What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hiring Trends 2025 (1 Viewer)

Max Power

Footballguy
Frustration is quickly growing within my organization over the recruitment and hiring of new workers. We face a lot of the same fiscal issues that a lot of companies do but also have some unique challenges that compound the problem. Bottomline is that over the past 6 months to a year our resignations are outpacing hiring and its a quarter or two away from becoming a massive problem.

Our contracting company is telling us its slim pickings in the job market right now, they are not receiving a lot of resumes. We review resumes that meet the statement of work and have a brief 15-minute VTC with the candidate to confirm the pre-requisites for the position. I sit in on most of the VTCs and we haven't had a quality candidate in a while. More often than not its someone who meets the minimal standard to work here and we're basically taking what we can get at the moment.

We have a 30 day training pipeline for each new hire that has historically had a 95% success rate. New hires that don't pass are released. We've been taking bigger swings on candidates lately which has resulted in the pass rate dropping to 50% over the last 3 months. If I'm being honest the 50% making it through are only looking better by default. I've been getting a lot of feedback from the organization that the new people I'm sending to them aren't very good. The most common critique is that the younger hires are coming across as too nonchalant in their duties.

I'm wondering if others who are in their company's hiring chain are seeing some of the same. My brother has a medical practice in South Carolina and he hires a company to headhunt for him. The told him around Christmas time they've only been able to identify 15 candidates in the area to fill his vacancies, but they also have 130 similar vacancies to fill.

The talent pool isn't what is used to be. We're in the process of trying to prioritize skills over degrees/accomplishments as that could be the easiest adjustment for us. However, it is very difficult to measure skills in a resume/interview. There are some ideas to tap into AI for hiring/recruitment/retention, but I'm at a loss at how that would be implemented at the moment.

Open to hearing any strategies that are working for others.
 
Seeing the exact opposite in the areas I'm familiar with:
  • In my LinkedIn network (lots of people in technology, marketing, gaming, etc.) - loads of highly experienced people with strong resumes who have been unemployed for 6+ months, struggle to get interviews and have to suffer through all sorts of weird interactions with recruiters
  • Among college juniors looking for analytics, data science and software engineering internships, even among those at top schools with great credentials, difficulty getting interviews, and in some cases being rejected immediately after scoring perfectly on technical assessments
  • Among foreign students with Masters degrees in STEM fields from solid US universities (and not needing visa sponsorship for the next three years), great difficulty finding anything
 
I'm not sure about new hires, but I know my organization is having a hard time getting people internally to apply for promotions to senior level positions.
 
Open to hearing any strategies that are working for others.
What field are you trying to hire for?
Geospatial, Imagery and all-source analysts.
Seems like a very specific skill set to some degree (I know nothing about this field) which could be part of the difficult for sure. I never cease to be amazed at jobs out there that I have never even thought about as a possibility.
 
I work in the business side of tech, and have a much different experience. Colleagues who have been laid off having a hard time finding new positions, plenty of good candidates for open reqs. I fear if I were to get laid off, it would take me a long time to find a new role. Very strange job market right now, so variable between industries.
 
I'm not sure about new hires, but I know my organization is having a hard time getting people internally to apply for promotions to senior level positions.
Seems odd. Just lazy? Don't want the added responsibility?
The higher you go, the increase in pay doesn't keep up with the increase in responsibility. For example, if I were to get a promotion, it would be an 8.5% raise with a decent amount of increased responsibility and expectations of some more hours. (And, even before the current push to end telework, the expectation of much more time in office.) The next level up is where the responsibility really increases and there are expectations of being on call at all times without much increase in pay. Some geographic areas are experiencing what's call pay compression, where the upper end of the GS-15 pay is capped because it is bumping up against the pay scale of the senior execs. If you're a high 15, the raise to get to SES is probably really, really small.
 
I'm not sure about new hires, but I know my organization is having a hard time getting people internally to apply for promotions to senior level positions.
Seems odd. Just lazy? Don't want the added responsibility?
The higher you go, the increase in pay doesn't keep up with the increase in responsibility. For example, if I were to get a promotion, it would be an 8.5% raise with a decent amount of increased responsibility and expectations of some more hours. (And, even before the current push to end telework, the expectation of much more time in office.) The next level up is where the responsibility really increases and there are expectations of being on call at all times without much increase in pay. Some geographic areas are experiencing what's call pay compression, where the upper end of the GS-15 pay is capped because it is bumping up against the pay scale of the senior execs. If you're a high 15, the raise to get to SES is probably really, really small.
The top end of the GS 15 scale is currently $195k. After that, you get into the senior executives. In my agency, there are 5 positions above the GS 15 level up to the director of the agency. Then, above the director is an Under Secretary at the Department and then the Department Secretary (cabinet level position). The cabinet level secretaries make about $250k. So, there are potentially 7 promotions between a GS 15 and being the Department Secretary. And the difference in pay is $50k, or about 25%. That's an insane amount of pressure for $250k. Sure, those people can turn their position into other income streams, like writing books and speaking engagements. But, I don't think that's happening much at those 6 steps in between. Most GS 15s are just fine with their $195k and not risking getting called in front of Congress.
 
Most GS 15s are just fine with their $195k and not risking getting called in front of Congress.
A lot of that also probably depends on where on the work spectrum you are currently at as well. I know for me I have about 5 yrs left. I am at the top of my pay scale (I am on the NH scale not GS) so the last couple years I get the COLA increase and then lump sum bonus "in lieu of salary increase" because I am capped. But with only 5 yrs left I don't really want to do something else. I like what I do and jumping to the next NH level would likely mean moving and going somewhere else. Not what I want to do. So I get it.
 
Whatever your field and whatever you do, starting using AI as your work assistant and copilot. Even just to proof read, create tasks, or produce initial frameworks of content. These are the people that will be getting jobs in the future.
 
Do you receive all of the resumes to view yourself or is there an intermediary as a first level screen? I read all sorts of horror stories online about algorithms that advance poor resumes while also filtering out qualified people.

We've (tech-related engineering) hired maybe a dozen or so young people in the last 5 years and I'd say it's pretty bimodal. There are a chunk that hit the stereotypes and seem to expect instant promotions without any real interest in doing more than the bare minimum to not get in trouble, and another chunk that are excellent and become extremely valuable to the company in just a year or two.
 
I'm not sure about new hires, but I know my organization is having a hard time getting people internally to apply for promotions to senior level positions.
Seems odd. Just lazy? Don't want the added responsibility?
The higher you go, the increase in pay doesn't keep up with the increase in responsibility. For example, if I were to get a promotion, it would be an 8.5% raise with a decent amount of increased responsibility and expectations of some more hours. (And, even before the current push to end telework, the expectation of much more time in office.) The next level up is where the responsibility really increases and there are expectations of being on call at all times without much increase in pay. Some geographic areas are experiencing what's call pay compression, where the upper end of the GS-15 pay is capped because it is bumping up against the pay scale of the senior execs. If you're a high 15, the raise to get to SES is probably really, really small.

Different field but similar situation from my perspective. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.

This can be a problem.
 
I work in the business side of tech, and have a much different experience. Colleagues who have been laid off having a hard time finding new positions, plenty of good candidates for open reqs. I fear if I were to get laid off, it would take me a long time to find a new role. Very strange job market right now, so variable between industries.

This is my feeling as well.

The company I work for went through a round of layoffs last week. The group I belong to lost close to 20% of the people.
 
Do you receive all of the resumes to view yourself or is there an intermediary as a first level screen? I read all sorts of horror stories online about algorithms that advance poor resumes while also filtering out qualified people.

We've (tech-related engineering) hired maybe a dozen or so young people in the last 5 years and I'd say it's pretty bimodal. There are a chunk that hit the stereotypes and seem to expect instant promotions without any real interest in doing more than the bare minimum to not get in trouble, and another chunk that are excellent and become extremely valuable to the company in just a year or two.
The contracting company does the first level screening. It's technically their employees. Gov/Mil does the second level screening to verify and weed out ones we don't want.
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.
Yes absolutely the pay isn't great. It's pretty solid for a job that only requires 3 years of relevant experience though.

Sadly our issue is that the contract we picked is on year 5 of 8. The company only wrote in a 0.5% inflation increase year to year. So they are struggling to keep up with salaries. They could make it happen, but so are not. And sadly this is a situation where they would need to fail first before we can replace it.
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.

This can be a problem.
"You should just offer higher salaries" works great, until your new hire is making more than people who have been there for 10 years and our salaries are all public record.
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.
Yes absolutely the pay isn't great. It's pretty solid for a job that only requires 3 years of relevant experience though.

Sadly our issue is that the contract we picked is on year 5 of 8. The company only wrote in a 0.5% inflation increase year to year. So they are struggling to keep up with salaries. They could make it happen, but so are not. And sadly this is a situation where they would need to fail first before we can replace it.
Sounds like a classic market failure on your company’s end to me. 🤷‍♂️

I get that it’s not easy to fix, but to Rich’s point, workers being rational isn’t their fault.
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.

This can be a problem.
"You should just offer higher salaries" works great, until your new hire is making more than people who have been there for 10 years and our salaries are all public record.
They should give more raises to existing employees as well if they are suffering from high attrition.
 
Anecdotal of course, as I am not involved in my company's hiring process. Just observations of a high school coach/father of an 18 &21 y.o./high school intern leader (at an engineering firm)....

These younger generations want more flexibility and less stress. They view jobs as a way to get to do they things they like. Someone mentioned more/better benefits. They want to hear that you know your job isn't rocket surgery and they can get their 40 hours and be left alone. Military/government jobs are pretty strict in their requirements i assume? The wording of the potential job probably makes 1/2 of the decent candidates just keep scrolling.

I don't think they are any less capable than us older folks...just different. And none of them are going to make their job priority one.

My 21 y.o. decided college wasn't his thing but also worked his arsenal off getting a car detailing biz going. It's not hard work that scares him. It's being at someone else's beckon call that does. He's now in a trade school to be an airplane mechanic - 40 hours and go home.

My 18 y.o. graduates this year. She just today told me she wants to go to nursing school. Plays basketball and soccer and could get a scholly for either. Doesn't care. Takes too much of her free time. Settled on nursing because it's a set program with a set job. No interest in corporate ladders and such.
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.
Yes absolutely the pay isn't great. It's pretty solid for a job that only requires 3 years of relevant experience though.

Sadly our issue is that the contract we picked is on year 5 of 8. The company only wrote in a 0.5% inflation increase year to year. So they are struggling to keep up with salaries. They could make it happen, but so are not. And sadly this is a situation where they would need to fail first before we can replace it.
Sounds like a classic market failure on your company’s end to me. 🤷‍♂️

I get that it’s not easy to fix, but to Rich’s point, workers being rational isn’t their fault.
It's not good. They made an aggressive bid and some of the job trends over the last 5 years didn't play out in their favor.

I'm stuck in the middle trying to keep the ship afloat. We're now trying to brainstorm ideas on how to recruit/assess trainability attributes in candidates.

For my situation it's a bit of a reflection on the military lowering it's entry requirement standards for years. It's trickling down to the contract workforce now and things don't look promising going forward.
 
I work in the business side of tech, and have a much different experience. Colleagues who have been laid off having a hard time finding new positions, plenty of good candidates for open reqs. I fear if I were to get laid off, it would take me a long time to find a new role. Very strange job market right now, so variable between industries.
My oldest son is in college and thinking about changing his major. I told him a degree in something business or technology related would be a safe bet. Your post makes me question that now.
 
They want to hear that you know your job isn't rocket surgery
And if it is? That's what we're looking for these days, at least the rocket part.

My 21 y.o. decided college wasn't his thing but also worked his arsenal off getting a car detailing biz going. It's not hard work that scares him. It's being at someone else's beckon call that does. He's now in a trade school to be an airplane mechanic - 40 hours and go home.
Make sure he studies his tail off for the FAA tests. They are not easy.
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.

This can be a problem.
"You should just offer higher salaries" works great, until your new hire is making more than people who have been there for 10 years and our salaries are all public record.
They should give more raises to existing employees as well if they are suffering from high attrition.
Yeah, I always forget about the money tree out back. That's my blind spot as a leader.
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.

This can be a problem.
"You should just offer higher salaries" works great, until your new hire is making more than people who have been there for 10 years and our salaries are all public record.
They should give more raises to existing employees as well if they are suffering from high attrition.
Yeah, I always forget about the money tree out back. That's my blind spot as a leader.
America as a whole has plenty of money. Maybe CEOs just don't need to make billions?
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.

This can be a problem.
"You should just offer higher salaries" works great, until your new hire is making more than people who have been there for 10 years and our salaries are all public record.
They should give more raises to existing employees as well if they are suffering from high attrition.
Yeah, I always forget about the money tree out back. That's my blind spot as a leader.
America as a whole has plenty of money. Maybe CEOs just don't need to make billions?

Maybe he works for a public university. Seriously. What planet are you on and what planet do the people reflexively liking this post live on to assume **** like this?

I don't even like income inequality at the levels we have, but you guys and your attitude make it awfully tough for a broke *** like me to get people to listen to anything.
 
I mean, seriously. OP seems to work for the military and IK has done just about everything but point an arrow to “university, public” when describing what he does. That's an entirely different set of circumstances than billions and CEOs running for-profit companies. Even if those things are incorrect, they're certainly plausible given the information they've both divulged over the years.

Why assume a billionaire CEO? What about all the other kinds of businesses and services in America?
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.

This can be a problem.
"You should just offer higher salaries" works great, until your new hire is making more than people who have been there for 10 years and our salaries are all public record.
The company should have been taking better care of their existing employees.
 
Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.

This can be a problem.
"You should just offer higher salaries" works great, until your new hire is making more than people who have been there for 10 years and our salaries are all public record.
The company should have been taking better care of their existing employees.

The key words here are "our salaries are all (emphasis mine) public record."

How many times can IK say he works for the government without you guys figuring it out? Maybe we should play a game or something.

I can set a watch to how obdurate you have to be not to have gotten this. Solid as a brick. I mean, if you're reading IK or the OP and subsequent comments at all, that they're both in government (in some form or fashion) should jump off of the page. Or is that in our rush to political judgment we've neglected to care about facts or circumstances that might not comport with our current anger?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure about new hires, but I know my organization is having a hard time getting people internally to apply for promotions to senior level positions.
Seems odd. Just lazy? Don't want the added responsibility?
I cannot speak for his specific organization, but in a lot of companies/industries management level and senior level positions can also come with reduced job security (on top of the added responsibility). If a company wants to cut costs, often times it is easier to lay off a high paid management level person than it is several regular employees.
 
I mean, seriously. OP seems to work for the military and IK has done just about everything but point an arrow to “university, public” when describing what he does. That's an entirely different set of circumstances than billions and CEOs running for-profit companies. Even if those things are incorrect, they're certainly plausible given the information they've both divulged over the years.

Why assume a billionaire CEO? What about all the other kinds of businesses and services in America?
This is correct. "Just pay everybody more" is bad advice. I can't do that. First of all, our budget is pretty limited. Second, a little over 90% of my unit's budget goes to salary and benefits. There's nothing for me to cut to increase salaries. Third, we have a system-level HR system that exists for the express reason of keeping salaries equitable and low. We are philosophically opposed to paying a premium for high performers, and I have no ability whatsoever to affect that.

"We should just pay everybody more" would be a way for me to avoid doing my job, by focusing on the stuff that I can't control instead of focusing on the things that I can.
 
Last edited:
I mean, seriously. OP seems to work for the military and IK has done just about everything but point an arrow to “university, public” when describing what he does. That's an entirely different set of circumstances than billions and CEOs running for-profit companies. Even if those things are incorrect, they're certainly plausible given the information they've both divulged over the years.

Why assume a billionaire CEO? What about all the other kinds of businesses and services in America?
This is correct. "Just pay everybody more" is laughable, toddler-level advice. I can't do that. First of all, our budget is pretty limited. Second, a little over 90% of my unit's budget goes to salary and benefits. There's nothing for me to cut to increase salaries. Third, we have a system-level HR system that exists for the express reason of keeping salaries equitable and low. We are philosophically opposed to paying a premium for high performers, and I have no ability whatsoever to affect that.

"We should just pay everybody more" would be a way for me to avoid doing my job, by focusing on the stuff that I can't control instead of focusing on the things that I can.

The majority of people aren't blaming you or Max, there are people above you that have mismanaged, and abused the funds that go into all these programs for decades. That has led to this and the same people throw out the narratives that people don't want to work or aren't up to par for the job. Why should the working person take less for the skills they have?

I am in education and have the same problem. Every fall I get the same questions from my bosses. Why is this position still unfilled, why did candidate A, B, and C say no and we had to accept candidate D who isn't as good? Every year I answer the question the same way. When you pay .70 to .80 cents on the dollar you will get what you pay for and every year they think it there is something wrong with everyone else.

There are also so many remote/part time/side hustle jobs that require very little experience, very little stress, and very little responsibilities that you can work two of them and make just as much money while working the same hours. For what we start our teachers at, I bet they could drive Uber 20 hours a week and tutor remotely for 20 hours a week and make more money, less hours and less responsibility.

The problem is the system, not the workers and the easiest fix is money.
 
You OK, rock? Seriously. You're off the wall with no provocation at all. FFS, even the OP agreed with the comment that they weren't offering enough.

Nothing about this topic was exclusive to "public roles". The topic is, literally, "Hiring Trends 2025". Even if it were, the fact is that to attract talent, any organization, public or private, needs to offer appropriate pay and benefits. If public is unable to compete with salary, then they need to compensate in other ways as they have done historically. This isn't hard. Can't attract talent? Lower your expectations or raise your offer. That's it, those are the choices. That's capitalism, is it not?
 
Last edited:
You OK, rock? Seriously. You're off the wall with no provocation at all.

Nothing about this topic was exclusive to "public roles". The topic is, literally, "Hiring Trends 2025". Even if it were, the fact is that to attract talent, any organization, public or private, needs to offer appropriate pay and benefits. If public is unable to compete with salary, then they need to compensate in other ways as they have done historically. This isn't hard. Can't attract talent? Lower your expectations or raise your offer. That's it, those are the choices. That's capitalism, is it not?

:wall:

Look at the word he's mouthing.
 
If the answer isn’t pay more money, what is it? Some other kind of benefits? Just a free market approach that says your business shouldn’t exist then? I really don’t know. It seems like we need more workers but seems that perhaps that is the opposite of what “the people” want. We are having a hard time attracting math and science teachers and we are paying top of the market prices. Literally setting the market in our area.
 
If the answer isn’t pay more money, what is it? Some other kind of benefits? Just a free market approach that says your business shouldn’t exist then? I really don’t know. It seems like we need more workers but seems that perhaps that is the opposite of what “the people” want. We are having a hard time attracting math and science teachers and we are paying top of the market prices. Literally setting the market in our area.
I work in the public sector, and I gather that Max does as well, from his posts in the "government employee" thread. This isn't about free enterprise, or capitalism, or whatever. It's just life in a highly-bureaucratized organization. I'm sure there are Fortune 500 companies out there with similar rigid protocols, but I don't have any experience with that and can't comment. But the people "above me" who set the parameters for my organization are not billionaires. They're a governor and a legislature. Beyond them are the voters. That's it. Nobody is getting rich off the labor that I provide.

To answer your question, though, for me a lot of it is trying to create a work environment that is appealing enough that people will accept less salary to work here. No amount of being nice to people is going to make somebody forget that he could earn 30% more at another school, so obviously there's a limit to what you can accomplish with this. But here's a concrete example of what I'm talking about, courtesy of @MAC_32 . Knowing when to be a stickler about policy and when you can look the other way -- and hiring with an eye toward people who won't abuse that trust -- actually does help. That's more of an "employee retention" strategy than a "recruitment" strategy, but these feed off one another in my experience.

Or, to take this is a somewhat different direction, consider the problem your district is having with math and science teachers. I know this varies somewhat from district to district, but most school systems determine teacher salaries using a grid that is just "experience times credential" essentially. So normally, math teachers and history teachers get paid the same. That's good from an equity standpoint, but it creates a situation where there's a glut of history teachers and nobody can hire math and science teachers. One way to fix that is to have one salary for history teachers and another, higher salary for math teachers. But it's not too difficult to see how that "solution" would create morale problems and in-fighting, and maybe a battle with your union. It's not an easy problem to fix, and there's going to be a downside to any approach you take.
 
Last edited:
If the answer isn’t pay more money, what is it? Some other kind of benefits? Just a free market approach that says your business shouldn’t exist then? I really don’t know. It seems like we need more workers but seems that perhaps that is the opposite of what “the people” want. We are having a hard time attracting math and science teachers and we are paying top of the market prices. Literally setting the market in our area.
I work in the public sector, and I gather that Max does as well, from his posts in the "government employee" thread. This isn't about free enterprise, or capitalism, or whatever. It's just life in a highly-bureaucratized organization. I'm sure there are Fortune 500 companies out there with similar rigid protocols, but I don't have any experience with that and can't comment. But the people "above me" who set the parameters for my organization are not billionaires. They're a governor and a legislature. Beyond them are the voters. That's it. Nobody is getting rich off the labor that I provide.

To answer your question, though, for me a lot of it is trying to create a work environment that is appealing enough that people will accept less salary to work here. No amount of being nice to people is going to make somebody forget that he could earn 30% more at another school, so obviously there's a limit to what you can accomplish with this. But here's a concrete example of what I'm talking about, courtesy of @MAC_32 . Knowing when to be a stickler about policy and when you can look the other way -- and hiring with an eye toward people who won't abuse that trust -- actually does help. That's more of an "employee retention" strategy than a "recruitment" strategy, but these feed off one another in my experience.

Or, to take this is a somewhat different direction, consider the problem your district is having with math and science teachers. I know this varies somewhat from district to district, but most school systems determine teacher salaries using a grid that is just "experience times credential" essentially. So normally, math teachers and history teachers get paid the same. That's good from an equity standpoint, but it creates a situation where there's a glut of history teachers and nobody can hire math and science teachers. One way to fix that is to have one salary for history teachers and another, higher salary for math teachers. But it's not too difficult to see how that "solution" would create morale problems and in-fighting, and maybe a battle with your union. It's not an easy problem to fix, and there's going to be a downside to any approach you take.
I’m a public school teacher so yeah it’s really an industry change or culture shift we need. People used to be willing to teach for less money but that seems not be the case anymore even though where I work is paying really quite well (6 figures for experienced teachers). Obviously we have a union and negotiate so i don’t know if we could get a different step salary but I know when offering new employees their starting step, the district has the ability to offer whatever they want. Math, science and special ed are usually getting offered much higher steps so they do sort of do what you suggest- to a point. I took the job there because it was a $30,000 raise for the exact same job. Was a no brainer.
 
Last edited:

Seems to me that if a company is repeatedly unable to find quality candidates, that would indicate that either its expectations are too high or its offering (salary, benefits, etc.) is too low. Think of it this way: if you doubled or tripled the salary and benefits (time off, remote work capability, company portion of health insurance premiums, etc.), would you be able to attract better candidates? If the answer is yes, then maybe the organization needs to offer more.

This can be a problem.
"You should just offer higher salaries" works great, until your new hire is making more than people who have been there for 10 years and our salaries are all public record.
The company should have been taking better care of their existing employees.

The key words here are "our salaries are all (emphasis mine) public record."

How many times can IK say he works for the government without you guys figuring it out? Maybe we should play a game or something.

I can set a watch to how obdurate you have to be not to have gotten this. Solid as a brick. I mean, if you're reading IK or the OP and subsequent comments at all, that they're both in government (in some form or fashion) should jump off of the page. Or is that in our rush to political judgment we've neglected to care about facts or circumstances that might not comport with our current anger?
My bad for skimming Ivan’s post. However, the same basic principle applies. Unfortunately, many public sector jobs just cannot compete. And I find this very unfortunate, because having top talent in the government really should be a priority. I’ve looked occasionally at federal jobs in the past, and just could not justify the pretty large pay cut to make the jump. Also, your mention of political judgement seems a bit strange.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top