In Rochester Business Journal today, Kathleen Driscoll's column discusses the factors an employer should weigh when considering the hiring of someone who, on paper, appears overqualified for the job. On the one hand, the employer gets an employee who requires little if any training and who can contribute from the moment he or she walks in the door. On the other hand, what really motivates someone to take a job that is clearly beneath a previous pay-grade? Would your job be simply a temporary gig, a stepping stone between two bigger jobs? Will the potential employee be willing to stay for the long-haul?
Driscoll interviews a consultant who offers a common-sense suggestion: hire the supposedly overqualified person on contract for a certain period of time and see how it goes. These days so many people are freelancers, hired guns who bring expertise to particular projects on an ad hoc basis. Companies often put new employees on some kind of 3 to 6 month trial period. The only difference is that this time you won't have to pay for their health insurance. Employers shouldn't let the long-term picture obscure the near-term need. It may be safer to go with the younger, less-qualified candidate in hopes of "grooming" them for the future, but you may also lose the expertise the more-experienced candidate brings to the table from the get-go.
Often established employees feel threatened by a new hire whose resume seems way too impressive for the job he or she is hired. A contract situation allows everyone to get used to the idea.
As a stay-at-home-mom for 6-years, I've been applying for jobs I would not have considered prior to leaving my last job. But I'm looking for a way back into the workforce, with different priorities than I would have had a decade ago. I want to work in a creative, flexible environment with fun people in a place where accomplishment is rewarded. I want a livable salary and benefits. What I offer a potential employer is professional experience in a high-pressure environment and a willingness to work as hard and as long as it takes to make the endeavor a success.
I'm one of those over-qualified people. Give me a try!
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Why isn't anyone talking about the gun?
I've watched the continuing coverage of the horrible shooting rampage in that grocery store parking lot in Tucson. Certainly the shooter is a nut; a crazed psycho who is now getting satisfaction out of knowing the entire world is reading his idiocy on the web. We all mourn the loss of a beautiful, curious 9-year-old... ironically born on another violent day. We've learned a lot about the 5 other victims, too, whose lives were ended by this moron-- all normal people doing normal things on a sunny, warm Saturday morning.
But why aren't we talking about the gun? The Glock? The handgun that shoots dozens of bullets in a matter of seconds? The shooter bought his weopon from a "sportsmen's store" just after Thanksgiving. Did anyone ask him what he wanted it for? Clearly this is not a gun you buy to hunt deer or bear or any other kind of animal. This is a gun that is meant only to hurt people-- whether for "protection" or for attack.
Here's a young guy who has already had run-ins with law enforcement of some type. He was dissed by the military because he failed his drug test. Campus police at his community college (I didn't know community colleges needed campus police!) knew who he was. Why was he able to purchase a Glock and not have to jump through even a single hoop to do so?
It used to be that if you really disagreed with someone or they really pissed you off, you might actually be angry enough to punch them in the nose. It actually takes more courage to do that-- be close enough to punch someone. It's a lot easier to show up with a gun and pull the trigger. You never even have to touch the human you're about to harm.
Just yesterday, someone with a gun walked into a Life is Good store here in my quaint little village of Pittsford and demanded cash. We pass that store in our car several times a day... we shop there. It's one of my kids' favorite stores. My daughter and her friends could easily have been in that store on a Sunday afternoon shopping for a birthday present. And the masked guy with the gun, in a split second, could have ended their lives just because.
Why don't we ever talk about the gun?
But why aren't we talking about the gun? The Glock? The handgun that shoots dozens of bullets in a matter of seconds? The shooter bought his weopon from a "sportsmen's store" just after Thanksgiving. Did anyone ask him what he wanted it for? Clearly this is not a gun you buy to hunt deer or bear or any other kind of animal. This is a gun that is meant only to hurt people-- whether for "protection" or for attack.
Here's a young guy who has already had run-ins with law enforcement of some type. He was dissed by the military because he failed his drug test. Campus police at his community college (I didn't know community colleges needed campus police!) knew who he was. Why was he able to purchase a Glock and not have to jump through even a single hoop to do so?
It used to be that if you really disagreed with someone or they really pissed you off, you might actually be angry enough to punch them in the nose. It actually takes more courage to do that-- be close enough to punch someone. It's a lot easier to show up with a gun and pull the trigger. You never even have to touch the human you're about to harm.
Just yesterday, someone with a gun walked into a Life is Good store here in my quaint little village of Pittsford and demanded cash. We pass that store in our car several times a day... we shop there. It's one of my kids' favorite stores. My daughter and her friends could easily have been in that store on a Sunday afternoon shopping for a birthday present. And the masked guy with the gun, in a split second, could have ended their lives just because.
Why don't we ever talk about the gun?
Monday, January 3, 2011
A New Year
I greeted 2K11 (as I've so trendily taken to calling this new year) with a sense of optimism. Apparently so has much of the rest of the country.
We spent our little hearts out on Christmas presents for our loved ones, pent-up demand egging us and our debit cards (we have learned SOME lessons) on in a spirit of giving... And, to think we were helping the economy at the same time? Oh, joy!
(Oops, my New Year's resolution to be less sarcastic and judgmental just bit the big one.)
I was in the New York area for a few days last week. There it really did seem as though the recession was over. Bonuses were back and people were party-ing-- and spending-- like it was 2007. Wall Street ended its year with the strongest December in recent memory, and housing prices nudged upward again.
Yet, here in Rochester (as in much of "fly-over land"), a job with decent pay is still very hard to come by. The jobs that are around tend pay less than the ones that were lost, or are temporary. They are jobs without benefits at the same time that health insurance rates jump by double-digit percentage points.
Will our nation's spirit of optimism be enough to reach beyond Wall Street or the leafy avenues of the New York suburbs?
Maybe optimism is a personal choice, rather than an economic indicator. It's just too depressing to stay pessimistic all the time. And, frankly, it's downright un-American. If we focus too much on the fact that Wall Street is doing more than fine while the perverbial Main Street continues to suffer, it will all be too much to bear. So I am choosing to be optimistc. So, there.
We spent our little hearts out on Christmas presents for our loved ones, pent-up demand egging us and our debit cards (we have learned SOME lessons) on in a spirit of giving... And, to think we were helping the economy at the same time? Oh, joy!
(Oops, my New Year's resolution to be less sarcastic and judgmental just bit the big one.)
I was in the New York area for a few days last week. There it really did seem as though the recession was over. Bonuses were back and people were party-ing-- and spending-- like it was 2007. Wall Street ended its year with the strongest December in recent memory, and housing prices nudged upward again.
Yet, here in Rochester (as in much of "fly-over land"), a job with decent pay is still very hard to come by. The jobs that are around tend pay less than the ones that were lost, or are temporary. They are jobs without benefits at the same time that health insurance rates jump by double-digit percentage points.
Will our nation's spirit of optimism be enough to reach beyond Wall Street or the leafy avenues of the New York suburbs?
Maybe optimism is a personal choice, rather than an economic indicator. It's just too depressing to stay pessimistic all the time. And, frankly, it's downright un-American. If we focus too much on the fact that Wall Street is doing more than fine while the perverbial Main Street continues to suffer, it will all be too much to bear. So I am choosing to be optimistc. So, there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)