How do you know they have technical ability? Exam results have been proven to be an exceptionally poor demonstrator of this.
Entitlement what can we do about it.
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
How do you know they have technical ability? Exam results have been proven to be an exceptionally poor demonstrator of this.
Exams are often a memory test. I initially look for any side projects they have done, practical projects at university and other interesting things I find in their CV. It doesn’t take long to find out if they really know what they are talking about. Then they will get a few technical questions to test the way they think and solve problems.
It's incredible to me that this person is forcing themselves to ignore nuance to keep their position going. And thank you for making the point so concisely.
Last edited:
Is someone not allowed to set the rate in which they sell their product (their time)? If a job is not paying the minimum they will accept they are not forced to take it, just like an employer is not forced to employ someone for more then they are willing to pay. One person is going to be without a job or otherwise a company is going to be left with a vacant position or someone who is worth less doing the job. Capitalism works both ways. An employer is not entitled to the best candidate if they are only willing to pay for lower field candidates.
Last edited:
A few technical questions? Have you tested those questions en masse to see how they are generally responded to?
I cannot see how a few questions can give a broad demonstration of someone's ability.
They can set it, doesn't mean someone has to pay it.
You are missing the point. The technical questions are the trees. I’m looking to see how they think, the wood.
Uh huh. Yet your comment was you're interested in their technical ability.
Not their thinking process.
Again culture is also something that can only come to the fore with time.
Precisely the reason we've just removed our HSE manager. His cultural fit was terrible.
Last edited:
I hope you can get the point I’m making. The technical ability is the way they think. They should be able to work through any problem even if they have never seen it before, for the area I work in this is frequent. Textbooks haven’t been written for this stuff yet.
I'm interested to find out why you hold so strongly to the belief that young people are entitled.
What do you pay graduates in your team? What is the job?
So again, how do you get that from a test of a very limited number of questions? If the interview process you're espousing is so good, why do you require such regular review periods of 12 weeks? And why do these applicants believe that what you're paying is the minimum they are worth when again, they have no demonstrated talent, ability or bring experience.
I have multiple roles that work for me. Graduate engineers typically start on 25k. We have no shortage of applicants.
Loads of engineering companies hold assessment days to try and gauge technical ability among other things.
It works very well for me.
The 12 week thing is actually because we send the graduates around different teams for 8-12 week rotations. This gives them the practical experience of a wide range of things and also they get to pick a team to work in at the end (if they are successful). The managers of each team will review them.
Which is what we do. But it gives a very limited snapshot. Which is why you recruit them on a low salary until they can demonstrate competence and pay them more as a result.
I started in an engineering graduate role 10 years ago on 25k, guaranteed to 30k at the end of the graduate scheme (1 year). The next intake (9 years ago) of grads were given 30k, guaranteed to 32k after the first year. A year or two after that it was 30k to 35k guaranteed. Not sure how much it is now.
25k sounds too low, I certainly wouldn't be happy starting on that now (but would do if I had no other options of course).
Edit: Just to add that most of the graduates that eventually leave after few years of service, go to companies that pay a lot more or just change sectors, so pay is a problem engineering wise, which is why we have had issues recruiting UK personnel in the past.
Last edited:
And there you go, you're displaying a sense of entitlement! You immediately believe you're worth more. Prove that you're worth more and you'll get it. Don't come in expecting it based on nothing.
We pay them a lot more if they demonstrate competence and ability in the job. The money keeps coming as long as they keep doing it. I think we get stuck in the UK with experienced people that are no longer motivated or who have got trapped with glass ceilings then creating these for more junior people. It’s no wonder many industries are in dire straights.
So why pay them so much in the first place? You'd get applicants of good technical ability for any amount really. Make it clear the rewards are there if they can prove themselves and you're not spaffing money in the wind when they turn out to be dross after a couple of months.
Your mistake here is assuming you (or whomever you are referring to), is supplying greater productivity. Greater productivity than who/what?
The job market is simple supply and demand, and unless you are an expert with extensive experience in a niche field, the reality is that the labour you are supplying is a commodity service - i.e. anyone could provide it.
Your work is only worth the market value, so, while you may feel entitled to more, if there is an excess of supply, then you aren't getting it - why would an employer choose to pay you £x + 10% for the job, when the next 10 people who applied for it will do exactly the same thing for £x? You aren't entitled to a job (or to being paid more for that job) if you aren't willing to make yourself worth more.
Exactly. Just because I could list my 12 year old car on Ebay for £100k, doesn't mean I'm entitled to have someone buy it
Last edited: