Being rejected by employers for not having 2 years experience for an entry level job is slowly stealing my sanity.
The argument most employers have against on the job training is extremely flawed. "Yeah, but what happens when we spend all the time to train you and then you leave us for another company?" I wonder how many of them realize that they're whole hiring structure is based upon having another company that is willing to train someone on the job so that they can poach the employee from them later on. People wonder why there are no experienced employees out there to hire for those higher end jobs. Well it's because the majority of companies share their same mindset about on the job training. If anything it says more about how much the company values themselves if they believe their employees could be so easily poached.
Think of it like the NFL draft. Which is the healthier mindset when it comes to drafting your prospects?
A) Be hesitant about drafting a player because you're afraid you'll develop them and they'll leave for a better team once their contract is up?
B) Drafting the player with the mindset that you'll be developing your organization just as much as the player and they'll sign that 10 year deal and dedicate their career to your team?
In the current day we are getting to the point where no one even wants a prospect so they just continuously trade away their picks for someone else's employee and skip the whole development aspect. Well all of the best players have retired and no prospects are being drafted. Now we just have a country full of employers baffled as to why there or no superstar employees that they can just steal from someone else.
Whelp. We are all still sitting in the Draft room waiting for someone to take a chance on us and help us develop into the kind of employee you're looking for.
usa jobs resume
usa hotel jobs
usajobs
usa jobs federal government
usa job in ksa
usa jobs
usa jobs login
usa jobs gov
usajobs.gov
www.usajobs.gov
usajobs.com
usajobs
usajobs.gov official
Aucun commentaire: