Overemphasis on Clients' Responsibility for Finding Work
Forum topic related to:
Problem: Too much emphasis is placed on the idea that the client is totally responsible for finding work.
Manifestation of Problem - The emphasis is subtle but to me obvious.
1. There are limited resources for ACTUAL PLACEMENT of people into jobs that pay a wage or salary that is sufficient to meet their basic expenses
2. A quick look at the schedule of events/programs will show a lot of training and workshops that could prepare someone to be able to find work.
3. The sheer number of resources that are suggested by these agencies is overwhelming. The number of websites, newspapers, books, etc is incredible. Just Google “job search tools” and see what I mean.
4. While job placement services are advertised on agency websites. I personally have not experienced any actual placement help from these agencies
I'm not sure how your second
I'm not sure how your second and third points are part of the problem. Isn't it good that there are a lot of resources? I gather that you are highlighting how much more of this kind of "help" there is than the more direct placement help you want, but it seems like the real problem (from your point of view) is the lack of placement, not the prevalence of training and other resources.
Do you have a proposed solution to this problem? I look forward to seeing it!
"Training" Does Not Lead to Employment
I have no problem with the fact that there are lots of 'training" programs. My problems are:
1. These programs do not lead to placement in a real job.
2. Many of these "training" programs are scams run by BOTH for-profit and non-profit organizations. Some of the scam involves getting federal grants and student loans. If poor people get student loans for essentially useless training programs; at least two things happen. The poor person is saddled for years with student loan payments and they are left discouraged and angry.
3. There is no accountability for the "training" programs to show how many people are served and how many people actually get living-wage jobs as a result.
I have a very personal example of this phenonenon. While living in Tucson, AZ I took training through the local federally funded One Stop Career Center in medical billing and coding. The government paid for my training and paid for all of my books. When I moved to Seattle, which has tons of hospitals and clinics I attempted unsuccessfully to find work in this field. I ended up giving the books to the local library and giving up on this career path.
I believe that there is joint responsibility. The client needs to be ready able and motivated to find work and the agency needs to get them placed in a living wage job. Otherwise what we have is a nice way for corporations (for-profit and non-profit) to make money at the expense of poor and unemployed people.
It's a good piece
I have a few questions that would make it clearer for me.
In relation to your first point: are training programs supposed to ensure employment, or that any individual will be kept on the job? Isn't all that within the province of the employer?
In relation to your second point: All training programs can do it prepare you to try to find a job. It's only a scam, I think, if they promise or try to guarantee more than that. The rest is the client's responsibility. Unions try to force it, but I think that's a mistake, and they don't always succeed anyway.
In relation to your third point: I agree. Training programs should be required to supply information about how many of the people they have helped have gotten living wage jobs -- in the field they trained them in or somehow prepared them to get -- and also how many they haven't helped. After all, there are things they can't train for -- like personal motivation, for example.
Are the agencies you are talking about actual placement agencies, or just training programs? Even if they are placement agencies, I don't see how they could possibly guarantee the any specific client will succeed at getting a job.
How can any agency, for-profit or non-profit, exert any influence on whether you are hired for jobs that you apply for or not, and whether employers keep you after you are hired? Employment agencies don't seem to have the capability to place you in a job. All they can do is tell you one exists, and help you get an interview. The rest is up to the employer.
Employer connection
Mintza's questions highlight and amplify what I was asking about your solution post (http://www.activistsolutions.org/node/91#comment-29). Namely, the kind of system you imagine would seem to involve a closer relationship between employers and agencies. As I understand it, these agencies right now are primarily involved with the job seeker, and their programs are largely oriented toward preparing that person to be a better competitor in the job market. Actually intervening in the job market would seem a whole different enterprise. Much like an online dating service that didn't just post your profile and try to help you find possible partners to contact, but actually made the dates for you (and maybe went along with you to make sure the date went okay). I introduce this analogy not to make your idea seem preposterous, but just to demonstrate where you need to do more explaining. I'm sure that there are dating services that go further than just showing you profiles and letting you do the rest. The whole dating process was more or less taken care of by one's elders in year's past (and is still in many parts of the world), but that kind of intervention would not be welcome to many moderns. What choices does the job seeker have, in your scenario? Do they have to take the job that they are placed in? How many times can they say "no" before they are booted? And if they can keep saying "no," how could it be workable?