Stores and other businesses say they're hiring, but are their hiring methods actually working, or not working? Are workers lazy, as some in the press insist, or are the employers incompetent in their hiring practices instead?
If there are two openings for every unemployed worker, as newscasters say, why do businesses make it so difficult to apply for jobs?
Why are their hiring methods often so counterproductive? Is it because of AI replacing HR?
And if businesses are crying out for workers, why are so many big businesses still planning on layoffs?
If businesses are claiming they need workers, how many new workers are they really going to need after such businesses merge and combine stores and management?
These questions are valid ones, and something plainly isn't adding up.
Up until the recent war events starting in late February, nearly every day or night in America, if you listened to the news on the radio, or saw it on TV or online, there would be at least one mention of the plight of American businesses in their apparent search for workers.
Even now, periodically the subject of the 'worker shortage' is sometimes mentioned. It's sometimes referred to as the Great Resignation. The Great Resignation, or 'great worker shortage' is supposedly caused by several factors, some of them bordering on the political, but one of them being the Coronavirus Pandemic, and its after-effects on the US economy.
Now, the small office I worked for over the past decade decided to take a six to eight month hiatus early in 2021, as business was low during the pandemic. And right now, the office is only starting to get back into action. In the meantime, during the hiatus I decided to look for other employment, possibly permanent re-employment. Being that I had a certain amount of money saved up (I don't spend that much, personally), my search wasn't out of dire necessity, but I thought I'd see what I could find. I figured it couldn't hurt.
My present employer understood my reasons for possibly seeking other work, and was fine with that.
So I decided, for the first time in just over a decade, to look for work. I got my resume up to date, and did some searching. Now remember -- this was during a time when on the news they have been pounding away at us for months that all these employers, large and small, were in dire need of workers. Recent news reports insist that there are two job openings for every unemployed person in the U.S., so that trend, of businesses needing workers, appears to have held up.
And, of course, over the past few months, they were blaming everything negative you'd encounter in business, or in the economy, on either the pandemic, or the 'worker shortage'.
EXCUSES, EXCUSES... and CUTTING HOURS & COSTS
If the shelves on your local grocery or box store were missing items, it was because their suppliers couldn't find workers. If a large retailer cancelled its online ordering service for special delivery, it was because "we don't have enough workers." If you needed to rectify your utility bill, and had trouble getting ahold of someone on the telephone, it was either because of the pandemic, or they simply didn't have enough people. One of the reasons given the American public during the early months of the large gas price increase was a shortage of gasoline tanker truck drivers.
Even governmental departments were saying they didn't have enough workers.
Airlines cancel hundreds of flights because "they have staffing issues." That, of course, leads to the unanswered question: 'If you know that you don't have the staff available to maintain all those flights, why would you have scheduled them at all in the first place?"
Stores reducing their hours is also blamed on the "worker shortage" or after-effects of the pandemic, even though stores started reducing hours before the pandemic even hit. In my region, finding a 24 hour fast food restaurant is a challenge. Even before Corona hit, it was a challenge. The lights would be blazing outside, signs would be lit up like a Christmas tree, and you'd drive up to find the place is actually closed.
Grocery stores and drug stores which used to be 24 hours cut back their hours even a year or two before the pandemic hit. Some of them, which used to have their lights blazing during their closed hours, are dark -- indicating that they are cutting costs for some reason.
It's been the same with a lot of 24 hour gas stations, where you are now expected to use the ATM-style gas pump, and pay at the pump with a card, instead of go inside, or to a window, and pay a real person -- because even though the lights are on, the doors are locked. Companies are obviously using the pay at the pump method to save the cost of hiring a worker. But at the same time, these companies are blaming the "worker shortage". It's odd -- they had workers three weeks ago -- but locked doors now. See a pattern here?
This trend for businesses cutting hours makes it look like we're headed back to the 1950's, when there were no all-night or late-night businesses. Obviously the American business model is changing.
BUSINESS GIVES ITS REASONS, AND THE MEDIA PARROT THEM
Anyway, it seemed -- both during and after the pandemic -- that nearly every industry was experiencing a worker shortage or having staffing issues, at least according to what they said in the news.
Now, I had bought into those explanations for empty shelves, higher prices, and reduced store hours, just like probably most other Americans have. I mean, businesses and governments wouldn't lie to you, would they? The news media reporting about this Great Worker Shortage wouldn't lie to you, would they?
Now, it's possible that there are some employers out there who are indeed having trouble finding workers for their businesses. After all, the US Chamber of Commerce claimed in July, 2021 that there was a shortage of "skilled workers". The exact words used were "pervasive lack of skilled labor."
You can read about it here:
On the other side of the coin, the US Department Of Labor has a list of job positions which have the most openings, and a list of which "careers" have the most openings. It shows that the top ten "career" positions in the US are for unskilled labor, with low wages, and no higher education is required. Many of these positions only require a high school diploma, and aren't positions requiring technical training or skills.:
According to the list, 15 of the top 20 career fields pay approximately $15 or less an hour, and higher education is not required -- just more evidence of the lack of skills or education needed. In fact, if you look at the top 50 career fields on the Department of Labor's site, 33 of the top 50 "career growth" fields pay $15 an hour or less, which is minimum wage in many urban, coastal areas of the U.S. -- and they do not require more than a high school diploma for education requirements.
Yet, although many in the news media say there is a "pervasive lack of skilled labor", many others claim that the post-pandemic economy is terrific. Some political pundits even say the US economy is "booming" right now, while overlooking the lower wages for most positions that have openings.
So, once again: none of these movers and shakers would lie to us, would they?
EYES WIDE OPEN
Well, during my job search, my eyes were opened to at least one or two facets of this issue. I no longer believe that many, if not most, of these large retailers and other large companies truly need or truly want to employ more people. If they do, they certainly are shooting themselves in the foot with their arcane, slapped together and ineffective hiring methods -- even for jobs that pay relatively low wages. I don't care what they SAY about the subject -- all one has to do is look at their actions.
What their motives would be for saying one thing, and doing another, is something beyond my knowledge. Incompetence is the first thing that comes to mind, but the CEO's and managerial types at America's largest companies are highly educated and often very experienced people. One would think or hope that they actually knew what they were doing. But, either way, it definitely seems that if these large companies truly want more workers, their way of achieving that goal is downright ineffective, almost by design.
The way they claim to be searching for workers appears to be designed to do the opposite -- to keep you from applying, to keep you from gaining, or to even keep you from wanting employment there. Some factors built into the employment system that many companies use are definitely counterproductive -- and yet nothing is ever done to change them for the better.
Although it may look conspiratorial, it seems to be good old fashioned corporate level incompetence.
CORPORATE H.R., BY COMPUTER BOT
One of the retailers where I applied for a job is national in scope. If I mentioned their name here, everyone in the U.S. and Canada would know who they are.
The application process was an education in everything wrong with modern day HR and employment practices. First off, there was no one to talk to about getting a job there.
Instead, it was all online. The pre-employment 'test' was online. The application itself was all online -- meaning, you had to create an account with them. Which also meant that you had yet one more login name and yet one more unique, 500 character, alpha-numeric password to remember; one more bunch of login info to write down on the massive sheet of paper (stuffed in your desk somewhere) that has all your other unique, 500 character, alpha-numeric passwords.
Then, after I passed their online application and online 'test', I received an instant job offer.
Now, mind you, no human being was involved in the process aside from me. It was all done by app -- all done by the company's employment computer bot.
The computer bot then scheduled my in-person visit, along with their drug test. There was also an online approval I had to give for an extensive background check, and an option for me to request a copy of that. I requested a copy of my background check by marking 'yes'. It has been over a year now, and I still have yet to receive a copy of that background check. I guess that computer bot has a short memory. And the beauty of it: there is no one to contact about it -- whether by email or online message, and no one to call.
They do not want to hear from you.
When I went to the place for my drug test, there were exactly three human beings I interacted with: the security guard, the dude who photographed my Social Security card and Driver's License, and the woman who gave me the drug test.
When my drug test was done, the woman who gave it to me told me "check your email for the next two weeks", so I did, every day. I never received an email.
BOT A DISAGREES WITH BOT B
About three weeks later, I got an email saying the position had been filled. OK, cool. It happens. The email said "check your phone, you may get a call." They didn't say what number would call me. OK, whatever. I never, of course, got a call.
About a week or two after that, I received yet another email, stating that because they had not heard from me, the job offer was rescinded.
I scratched my head. They were pissed because they hadn't heard from me? Just a week or two before, they had told me the job was already filled, and they had told me to wait to hear from them.
And, as with every other communication from this company -- there was no reply allowed. It was always a one-way email, always a one-way communication, with no recourse or opportunity to reply... No email contact, no phone number to call. All of which is fairly common anymore in the modern day business world. The only communications allowed were one way only, from their voice-mail robots, or robot texts.
It's like "talk to the hand." I.e., Go Away.
They do not want to hear from you.
Think about it. If a company does not want to hear from you, what does that say to their potential employees?
Look at the text in the printscreened email (it can be viewed in a tab by right-clicking on it). They no longer have an email account that deals with issues and glitches. In other words: They Don't Want To Hear From You. "Go to the forum!" they say. I.e., they've outsourced customer support to other consumers, who don't have access to the actual product to make any necessary changes, and are probably as irritated as you are about any glitches.
Then there is the issue of why such companies don't have anyone manning a simple email account to field potential glitch reports. They employ hundreds, if not thousands, of programmers to work on useless "updates" that rarely if ever fix anything, yet they can't seemingly afford a simple team to field glitch complaints.
Instead, this particular company shut the Complaint email account down, even though the email address still is listed on their website. The only conclusive answer is: They Don't Care. Unfortunately, in the American business world, they are not alone. One could almost find a reason to not fault them -- they're just following the lead set by many other companies.
This nonchalant, "We Don't Want To Hear From You" attitude is spreading to HR at various companies and corporations in the United States. No email contact, no phone contact, dead end emails, etc. It's giving a Big Middle Finger to the applicant.
PEOPLE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING PEOPLE
It was at this point in the application process that I realized that during the entire encounter with this potential employer no human being made any of the decisions, and NO human being -- aside from the security guard, the guy who photographed my ID, and the drug test girl -- was even remotely involved in the process, on behalf of the company. No vital communication to me was done by a human. Not one. All information I gave the company was not processed by a human.
All was done by computer bot. And one computer bot didn't know what the other computer bot was telling me.
Welcome to the Impersonal, Inhuman, and sometimes Inhumane world of the Modern Day version of HR. HR (American slang that is short for "Human Resources") is in itself is a corporate monstrosity created in the late 1980's when 'personnel' departments were transformed from the office that dealt with employment and benefits, to a bureaucratic black hole of endless jargon and bullshit.
But now, they've managed to make that even worse.
TALK TO A LOCAL MANAGER -- NO, SCRATCH THAT!
DEAL WITH A BOT INSTEAD.
Let's fast forward a couple months. I applied at another place, a big chain retailer where I shopped frequently. The front of the store, like many others, had several "Help Wanted!" signs covering the windows. In fact, as of the date of this writing, it still does.
And every time I shop at the store, their PA is always breaking in with announcements about how they really need workers, and how they are looking for people. The announcement says for people to "talk to a local manager!" as well as apply online. I asked the checkout guy about what I heard on the PA about getting a job. I asked him who the 'local manager' was. He said for me to go to the customer service desk during regular business hours, they'd get me connected.
So I did that, the next day. I was immediately told to go online. So much for 'talking to a local manager'.
When I got home, went online. It was the biggest boondoggle of a mess. Their search function operated like it was programmed on a Commodore 64. Really non-user friendly. Rube Goldberg would have been proud. There were job listings for stores two or three states away. There were instructions to go to LinkedIn to apply for an open position. I went to LinkedIn, and found that the position listed as "open" on the company's website was "not taking applications".
One computer bot didn't know what the other computer bot was doing or saying. See a pattern here?
The store wanted you to create your account with their website, where you give them all your data -- name, birthdate, address, phone number, email, and other vital info -- and then you find that none of the jobs are available. The checkout person at the store said they needed delivery order fillers. The website said there were no such positions open. The store's main website said they needed Night Stockers. The store's job website said there were no such positions open.
Once again, I was dealing with a situation where a) THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU, and b) everything was done by computer bot, and c) one computer bot doesn't know what the other computer bot is telling you, and -- finally -- d) the human being actually working in the store knows more about the store's needs than the online, employment computer bot does.
REPLACING H.R. WITH A.I. -- IT'S A REAL TREND
At least some of my suspicions -- that a lot of these hiring issues are due to AI replacing people in HR departments -- have apparently been covered before in the press. It just wasn't considered a factor in the "labor shortage" until recently.
Here are two articles published by Vice a couple years ago that cover this subject.:
I am certain that much of the negative that I experienced in my short job search described above was due to AI replacing HR. If one does a search on AI replacing HR, you'll find quite a few articles, and you'll even find websites for the companies selling this software to companies. It's a fairly big industry, and claims to help companies "cut costs".
Is it truly helping business? That is a good question.
How can it be helping a business if no one really wants to work there anymore?
WHAT ARE THEY DOING WITH YOUR DATA?
This all adds to my suspicion that in reality, these big corporations really don't want workers, they just say so, because a) it's great PR to say so, b) they're incompetent, and possibly c) they just want your data. I mean, I didn't get a job, but they still have my data -- the first company still has my drug test info and background check data filed away somewhere. What are they going to do with it? The data itself didn't get me a job. And it probably never will. So where does the data go, and how is it used, and by who?
And it's actually an important question, never seemingly breached by any news media: Why is it that to do a modern-day job search, you have to create an account at every single company where you apply for work?
And -- just as importantly -- what do they do with all your data?
Before you question my suggestion that some of these corporate HR operations could be mining your data, there are actually companies who market data-mining software to HR departments nationwide. Just do a search on "Data Mining in HR" and several such data-mining software companies will come up on any major browser. They're not just mining the data of their employees -- not when a greater number of prospective employees and applicants provide a larger pool of data to use internally -- or to sell.
And since when is the applicant expected to choose which exact position they are going to fill, ahead of time, during the application process? Isn't that a bit backwards? That's putting the applicant in the position of HR, isn't it?
As for the retail store that still says it needs workers over its PA system, I can't be the only person who has tried their miserable, human-free employment application process. I live in a city of over 100,000 people. You going to tell me I'm the only guy who applied for a position at the store there? Then why is the store always saying it needs workers?
The only reasonable answer is that they really don't want more workers. The companies I dealt with are some of the largest in the U.S. in their field. How can they truly be in need of workers? And why is their application process so hackneyed and Rube Goldberg that it makes the I.R.S. look streamlined?
None of it makes sense to me. Either the people running some of America's biggest corporations are completely inept and incompetent when it comes to finding new employees, or they are telling us one thing, while they are actually doing another. I find it difficult to believe that such wealthy and powerful corporations simply can't find workers.
I've reached the conclusion that this "great worker shortage" is a big farce -- a fallacy. How can big business say they want people, when they don't have the balls to actually deal with people in person?
THEY 'NEED WORKERS': THAT'S WHY YOU'RE ON TERMINAL HOLD OR IN A VOICE MAIL BLACK HOLE WHENEVER YOU NEED ANYTHING
When I call one of the nation's largest banks, and have to stay on hold for 50 minutes just to check out why there is an issue with my credit card, what does that have to say about how much they supposedly need people? You're gonna tell me one of the nation's largest banks can't find workers to talk on a phone -- really?
When I go into a box store owned and run by one of the US's largest retail corporations, and instead of 5 checkers there are only 2, and the line of customers at each checkout stand is ten miles long, what does that say about the company's desire to hire people?
If they really wanted to hire people, wouldn't they allow a local manager -- you know, the man or woman who would be your boss -- to take your app, look it over, and schedule an interview, or interview you on the spot? Wouldn't that be a more logical hiring practice than the top down, data-mining, cobbled together, bot-infested version they have now?
WTF is wrong with American business anymore?
And on top of that, I truly believe that American business has held an anti-people attitude in its business models for a long time.
EVEN PAYING YOUR BILL CAN BE A HASSLE
You ever have to endure an hour of voice mail BS when you just need an answer from a big company to a simple question? You ever have to maneuver through a dizzying array of voice mail prompts and useless number pressings to find you never can get ahold of a human being at the other end of the phone connection? You ever try to get ahold of a human whenever you had a software, computer system, or other consumer product problem?
Have you ever tried to do something like just pay a bill online? Some utilities actually have working websites, but a lot of other companies make it so difficult just for them to get your money. You have to wait hours on the phone for the "next customer service representative" (because they never hire enough of them -- even before the pandemic, this was the case) or their website is an endless cycle of clickbait bullshit that never gets you to a means to simply pay your bill. Even their customer surveys are often designed to make you click, click, click, click, rather than simply tell them why you're dissatisfied and leave.
THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard a robot voice tell me "Your call is important to us, and the next available customer service representative will answer your call as soon as they are available" I'd probably at least be $100 richer by now.
If businesses truly wanted to hire people, they've more often than not shown that their preference is to install computer programs to replace people instead. If businesses truly wanted to hire more people, they'd make it easier to apply for a job, by actually talking to a manager, instead of insanely more difficult, through their social media, strung together by bubblegum and duct tape, flow-chart-rich and results-poor mess.
Now, I know it probably sounds as if I think that there is some conspiracy that employers aren't really looking for workers, and that they are lying to all of us about the problem. But instead -- I repeat -- it looks like it all comes down to good ol' fashioned American Corporate Incompetence.
THEY ARE OUTSOURCING H.R. WORK TO THE POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE
And one of the supreme ironies of this trend -- where they replace HR and other work with AI bots -- is that it is Corporate America's way of outsourcing more and more HR work to YOU.
No longer does a manager hand you an application to fill. YOU go to their website and enter all your data. No longer does a manager interview you for a job. YOU engage in some stupid computer "test", on a website -- including a simulated task -- that somehow emulates the job you are applying for. No longer do store managers schedule your shift -- YOU are the one who does that yourself, on the computer, or it's determined by AI. No longer does someone train you -- you are supposed to get it all by watching an instruction video, on your computer.
And if something is wrong with your paycheck, YOU have to figure that out for yourself -- or deal with an AI bot to try to straighten it out -- because in many of these companies there is no longer anyone to contact about such issues. The payroll "work" is all done by an AI bot on a company computer network. No people necessary.
In the mid-2010's they were telling us that AI would get rid of half of the jobs in the economy by mid-Century. I can see now, more clearly, how this is happening -- and the trend, as well as the lack of openness and honesty surrounding it -- should disturb everybody.
DISAPPEARING EMPLOYEES WITH EXPERIENCE
One trend that is related to everything I've mentioned here is a disturbing one: the tendency for big corporations to have unwritten policies where they get rid of older, technically adept and highly experienced employees and then replace them with younger, cheaper workers.
I know of at least three large companies (which I won't name) that appear to have this policy -- two of them I have read about in news articles, and the third company's "get rid of the older, experienced workers with seniority" policy I heard about through a friend who knows people who work in that company.
All three companies deal at least partly with tech, and the first two have had news articles written about their policy of getting rid of experienced workers because they save on the salaries. At the same time, those experienced workers have knowledge that a newhire can't just instantly gain. The results can be potentially disastrous for the company's product line, but American tech companies seem to have this tradition. It was discussed as early as the 2000's when a prominent professor of computer science, Norm Matloff at California's UC Davis, had a white paper on the software industry's war on older tech workers.
At least some of Mr. Matloff's work can be accessed here.:
This sort of thing -- getting rid of older, experienced tech workers -- is still happening. The friend I mentioned just previously does repair work for a lot of tech workers in a major metro in the US. He knows personally of workers over age 40 who are afraid of losing their jobs at a major US tech giant, because they have seen other workers over age 40 lose their jobs overnight, and become replaced by new-hires who cost less, but don't always know the particular needs of the project they're working on.
And all this begs the obvious question: If you are running a company, how can you say you "need qualified workers" when you're getting rid of qualified workers -- the experienced, qualified people that you're canning at the same time you're complaining?
Here are several thought-provoking articles that go into this subject with a bit more depth.:
These articles from several years ago (in a couple cases) indicate that this sort of laying off of experienced and qualified workers, ostensibly to "cut costs", has been going on for quite some time. It's still apparently happening now, even at a time when industries complain about "not being able to find workers". It appears that the American employment business model is sick.
Now think about this: the last time you bought an item, like -- perhaps -- a replacement part for your car or truck, and found it designed poorly, or defective right out of the box, or you used software that is clunky and buggy when the older version of it worked perfectly, you might have just read the answer to the reason why. Corporate America seems hell-bent on cost cutting, to the point of getting rid of people who knew the product, knew the market, and knew the company -- to the detriment of the product or service quality and consistency.
When a company eliminates its experienced workers, it destroys any viable continuity that is necessary to keep a product consistent. The next crew below them also knows what is probably in store for them, after they have seen the older, experienced workers being canned just because they have experience and seniority. I know people who work, or worked, at companies who have done this. They are well aware they could be next in line.
They know that the company will get rid of them, just like they got rid of the experienced guys and women ahead of them.
It doesn't do wonders for a company's products or services when your workforce has zero sense of loyalty because of your non-existent loyalty towards your workforce, or your non-existent HR practices. If they no longer have a stake in the company, or even in the future of the product, what is that going to do to the actual product?
COMPANIES 'CAN'T FIND WORKERS': THATS WHY THEY'RE LAYING THEM OFF, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE BANNER REVENUES
OR
'WE NEED WORKERS SO BAD WE'RE LAYING THEM OFF'
Another disturbing trend is American businesses complaining about not being able to find workers, while at the same time, other big companies, including some tech and manufacturing companies, are laying off people. Right now, Ford Motor Company, which is expanding its Electric Vehicle development and production, is laying off 3,000 workers.
How does that figure? You're expanding, by laying people off instead of engaging in worker retraining, during a time when there is a "labor shortage"?
OK. Got that.
It would almost be a funny part in a late night TV monologue, except for the fact it's a) true and b) hurting people's lives.
BMI, a large music licensing and royalty collection company, had a banner year in 2021, when they made record revenues. They laid off 10% of their workforce this year. Other prominent companies are laying off people, including some tech companies: Walmart, ReMax, Shopify, Peloton, Best Buy, and others. These are fairly large companies -- Walmart being the biggest retailer in the US aside from Amazon. Yet at the same time, US businesses are bewailing the lack of workers.
See a pattern here? Say one thing, act like another.
Here's just one news article on these layoffs.:
CONCLUSION: AMERICA'S EMPLOYMENT MODEL IS SICK
From everything touched in this article I can reach several conclusions:
First off, American business is too centralized in its hiring and HR, which is keeping them from finding enough workers -- their local managers, who know what the needs are on the ground, aren't apparently given enough leeway to hire and fire, making the entire company slow to adapt to the those needs. They're depending too much on the internet and AI to do everything for them, instead of leaving employment to middle managers and the like.
Secondly, American business increasingly is holding an attitude that "churn is healthy" -- i.e., workers coming and going, getting hired and then fired frequently -- is supposedly good for business. There are several prominent US corporations where this is reportedly the preferred employment model.
Thirdly, American business is replacing people with AI bots, many of those AI bots doing the hiring and firing. The people at the receiving end of the AI/HR decisions determine that working in that field is no longer for them.
Hey -- how is that all working out for you now?
And once word gets out, that even the practice of seeking employment is like playing an endless game of phone tag with robots, how does that make potential employees want to work for you?
Does business in general actually care about any of this? It's a good question.
Now, every business has its right to do what it wants, employment-wise, as long as it's legal. If someone has a big company and wants to lay off people to cost-cut, or install a computer program to do all their HR work -- that's their right.
But at the same time, it's bizarre that so many companies are complaining about finding people. And I think at least some of the reason comes down to those businesses' methods of finding and hiring people. They've clearly lost their way.
IT AIN'T EASY....
I'll end this by roughly quoting David Bowie (who was 'quoting' UK folk artist Ron Davies, who wrote the song): It Ain't Easy.:
And here's the same song done by Long John Baldry, if that's more your style. He did a great version, too.:
SUMMARY: ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL
Bluebells.... Not of Scotland, though that is a great bagpipe tune.
All that said, work has been picking back up at the office where I have been employed since 2011, so I am no longer involved in seeking other employment.
But the next time you hear about the Great Worker Shortage or the Great Resignation, try applying for one of those open jobs. Make sure you have a full cup of coffee and a lot of patience to wade through tons of online bullshit. You'll need your smartphone handy, because they want your number so they can text you the secret code you'll need to get to that application that the computer bot will discard right after it mines your data. And, of course, they'll keep your phone number along with the rest of your personal information.
Perhaps you'll be luckier than I was. Good for you if you are so lucky. Really. I wish the best for people.
But, from my experience, for a business world that is screaming 'worker shortage!' and deriding the public about it (even implying that people are lazy), they sure make it next to impossible to just talk to a human being about the job they say they're trying to fill, and they often don't seem to value some of the workers they employ if they are so willing to get rid of them while complaining about needing workers.
Peace.
C.C. -- written February and March, 2022. Posted December, 2022.
I held off on publishing this article for well over 6 months -- on purpose. I normally don't write anything that would appear even remotely political. I also didn't want to sound like I'm bitching and complaining, but I really think this replacing of people with bots is hurting American business, despite the fact they seem hellbent on doing it.
This article is one of those few times that I have done where I have breached subjects like this, because I think it's a bizarre situation where employers claim to want workers, but make it so stupidly difficult to acquire them -- and the press ignores this particular facet of the employment issue.
The only reason I'm posting it is because I think it is actually a vital and important issue. American business appears unaware that they are shooting themselves in the foot with their idiotic ways of trying to gain workers.
Most of the time I write about radio, music, guitars, biking, and the like -- and usually I prefer to keep it that way. :-)
This is one of those RARE occasions I strayed from writing about those happier, and more fun subjects.
My apologies to anyone who was looking for another article about radios or guitars, and was disappointed. Next time, friends: I have a new SW radio, so a review is upcoming!
Stay tuned, and
Peace.
Addendum, January 25th, 2023 -- I clarified some bad grammar.
No comments:
Post a Comment