There is no "skills mismatch" causing unemployment to be elevated.

[TalkingDog]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/skills-mismatch-unemployment_n_1292273.html

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also calculates job openings in manufacturing -- and its numbers are less than half those cited by the Post, which attributed its figures to the Manufacturing Institute, an industry trade group. According to the government data, last year the average number of vacancies was less than 230,000. There are seven to eight times that many unemployed manufacturing workers, Sum said. The Post reported that the shortage of skilled workers has also pushed up wages. But here, too, Sum said, the evidence does not match up.

Since the beginning of the century, manufacturing wages for production workers have barely increased, Sum said. And in the last two years, as employers have said they've been having difficulty filling spots, wages have declined slightly.

"If there was a big shortage of workers, than we should find wages rising. But this just isn't the case," Sum said. "That doesn't mean that specific companies won't ever have trouble finding a machinist, but when you add it all up, it doesn't amount to very much."

Some academics and labor advocates say a problem with the skills mismatch argument is that it shifts the blame for the jobs crisis onto workers who lack skills, and away from cash-rich companies declining to hire. The supposed mismatch also relaxes debate on the need for fiscal stimulus policies to increase payrolls.

/snip

Frankly it's just a way to drive down wages.>> Ooops, you are fully qualified for this job that you've been doing for 10 years. We can't pay you what you were making at your old job.

[flexnor]

1. 'skills mismatch' in tech defined

10 software tools listed, you have all 10, but in one of the tools, you have version 7, and they listed version 8, which may have been little more than a marketing version release with little difference, that your last employer was unwilling to pay for the 'upgrade' to verrsion 8


or perhaps a 'minimum 3 years experience' in one of the tools, that hasnt even been released for 3 years (so it would be impossible to have 3 years experience)

[flexnor]

3. at one place i worked, a guy from india told me about the sponsor ad they placed for him

for our worksite

it included as requirements, experience he had back in India that had nothing to do with our worksite (a completely different industry)

so if a citizen applied for the job and had a PERFECT match for what we did at our worksite, they would be unqualified because they didnt have his exact background

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

18. if that is true, then whoever wrote that ad was not ethical

When you do advertise for a labor certification position, the skills have to match what the person is currently doing, not his/her previous experience, although that experience can be used as further qualifications. An ad cannot include any references to a foreign language or foreign country expertise unless that is a requirement of the position (for instance, an expert in French taxation law or a person who must speak fluent Swedish in order to do substantially relevant business in Sweden).

Additionally, you cannot disqualify an applicant if he/she doesn not meet 100% of the job description. This is an area where the Dept. of Labor has gotten more and more involved. For those who don't know, the local State employment commission must be apprised of all resumes received and why candidates are disqualified. All these records must be kept by the employer.

While it used to be easier under the 'old' labor certification processes before PERM was instituted, this has become harder and harder to do. I have worked on labor certs that ended up being denied because qualified applicants were indeed found. But in the greater majority of cases I've worked on, the foreign employee in question was certainly better qualified than all the candidates who were interviewed.

Please note that there is no advertisement required for H-1B workers. The only time advertisements are used is during the labor certification process, which is Step 1 for foreign employees already in the U.S. working with a non-immigrant visa to obtain U.S. permanent residence (a/k/a green card).

[flexnor]

19. this was in 1998, I dont know if it was required for H-1b back then or not

or if it was part of the PERM process for a green card, I know my co-worker felt he was being strung along by the indian comany he worked for, so it could have been for the green card

'but stringing along for a green card' as he felt, means that green card was part of his compensation, which undermines wages for citizens

all i know is what i heard, and i also have learned that laws mean nothing, if breaking them advances de-facto administration policy - (12 million undocument workers cant be wrong)

[JDPriestly]

24. Employers should be required to train willing American

nationals before obtaining permits for foreign workers. Only if Americans cannot be trained for the job should the employer be permitted to import labor.

And employers who hire American nationals should receive tax benefits for hiring American labor.

[flexnor]

25. currently, employers can legally force citizens to train foreign replacement

by cutting off severence and threatening bad refences if they dont

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

31. What about foreign companies that establish U.S. subsidiaries? They certainly do need people

from the country of origin to set things up, to teach about processes/products, etc. If you cut off non-immigrant visas for these people, then foreign investment in the U.S. will dry up even more. And before you think these people don't account for many, I would say most of the visas in the L-1A, E-1/2 and TN categories I've worked on (I began working in immigration in 1999) were for such people.

Oh, I also have personal knowledge, since my father came to the U.S. to manage engineering for the U.S. subsidiary of an Italian company...

Moreover, if you restrict employment to U.S. citizens, what about those who are lawful permanent residents (a/k/a green card holders)? What becomes of them?

[flexnor]

2. Employers are taking training on how to not find workers

Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2012, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

think I'm making this up?

see this 4 1/2 minute youtube for yourself

[HughBeaumont]

5. I'm already spreading this one as wide as possible.

Everyone needs to watch this and wake up. They're not even hiding their assholery now.

[flexnor]

7. the only thng new to me when i saw it, was the proof

EVERYONE in tech already knew they did it, i'd already known for a decade

they just thought that tech workers were so completely disenfranchised in this country, that they could do it out in the open and get away with it

and for the most part, they have, google the guy at the podium, he's still the immigration law partnet at that firm, last time i checked - so he didnt lose a single job for himself, with all that negative exposure

what percent of tech workers have lost a job in the last 5 years? (assuming they had one to start with?)

[TwilightGardener]

9. Yikes, that's sickening.

[flexnor]

12. welcome to my world

i've definatley faced that process, more than once

it's called 'High Tech Jim Crow', and that's not overstating it

[MattBaggins]

14. Why was not every single person on that panel not arrested?

Our labor department is a complete fucking joke. Any sane person would find that to be outright illegal behavior but it is not. Our labor laws have become a joke.

[flexnor]

16. because American tech workers are 100 percent disenfranchised in both parties

they had a senate labor hearing within a year of that video, one witness, Bill Gates

hard to imagine that tech workers would have been any worse off under a King

and the guy on the podium in the video? didnt even lose his job, according to a googling of him, he's still there

[jeff47]

26. That's because tech workers are geeks

Geeks tend to be libertarians. They've always solved their own problems and they're a wiz at everything they do. They're not willing to do any sort of labor organizing because that would be having someone else solve their problems.

Unfortunately, it's only later in life that we geeks realize there are other people better at things like labor organizing. And by then, we've moved into management.

[flexnor]

27. could you justify disenfranchizing any other group with a slur?

oh yeah, it's ok to disenfranchise everyone in that group because they are a (insert slur here), they deserve it

and if you think that slur fits you, then speak for yourself, not for me

[jeff47]

29. Could you point out somewhere where I say it's justified?

I'm also doubting your tech cred if you think "geek" is a slur.

Bemoaning the situation will lead to nothing if we don't acknowledge that the personality of the average 'tech worker', is not conducive to normal labor organizing. Frankly, I can't come up with any way where my coworkers would actually agree to any attempts to organize. It's not in their nature. We're gonna need some psychology done first to figure out how to convince a geek to ask for help.

[Zalatix]

23. But Americans have to accept lower living standards to save the world's poor!

Seriously, if it weren't against the rules I would name the DUers right here who have said just that. I'd like to hear their take on this.

[IDemo]

30. This should be posted as an OP

I would call it 'incredible' but it is all too believable in our present system.

[dkf]

4. "cash rich companies declining to hire"

Companies are not under any obligation to hire more people. They are allowed to hire more people as they see fit. Geez.

[JHB]

8. However, they can't then say they aren't hiring because they can't find qualified people.

If they're not hiring they're not hiring.

But but they can't get away with lobbying for looser visa controls by claiming they would hire but can't find qualified people here.

[flexnor]

10. correct-'skills mismatch' is the lie that enables 'a shortage of workers AND a shortage of jobs'

the justification for these visa programs is 'a shortage of workers', so it make NO sense to have high guest worker visas during high unemployment (which we very much do), if ANY of those jobs could be done by a citizen (see video below if you really believe companies cant find local candidates)

the problem is, we have massive guest workers coming in that directly displace Americans, Americans are routinely dired and forced to train their indian replacement or lose their severence and references), and both parties support this practice

[flexnor]

6. 15 years ago, a little training was expected as part of running a company

even if it was little more than LIFM (look it up in the fine manual) an often used term, or a few minutes with a more senior member from time to time. or just an expectation that you will make up the time you had to train yourself on your own time, i did that all the time, the employer wasnt out anything

but now, they turn away people with perfect experience, who are ready to go day one, hour one, because they want an indentured servent from another country

[MattBaggins]

11. More importantly, "skills mismatch" is used to justify more H1B wage

killing workers.

[flexnor]

13. BINGO - and anyone with an understanding of labor economics know that

you puncture a boat, the only question is who gets wet first

the h-1b program has been a weapon first agasint tech workers, but it has been a weapon against ALL workers

why?

because if labor markets had not been tampered with via the guest worker programs, anyone who got fed up with their job would have been attracted to the rising wages of tech, and leaving their previous field would have made the remaining workers in their field more valuable, and perhaps better treated

but because of wages in tech being TORPEDOED for the last 15 years via H-1b and the alphabet soup of visas, citizens are coming OUT of tech, and INTO other fields. So someone frustrated with their job (or losing theri current job) no longer has tech as an option, they have ex-tech workers to compete with, and that lowers employment and wages in ALL jobs

and that was the whole point

and both parties are in on this, no matter what anyone tells you

[flexnor]

15. BOTH parties have disenfranchised American workers as stakeholders in the Economy

and view a lower standard of living for working people as desirable for a 'better economy'. in fact there is finally talk that this modern economy doesnt work for working people even when it DOES work at all (and currently, they economy cant work without average people putting debt on their national credit card to give to rich people to hoard, and remove risk from business 'you blew up your reckless derivative bet? no problem, joe sixpack will go into debt for you, to pay the people you owe and give you a giant bonuss, you're too big to fail')

'higher productivity' can mean nothing more that salaried working people working more completely unpaid overtime, so is that 'higher productivity' really returning anything to that worker's household?

[flexnor]

17. 'Out goal is clearly NOT to find a qualified and interested US worker'

doesnt get any plainer than that. the problem in mismatch, is that they are succeeding with their job search goal, and their goal is clearly NOT to find a qualified and interested US worker

when you train people to not find workers, they wont

"Our goal is clearly not to find a qualified U.S. worker ... our objective is to get this person a green card," Lebowitz tells his audience.

And how does an employer go about doing that in light of the legal obligation to first search for a qualified American? It's all about where you search, he says.

"Clearly we are not going to find a place where the applicants are most numerous, we're going to find a place where - again we're complying with the law - and hoping and likely not to find qualified worker applicants," Lebowitz says.

And if despite looking in all the wrong places a gem of an American candidate pops up anyway?

"If someone looks like they are very qualified, if necessary schedule an interview; go through the whole process to find a legal basis to disqualify them,"

dont believe it" see the video for yourself

[flexnor]

20. Obama to increase green cards and remove labor test for foreign grads

from 2/2/2012 release

www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/02/conversation-we-people-about-immigration-policy

"That’s why the President supports legislative measures that would attract and retain immigrants who create jobs and boost competitiveness here in the U.S. – including "stapling" green cards to the diplomas of certain foreign-born graduates in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields – "

('stapling' implies replacing the labor market test with a stapler)

Among these was a question regarding the possibility of extending employment authorization to certain spouses of H-1B visa holders who are awaiting the adjudication of green card applications. We were especially pleased to inform the callers that the Department of Homeland Security had announced just the day before—as part of the One Year Anniversary of the White House Startup Initiative — that they will be addressing this very issue through regulatory reforms.

(the spouse rule would be a massive number of workers into the labor market, hundreds of thousands)

[AnOhioan]

21. This video should be on the DU Front Page

Not working in the tech industry, I had no idea it was that rigged against US workers.

[flexnor]

22. rigged in every possible way

the roughest part of tech,(an already rough job) is the absolute viciousness and dishonesty you face from your employer up through every layer of your government

once you work in tech, you are a peer of an indentured servent, which has been deliberately made the standard, because the wealth you created made the employers so rich that they can buy your reps (in both parties) for chump change

[jeff47]

28. Actually, I blame this much more on tech workers

There's been a lot of attempts over the years to organize tech workers. The workers have rebuffed organizers. "They're just mooching off my hard work and I'm such a brilliant person that I can handle this all myself."

As a result, politicians only get pressure from the companies. Tech labor has no voice. So tech labor gets screwed. Until tech labor realizes they need help, we will continue to be screwed.

Take a moment to think about the politics of your coworkers. In my case, none of them would be open to any form of labor organizing. And that has been the same at every place I've worked for 15 years now. So we'll continue to be screwed for a long time.

[flexnor]

32. yes and no

it's true that to get a tech job, you have to have a degree (nearly always) and many of those degrees come from some sort of business school that has anti-union brainwashing

and while i may have heard some anti-union talk among it people (yes there are a few Ayn Rand types, but not all) , i can think of a single instance where IT people HAD an opportunity to join an union and rejected it. Never saw it once. The flipside of an untested virtue, is an unproven sin

and there may have been some niave belief, that the democratic party wouldnt go after IT people with a baseball bat. A LOT of IT people i knew are/were democrats. But when IT democrats found out otherwise, it was too late. Kinda hard to form a union in your workplace after you've trained your H-1b replacement and have been escorted out the door by security

I am very uneasy with the attitude of 'well, you may have supported the democratic party, but you didnt try to unionized, so why shouldnt the party sell you out'

that sure as hell wasnt in the brochure when i joined years ago, fine print or otherwise

[jeff47]

33. My statements have nothing to do with education, but with personality.

it's true that to get a tech job, you have to have a degree (nearly always) and many of those degrees come from some sort of business school that has anti-union brainwashing

It's nothing to do with getting the degree.

People to tend towards tech jobs tend towards tech in their personal life. Such people also tended to be not be very social when growing up. We're the ones who played on the computer all Saturday instead of partying. As a result, most geeks end up with an individualistic streak. Added to this is the fact that usually the majority of our tech learning was done on our own. We read books back in my day, today one would typically use online resources. We sat down and figured out how the widget worked, and then used that to make it do great things.

That lead to non-techies asking for our help, and praising our skills when we fixed their problems. Stuff we picked up all on our own was finally getting us some social acceptance. So we can fix anything on our own. Which results in things like the horrific electrical wiring in my house - The geek who owned it before me "knew about electricity" and rewired parts of the house himself. It's amazing it didn't burn down.

This leads directly into how tech workers interact with tech companies. Tech workers have always done it all themselves, so why have this union guy negotiate on my behalf? I can negotiate! I read Negotiation for Dummies!

As tech gradually moves into 'everyday' life, this will change as more and more "non-geeks" get technology jobs. But it's going to take a long time for that shift to happen naturally.

i can think of a single instance where IT people HAD an opportunity to join an union and rejected it. Never saw it once

That's because you can't hold the unionization vote without first having workers supporting the concept of a union. Labor organizers can't get enough support to even get to the point of union drives.

[flexnor]

34. it's no more right to stereotype tech workers than it is to stereotype anyone else

none of what you said about tech worker types applied to me AT ALL, or many others I knew

for me it was simple - had to make a living, picked a hard job that i thought would have security, and that security was stolen from me


and as far as this goes:
"
i can think of a single instance where IT people HAD an opportunity to join an union and rejected it. Never saw it once

That's because you can't hold the unionization vote without first having workers supporting the concept of a union. Labor organizers can't get enough support to even get to the point of union drives."

that's chicken and egg, you're making an 'A priori' judgement that tech workers were responsible for that while completely ignorng the fact that MOST white collar corporate workers are NOT unionized, and certainly no less unionized than any other white collar department. In multi-decades old corporations, IT is the newest department, so IT workers would be the receivers of that context, not the creators of it

[jeff47]

35. It fits me and every single tech worker I know or have worked with.

I have noticed that some the new graduates I now interview are starting to break the mold. But they weren't tech workers yet.

As for hard job....yeah, notsomuch. Eventually you realize you're solving the same problems over and over, if you work in any typical software development/IT shops. Hard stuff requires being a researcher of some sort.

that's chicken and egg, you're making an 'A priori' judgement that tech workers were responsible for that while completely ignorng the fact that MOST white collar corporate workers are NOT unionized

No, I'm summarizing what has happened when the CWA has tried to unionize tech workers.