ReportWire

Tag: job applicants

  • The Job Market Is Flooded With Overqualified Candidates—Here’s How They Can Supercharge Your Team

    [ad_1]

    For decades, businesses have avoided hiring candidates whose experience and abilities surpassed the requirements of the jobs they sought to fill. That hesitation was mostly based on concerns that overqualified recruits would quickly become bored with their work and leave for bigger challenges. But a new survey shows employers are showing more willingess to signing on highly capable applicants , with a clear majority of hiring managers now regularly considering people whose aptitudes overshadow the positions they’re vying for.

    That significant shift in hiring attitudes was revealed in a recent survey of  1,000 U.S. human relations executives by staffing solutions company Express Employment Professionals. What it found was that in — stark contrast to deep-rooted reluctance in the past to seriously consider people whose experience surpassed the jobs they’d applied for — 70 percent of hiring managers respondents said they now routinely consider fillings opening with overqualified applicants.

    What’s changed? Survey respondents said the additional strengths that overqualified workers offer outweigh the risks that they may get bored and leave faster than less experienced applicants. For example, half of the participants said those more capable prospects bring more confidence to the job than less qualified candidates, with 48 percent saying they’re more productive as well.

    About 47 percent of respondents said more experienced hires demonstrate better decision-making abilities than other candidates, and 45 percent appreciated them for needing little or no training to start working at full speed. Better still, 46 percent of participating hiring managers cited the ability of overqualified workers to mentor and support younger or less capable employees as an extra benefit.

    But despite that fundamental shift of HR managers’ attitudes about placing people in positions they’re clearly overqualified for, survey participants haven’t rid themselves of all their past reservations.

    Significantly, nearly three-quarters of respondents said they still consider overqualified hires likely to bolt for better opportunities that come along. Awaiting that, 75 percent of survey participants said they believed more experienced and skilled hires often struggle to remain motivated once they’d landed and settled into the new job.

    For those reasons, 58 percent of respondents said they’re at times still inclined to train a new or less qualified employee for a position, rather than risk higher turnover by picking stronger candidates more likely to get bored and move on.

    Job seekers are of mixed minds about the changing views of hiring managers. Younger survey respondents said they fear the shift leaves them at a distinct disadvantage to overqualified candidates. Sixty-seven percent of Gen Zers and 60 percent of Millennial respondents said it’s impossible for them to compete against more experience applicants for the same job.

    Those numbers rise to 84 percent of Gen Zers and 77 percent of Millennials who think companies systematically favor overqualified candidates over others. Around 71 percent of both cohorts cited the extra benefits more experienced workers bring to the job as the reasons employers prefer them. Those concerns among Gen X respondents were lower than those younger workers, but still surpassed the 50 percent bar.

    But with national job creation nearly flat as companies limit hiring mainly to replacing departing workers, its unrealistic to expect overqualified candidates to steer clear of positions with lower requirements. In fact, even most younger survey respondents who complained of being at a disadvantage to more experienced applicants appear willing to seek a similar upper hand when they’re pursuing employment opportunities in competition with less skilled people.

    Eighty-seven percent of all job hunters surveyed said it was entirely appropriate to apply for work they’re overqualified for, with 65 percent saying they’ve already done so. While nearly 60 percent of those respondents said the obligation to generate an income was the main motivator for using that advantage, 56 percent said those jobs also offer better work-life balance. Around 41 percent said those situations allowed them to break into or remain in professions they’re passionate about.

    So how should employers still torn between past hesitations to hire overqualified people, but increasingly aware of the qualitative advantages of filling vacancies with skilled candidates in the current labor market react to those changes? Express Employment International president Bob Funk Jr. suggests they remain pragmatic in their hiring decisions, and carefully analyze which candidates can best provide what an individual job and the entire company needs from them.

    “Overqualified candidates represent a chance to secure top talent in today’s market,” said Funk in news release announcing the survey’s results. “The key is to focus on skills-based hiring, which widens the talent pool by looking beyond résumés and degrees and makes the best use of a candidate’s abilities and ambition. Without that alignment, the risk of a quick exit is real.”

    [ad_2]

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • The Specter of Family Separation

    The Specter of Family Separation

    [ad_1]

    Almost as soon as Donald Trump took office in 2017, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement were dispatched across the country to round up as many undocumented foreigners as possible, and the travel ban put into limbo the livelihoods of thousands of people from majority-Muslim countries who had won the hard-fought right to be here—refugees, tech entrepreneurs, and university professors among them. The administration drew up plans for erecting a border wall, as well as an approach to stripping away the due-process rights of noncitizens so they could be expelled faster. These changes to American immigration policy took place in the amount of time that it would take the average new hire to figure out how to use the office printer.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    Within days of Trump’s election, his key immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, was already gathering a group of loyal bureaucrats to start drafting executive orders. Civil servants who were veterans of the George W. Bush administration found the proposals to be so outlandishly impractical, if not also harmful to American interests and perhaps even illegal, that they assumed the ideas could never come to fruition. They were wrong. Over the next four years, lone children were loaded onto planes and sent back to the countries they had fled without so much as a notification to their families. Others were wrenched from their parents’ arms as a way of sending a message to other families abroad about what awaited them if they, too, tried to enter the United States.

    If given another chance to realize his goals, Miller has essentially boasted in recent interviews that he would move even faster and more forcefully. And Trump, who’s been campaigning on the promise to finish the job he started on immigration policy, would fairly assume if he is reelected that harsh restrictions in that arena are precisely what the American people want. “Following the Eisenhower model, we will carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” he declared during a speech in Iowa in September, referring to 1954’s offensively titled Operation Wetback, under which hundreds of thousands of people with Mexican ancestry were deported, including some who were American citizens.

    Trump and other key fixtures of his time in office have refused to rule out trying to reinstate family separations. They have been explicit about their plans to send ICE agents back into the streets to make arrests (with help from the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the National Guard), and finish their work on the wall. They say that they will reimpose the pandemic-related expulsion policy known as Title 42, which all but shut off access to asylum, and that they will expand the use of military-style camps to house people who are caught in the enforcement dragnet. They have laid out plans and legal rationales for major policy changes that they didn’t get around to the first time, such as ending birthright citizenship, a long-held goal of Trump’s. They’ve floated ideas such as screening would-be immigrants for Marxist views before granting them entry, and using the Alien and Sedition Acts in service of deportations. Trump and his advisers have also made clear that they intend to invoke the Insurrection Act to allow them to deploy the U.S. military to the border, and to use an extensive naval blockade between the United States and Latin America to fight the drug trade. That most drug smuggling occurs at legal ports of entry doesn’t matter to Trump and his team: They seem to have reasonably concluded that immigration restrictions don’t have to be effective to be celebrated by their base.

    The breakneck pace of work during Miller’s White House tour was periodically hampered by worried bureaucrats attempting end runs around him, or by his most powerful detractors, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, whispering reservations into the president’s ear. But Trump’s daughter and son-in-law have left politics altogether, and Miller used Trump’s term to perfect strategies for disempowering anyone else who dared to challenge him. As for job applicants to work in a second Trump administration, Miller told Axios that being in lockstep with him on immigration issues would be “non-negotiable.” Others need not apply.

    Those who choose to join Trump in this mission to slash immigration would do so knowing that they would face few consequences, if any, for how they go about it: Almost all of the administration officials who pushed aggressively for the most controversial policies of Trump’s term continue to enjoy successful careers.

    The speed of Trump’s work on immigration can obscure its impact in real time. This is why Lucas Guttentag, a law professor at Stanford and Yale and a senior counselor on immigration issues in the Obama and Biden administrations, created a database with his students to log and track the more than 1,000 immigration-policy changes made during Trump’s years in office. Most remain in place. This is worth dwelling on. Trump’s time in office already represents a resurgence of old, disproven ideas about the inherent threat—physical, cultural, and economic—posed by immigrants. And if Trump does return to office, this moment may qualify less as a blip than an era: a period like previous ones when such misconceptions prevailed, and laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act and eugenics-based national-origins quotas ruled the day.

    Returning Trump to the presidency would reopen wounds that have barely healed in the communities he has said he would target immediately. Recently, I stood outside a church in the Northeast that caters mostly to undocumented farmworkers, with a Catholic sister who oversees the parish’s programming. As we stood in the autumn light, I remarked on the picturesque scene around her place of worship and work. She replied by pointing in one direction, then another, then another, at the places where she said ICE agents used to hide out on Sunday mornings during the Trump administration, waiting to capture her congregants as they left Mass to go about their weekly errands at the laundromat and the grocery store.

    Beyond the emotional impact of Trump’s return, the economy could also face a pummeling if the number of immigrant workers, legal and otherwise, were to drop. In a November 2022 speech, Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, detailed the harm from COVID-related dips in immigration, which left the country short an estimated 1 million workers.

    America’s rightward shift on immigration is part of a global story in which Western countries are, in general, turning against immigrants. But the world tends to look to the United States as a guide for what sorts of checks on immigration are socially permissible. A new Trump administration would provide a pretty clear answer: just about any.

    An anything-goes approach to immigration enforcement may indeed be what the country is left with if Trump succeeds in the next general election. “The first 100 days of the Trump administration will be pure bliss,” Stephen Miller told Axios, “followed by another four years of the most hard-hitting action conceivable.”


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “The Specter of Family Separation.”

    [ad_2]

    Caitlin Dickerson

    Source link