possible to point to organizations, private, public, or non profit, that have less than optimal hiring practices and/or poor employee morale.
It always has been and always will be. I believe there are still lots of fine employers out their who care about their teams, want the see them grow and enhance their contribution. My experience is that many firms are increasing management span of control while at the same time placing a greater emphasis on the contributions of individual contributors.
I changed employers five times and career direction several times. Spent my last 25 years with a great employer. But, I had to take the initiative to change. It involved some risk, stretching myself, learning new skills, relocations, applying existing skills in different ways, and of course some additional applied education.
I believe that this is still the trend. It takes initiative and willingness to change. Complaining about an employer is fine but there are things that an employee can do. Change employers as I have done in the past-as have many others. Change career paths within the same employer, as I and many others have done.
It is easy to point fingers and lay blame. In my experience doing that only makes you feel worse about your situation. Better to get your skates on and initiate personal change. Standing still with the poor me routine or a constant focus on the negative aspects of an employment environment, yours or the firm that employs you, without any personal initiative for change will do less than enhance your outlook or your prospects.
It always has been and always will be. I believe there are still lots of fine employers out their who care about their teams, want the see them grow and enhance their contribution. My experience is that many firms are increasing management span of control while at the same time placing a greater emphasis on the contributions of individual contributors.
I changed employers five times and career direction several times. Spent my last 25 years with a great employer. But, I had to take the initiative to change. It involved some risk, stretching myself, learning new skills, relocations, applying existing skills in different ways, and of course some additional applied education.
I believe that this is still the trend. It takes initiative and willingness to change. Complaining about an employer is fine but there are things that an employee can do. Change employers as I have done in the past-as have many others. Change career paths within the same employer, as I and many others have done.
It is easy to point fingers and lay blame. In my experience doing that only makes you feel worse about your situation. Better to get your skates on and initiate personal change. Standing still with the poor me routine or a constant focus on the negative aspects of an employment environment, yours or the firm that employs you, without any personal initiative for change will do less than enhance your outlook or your prospects.
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
^ For the profession in post #51 it is alot easier SAID with the "take the initiative to make the change yourself".
And as for those in the dime-by-the-dozen professions, there's this fallacy of the "the grass is greener on the other side only to find the same type of pile dung, only it's a different time or place." Sorry for the negativity here but that's part of the truth/reality in alot of working environments. The toxicity is so thick you've can cut it with a sawblade. I have heard (if not seen it for myself) with colleagues of mines, "stucked" in that mode.
I, myself, however have made the change/move as soon as I got the whiff the new management (due to company buy-out/management turnover) is not going to work with you or said in-their-terms all of a sudden "you aren't a good fit (whatever the hell that suppose to mean now)" despite you have been there for years with yearly raises (aka quite good if not stratespherical (sic) performance.)
I'm sure there're excellent "management (in terms of being fair, open minded, unbiased, if not incompetent)" these days. Just that they're a "rarity" - or like the dinos that have gone extinct.
And as for those in the dime-by-the-dozen professions, there's this fallacy of the "the grass is greener on the other side only to find the same type of pile dung, only it's a different time or place." Sorry for the negativity here but that's part of the truth/reality in alot of working environments. The toxicity is so thick you've can cut it with a sawblade. I have heard (if not seen it for myself) with colleagues of mines, "stucked" in that mode.
I, myself, however have made the change/move as soon as I got the whiff the new management (due to company buy-out/management turnover) is not going to work with you or said in-their-terms all of a sudden "you aren't a good fit (whatever the hell that suppose to mean now)" despite you have been there for years with yearly raises (aka quite good if not stratespherical (sic) performance.)
I'm sure there're excellent "management (in terms of being fair, open minded, unbiased, if not incompetent)" these days. Just that they're a "rarity" - or like the dinos that have gone extinct.
Joined
·
9,056 Posts
Just published. The article is behind a paywall but title is revealing
RBC to hike pay 3% for lower-paid employees as fight for talent intensifies
WOW, the generosity. Paid for by you and me the customers, right after the announced clock-work fees schedule change (aka increase) effective August 1, 2022.
Watch, comes January 1, 2023 when the recession hits, a "hiring-freeze, if not a streamlining-strategy" is announced.
RBC to hike pay 3% for lower-paid employees as fight for talent intensifies
WOW, the generosity. Paid for by you and me the customers, right after the announced clock-work fees schedule change (aka increase) effective August 1, 2022.
Watch, comes January 1, 2023 when the recession hits, a "hiring-freeze, if not a streamlining-strategy" is announced.
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
15,000 carpenters walk off job across GTA, joining thousands of other workers already on strike | CP24.com
This could have easily been posted in the RE topics, or political for that matter. Regardless when cost of living far outpaces wage gains unionization becomes popular.
This could have easily been posted in the RE topics, or political for that matter. Regardless when cost of living far outpaces wage gains unionization becomes popular.
Joined
·
23,578 Posts
Yes and it seems that society will have to rely on unions to fight for good wage increases.
Unions have fought for countless important rights in the past and all of us have benefited from them. They do the hard work, then we forget what they gain and pretend things naturally came to be like this.
I would love to see far more unionization, especially for workers in all these silicon valley "apps" like delivery services, Uber etc which basically just exploit workers. These guys all need unions ASAP.
Joined
·
2,388 Posts
Nothing wrong with unions.
Mandatory unions and professional organizations though are pure evil. Let individual workers in any industry, any workplace, decide if they want to create, or join union, or if they want to deal with employer as individuals
Mandatory unions and professional organizations though are pure evil. Let individual workers in any industry, any workplace, decide if they want to create, or join union, or if they want to deal with employer as individuals
I'm all for unions, as long as freedom of association is respected, and they don't abuse their monopolistic power.
Unions as they currently are under Canadian law typically don't respect freedom of association, and they abuse their monopoly position.
"They do the hard work, then we forget what they gain and pretend things naturally came to be like this." << which is the basic premise of Conservativism & Classical Liberalism
Joined
·
18,557 Posts
Unions are highly democratic institutions and reflect the wishes of their members.
It was the Unifor union that started the investigation into kickbacks given to their leader Jerry Dias.
If the members go on strike.......a majority of them voted to do so.
If people don't want to join a union at an employer, I don't oppose that.
But, they should not be able to demand the union represent them in contract negotiations or disputes with the company.
It was the Unifor union that started the investigation into kickbacks given to their leader Jerry Dias.
If the members go on strike.......a majority of them voted to do so.
If people don't want to join a union at an employer, I don't oppose that.
But, they should not be able to demand the union represent them in contract negotiations or disputes with the company.
No.
They don't even support secret ballot for their formation.
They are undemocratic to the core
But the unions do.
There is a big push to make laws prohibiting the hiring of non union workers.
Yeah, sounds great, except the union will simply use their monopoly power to stop the employer.
The problem with unions is that they're corrosive and destructive to the organizations that employ them.
That's why in Canada pretty much the only unions left are government unions, because they bankrupted everyone else.
Note there is a different attitude in Europe where the unions understand that healthy employers are good for them, that's not the case here.
You seem to be completely unaware of what a union environment, like the CAW or CUPE is actually like.
41 - 60 of 76 Posts
Join the discussion
