[Ukrainiandude]

What I don't understand is the poor quality of candidates that are seeking jobs. Are they simply being amplified due to the lack of overall candidates? Or is this the new wave of 'quality', employers are forced to accept?

Hire someone (from Afghanistan or Syria), train them on the job, and deduct cost of training from their wage.

 

[Eclectic21]

That's great, but he grew up in Woodstock, Ontario (population 30,000 at the time) so it wasn't available at the time.

He also attended high school during the PC Harris government debacle on education, which left behind a well documented shameful legacy for a lot of kids ...

Odd ... Beamsville ON was about 9K then and from what I hear - just like when I was there, shop and home economics were offered. Electronics being a small class of eight of us, taught by the drafting teacher.

It seems less of a Mike Harris issue and more of a local school board issue. Or maybe a lack of teachers who could teach the subjects?


FWIW, I can recall a lot of my fellow students refusing to take home economics when offered the chance.


Cheers

 

[Eclectic21]

Large corporations stopped reading resumes, many years ago. They use an application that emulates a fresh pile of dog droppings ...

Don't know about large corps but the medium sized ones I have worked for did stress testing in the interview (i.e. the interview pretended to a pissed off client while conducting the interview) or ran technical tests as one part of the interview process.

They still used resumes (and still do) but with so many claiming experience they don't have, a recommend from an employee puts that person to the top of the list. It's been around twenty years that should the recommended candidate pass probation, the recommending employee is paid a cash bonus. The more the company has had problems hiring the larger the cash bonus.


Cheers


PS
I'd have to check but it's at least $20K I have pocketed by knowing suitable candidates.

 

[Eclectic21]

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 ...

For Canada, I have seen articles refer to half. The ones I am finding lump the employers that don't match optional contributions ... though my experience says the non-matching will be a low number.

Another article had a Canadian presenter commenting that a free lunch or contests boosts attending to the "much better" rate of 10% to 15% of eligible employees.


For the US, there's an income factor as under $40K income is the higher non-participation at over 40%. Surprisingly, the over $100K crowd is over 10%. Being older and closer to retirement means employees pay closer attention, doubling the participation rates (at the cost of lost decades of matching/growth).


Cheers

 

[Beaver101]

Odd ... Beamsville ON was about 9K then and from what I hear - just like when I was there, shop and home economics were offered. Electronics being a small class of eight of us, taught by the drafting teacher.

It seems less of a Mike Harris issue and more of a local school board issue. Or maybe a lack of teachers who could teach the subjects?


FWIW, I can recall a lot of my fellow students refusing to take home economics when offered the chance.

Cheers

... who were these "fellow" students of yours - guys or gals? And who was teaching that subject - a guy or a gal? I don't think the majority of guys particularly the macho ones would want to take home economics - where cooking and sewing were part of the course ... lol.

 

[Beaver101]

For Canada, I have seen articles refer to half. The ones I am finding lump the employers that don't match optional contributions ... though my experience says the non-matching will be a low number.

Another article had a Canadian presenter commenting that a free lunch or contests boosts attending to the "much better" rate of 10% to 15% of eligible employees.

For the US, there's an income factor as under $40K income is the higher non-participation at over 40%. Surprisingly, the over $100K crowd is over 10%. Being older and closer to retirement means employees pay closer attention, doubling the participation rates (at the cost of lost decades of matching/growth).

Cheers

... still the same level of participation in 2022? or was that a decade ago?

Let me put it this way - if the employees don't even know what benefits (goodies like a drug or dental plan) the company offer, then I don't think these employees care about a pension contribution plan. For one, it's less take-home pay and every dollar counts with the take-home pay ... for gas, rent (or mortgage), food, clothing, and the kids' RESPs (if any). "Retirement" is a concept (happening) far from now.

 

[james4beach]

One of the reasons for the "labour shortage" is unsafe working conditions during the pandemic.

I've been catching up with a few friends. Many are being forced back to the office. Sometimes it's 5 days in the office, sometimes only 3 days + 2 at home, but that's still way too much exposure for my taste.

You won't catch me hanging out in an office. It's not worth the health risk, and Public Health is refusing to enforce measures that make indoors safer.

I'm also hearing about bosses pushing back on people who say they have symptoms and want to stay at home. Symptomatic people are being pressured to come into the office despite symptoms. Nothing was learned through the pandemic.

I have an idea. How about any symptomatic worker forced to come into the office against their wishes spends 1 hour in a room with their boss.

 

[Eclectic21]

... who were these "fellow" students of yours - guys or gals? And who was teaching that subject - a guy or a gal?

I don't think the majority of guys particularly the macho ones would want to take home economics - where cooking and sewing were part of the course ... lol.

Interesting side bars ... but AFAICT has no bearing on what shop/home economics being offered in what sized communities.


Cheers

 

[Eclectic21]

... still the same level of participation in 2022? or was that a decade ago?

Last year.

... Let me put it this way - if the employees don't even know what benefits (goodies like a drug or dental plan) the company offer, then I don't think these employees care about a pension contribution plan.

The majority of my co-workers knew the goodies well. They outright said some of the treatments they were getting was solely to use up the allowance.

... "Retirement" is a concept (happening) far from now.

Which is to their detriment ... just like the dad's co-workers from seventy years ago who observed coming into work for extra shifts in their "retirement" to make ends meet. They were his incentive to make retirement saving a working life thing instead of a last minute thing.

It was also the attitude of my university house mate who preferred spending his excess co-op term dollars on an expensive stereo as why worry about what he had the rest of his life to save for?


Cheers

 

[Beaver101]

Interesting side bars ... but AFAICT has no bearing on what shop/home economics being offered in what sized communities.

Cheers

... let me put it this way when home economics was offered to me (grade 7, ya I had that), all my fellow students were "females" and yet my homeroom class was made up of 70/30 males/females. I'm not sure what the boys took in lieu of home economics - history, geography? I have to ask one of my siblings brothers.

 

[Beaver101]

Last year.

... wow, interesting or maybe it's sign of the times.

The majority of my co-workers knew the goodies well. They outright said some of the treatments they were getting was solely to use up the allowance.

... not with some of the employees that I worked with.

When HR held a company's "benefits" session along with the introduction of the DC plan - some "upper-level" employees were scratching their heads with the drug plan we had. And I'm scratching my head why are they asking these (basic) questions when they already have been with the company for at least 5 years if not more. Beats me so I guessed this is more to educate HR than anything else ... LMAO.

Which is to their detriment ... just like the dad's co-workers from seventy years ago who observed coming into work for extra shifts in their "retirement" to make ends meet. They were his incentive to make retirement saving a working life thing instead of a last minute thing.

... that's why I suggested to ian in another thread this simple advice "the minute anyone who starts in the workforce and is offered a pension plan he/she should consider their "retirement" (plan)".

It was also the attitude of my university house mate who preferred spending his excess co-op term dollars on an expensive stereo as why worry about what he had the rest of his life to save for?

Cheers

... which is not untrue. The youngster(s) have decades off from retirement. Besides, you don't want to tell someone who's just starting their career - hey you better start "saving" for retirement. Life has just started for him/her.

As mentioned to ian, there're other life competing priorities, depending at what stage you're.

Right after school, there're student loans to pay off. Then employment (which isn't instant). Then there's dating and paying rent. Then the engagement ring/wedding costs next ... housing, mortgage, kids, etc... you get the drift.

And then there're the fundamental of your "upbringing" - what were instilled on you by your parents/when you were growing up. If you see your parents struggling financially and you had the least amount of toys (or none)- better move your own *** and make that dough.

 

[Beaver101]

One of the reasons for the "labour shortage" is unsafe working conditions during the pandemic.

I've been catching up with a few friends. Many are being forced back to the office. Sometimes it's 5 days in the office, sometimes only 3 days + 2 at home, but that's still way too much exposure for my taste.

You won't catch me hanging out in an office. It's not worth the health risk, and Public Health is refusing to enforce measures that make indoors safer.

I'm also hearing about bosses pushing back on people who say they have symptoms and want to stay at home. Symptomatic people are being pressured to come into the office despite symptoms. Nothing was learned through the pandemic.

... wouldn't surprise me the least bit. And you'll get a push-back - but but but ... you can afford to and these folks can't. They "need" the job(s).

I have an idea. How about any symptomatic worker forced to come into the office against their wishes spends 1 hour in a room with their boss.

... or maybe it's the other way around. Just look at andrewf. He caught it from his overzealous boss.

 

[KaeJS]

One of the reasons for the "labour shortage" is unsafe working conditions during the pandemic.

I've been catching up with a few friends. Many are being forced back to the office. Sometimes it's 5 days in the office, sometimes only 3 days + 2 at home, but that's still way too much exposure for my taste.

You won't catch me hanging out in an office. It's not worth the health risk, and Public Health is refusing to enforce measures that make indoors safer.

I'm also hearing about bosses pushing back on people who say they have symptoms and want to stay at home. Symptomatic people are being pressured to come into the office despite symptoms. Nothing was learned through the pandemic.

I have an idea. How about any symptomatic worker forced to come into the office against their wishes spends 1 hour in a room with their boss.

🙄🙄🙄

 

[ian]

The shortage of unskilled labour will be filled eventually. Much easier for wages and job seekers to reach an equilibrium.

The real issue in Canada is the dire shortage of skilled labour in certain sectors of our economy. It is holding back growth.

Our economy has changed and will continue to change At one time there was a large group of workers who fell between unskilled and highly skilled. These were good jobs. Many unionized.

Workplace transformation has altered this, and is changing those ratios. We are seeing that middle decline considerably due to technology, automation etc. Some of those jobs are moving down to the lower paid service sector. Some or them are moving up to the skilled labour sector.

The result is pretty clear for young people coming out of high school and for people already in the workforce. Acquire a skill, a trade, a profession. Embark on a career of lifetime learning to continually refresh your skills and enhance your profile to respective employers and contractors.

 

[Eclectic21]

... let me put it this way when home economics was offered to me (grade 7, ya I had that), all my fellow students were "females" and yet my homeroom class was made up of 70/30 males/females. I'm not sure what the boys took in lieu of home economics - history, geography? I have to ask one of my siblings brothers.

Memories of grades 7 and 8 ... that means we have to add Grimsby, ON (pop of 19K) to the list offering shop. I know this because part of the French Immersion program I participated was in Grimsby (i.e. the closest school) and was a shop class.

Interestingly, while it was boys to shop and girls to home economics - part of the curriculum was to switch for two weeks. Me being in shop meant two weeks of the class was to go to the home economics classroom to hear what ground was covered in a full home economics course then pick a project from some part of the range of topics.

Interesting you had a choice as high school was the earliest I could choose subjects.


Cheers

 

[afulldeck]

The real issue in Canada is the dire shortage of skilled labour in certain sectors of our economy. It is holding back growth.

Which Sectors and what skills? Does Canada even know? Does your province know? Only asking because whenever my nephews ask I don't see a dire shortage...