Thomas:
Today in the Ottawa Citizen Career Section was an article lamenting the fact
the older programmers are having an increasingly difficult time getting
hired as Companies find it better to hire younger/cheaper and perhaps help
that has just learned the latest language. My brother and I were discussing
a book review he had read about using the Internet to search for jobs and
how, even though you may be posting many resumes a week to job postings most
of them never even get a reply. Having at one time worked in a private
agency, I know how daunting it is to have an employers job order and sit
down and try and review 20 or 30 resumes. After awhile, you begin to not
look for positives, but use negatives of the most minute kind as an excuse
to eliminate a resume. Finally, when you are down to 2 or three, the ardous
process of contacting, interviewing and deciding whether you want to try and
"sell" this applicant to an employer has to be made.
The Internet probably makes this process even worse. I can imagine coming
into the Human Resource office on any given morning and having several
hundred resumes in my E Mail. The sheer volume prevents any kind of fair
assessment or comparison process to take place. I'm sure different people
employ different strategies, the first one that fits, the one that has the
highest education, the one that worked for the biggest name brand, the
youngest one, the one with a degree from a good school, or throwing up your
hands in dispair and asking someone in the office if they know someone who
can do the job and by pass all the resumes.
Personally, when I worked in Calgary for a year at this agency, I was
fortunate to place three to four professional people a month for a variety
of reasons. Some had to do with applicants who found other jobs by the time
I got to them, some was with personnel officer who changed specs mid stream,
or who were using multiple agencies, most had to do with time, it takes time
to read a resume, phone a person, have an interview. And then of course,
there was the other side in which I had to contact a company, arrange an
interview, follow it up from the employees assessment and from the Companies
assessment and then I often had to act as the broker to help the match
along. Finally, a placement and a commission. By the way, I didn't make
very much money.
It seems to me, that the so called private sector with it's vaunted
efficiency has not found solutions to the complex hiring process and it has
become expensive, time consuming and probably still has a pretty low success
rate. Anyone have any experiences or know of any solutions, I and millions
of job seekers and needy employers would like to hear them.
The following article makes some of these points and also points out that
the pace of change has made it even more complex.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
[***Moderator's note: Members may recall that in August 1998, we posted
a summary of the ICT-JOBS Working Group discussion, which EDC and ILO
hosted in May-July 1998, and which had over 700 members. The article
below is another excellent summary of the ICT-JOBS discussion, with a
somewhat different emphasis.***]
Philippine Journal
October 9, 1998
Second opinion
ICT: job creator or destroyer?
by Roberto S. Verzola
Are information and communications technologies (ICTs) a net creator or
destroyer of jobs?
This was the topic which more than a dozen scholars, consultants and
union officials debated in an online conference sponsored by the
International Labor Organization (ILO) from May to July this year.
It is both
As can be expected, the discussants all acknowledged that ICT was both a
creator and a destroyer of jobs. That machines and computers are taking
over work previously done by human beings was something nobody denied.
All agreed that ICT was destroying some types of jobs. But all likewise
acknowledged that ICT introduced new ways of doing things, creating in
the process new types of work which did not exist before.
Despite very strong opinions expressed by both sides, however, they
could not agree which role dominated.
A job creator
Some discussants asserted that ICTs create new goods and services as
well as new market opportunities and income sources. Thus, they
stimulate general economic activity, which translates into more jobs.
The new ICTs, they said, are no different in their effects from the
industrial revolution, which enhanced our productivity and improved our
living standards. Historical records since the 19th century, they added,
showed that productivity, output and jobs have all risen together.
Today, the argument goes, ICTs help businesses save money, which these
businesses then invest elsewhere, creating new jobs. There is even a
shortage of skilled ICT workers.
... and a job destroyer
Other discussants claimed that ICTs are selective in their positive
impact, and that they lead to unemployment elsewhere. When bosses
introduce machines and computers, some workers invariably get fired. In
many workplaces today, machines and computers are taking the place of
human beings, who are then left to fend off for themselves. A 1994 study
by the Communications Workers of America, for instance, showed net job
losses due to ICT over a 10-year period.
Not even statistics, however, could settle the issue. As one participant
noted, the available studies today are confined mostly to Northern
countries and a few Asian and Latin American NICs. The present data are
too ambiguous for a definite conclusion, and one can find data to
support either position. It is also difficult to capture in statistics
the effects of ICTs on the informal economy which in many countries, is
a big part of the whole economy.
Some insights emerged in the discussions which can help us better
understand the impacts of ICT on labor.
Work-at-a-distance, manage-at-a-distance
ICTs facilitate work-at-a-distance. This could led to the increasing use
of teleworking, to which many workers react ambivalently.
It is true that teleworking provides new opportunies for women in the
home, for instance, or entrepreneurs in remote villages. But teleworking
also breaks up labor cohesiveness and weakens unions; furthermore, it
tends to exclude the teleworker from traditional social security and
other job benefits.
ICTs also provide management with new options in designing work
processes and the workplace. They can ask their workers to work at home,
or they can gather previously decentralized functions like
decision-making and put them all in one central unit, decentralizing
some functions and centralizing others, in whatever mix they find most
advantageous to the company.
Jobs: from large to small firms
ICT has also made the virtual firm possible, an enterprise that
outsources much of its requirements and relies on ICT to hold the
organization together. Much has been made of the advantages of the
virtual firm -- flexibility, efficiency, and competitiveness.
Outsourcing also tends to transfer jobs from large companies -- which
become virtual firms -- to smaller companies. What is a dream to
corporations is a nightmare to labor unions; small firms are more
difficult to unionize and tend to violate labor laws more often. One
effect of outsourcing is labor contractualization.
Who decides?
The key, it seems, lies in the decision-making that leads to ICT use.
Invariably, it is management which decides when to introduce and when
not to introduce ICT into the workplace. Thus, the criteria for ICT use
will be management criteria, not labor criteria.
>From the management point of view, machines and computers are very often
preferable to human labor. Machines don't form unions; they don't go on
strike. Machines can be upsized, downsized, rightsized or whatever-sized
anytime; they can be run faster or slower, longer or shorter. Machine
outputs are more consistent and reliable, resulting in better quality
and lower cost.
Whatever is profitable
Where it remains more profitable to use human labor instead of machines,
management will obviously stick to human labor. They can relocate where
human labor is cheap and maintain control through ICT and
telemanagement. The logic of profitability, however, will continue to
reassert itself; as soon as it becomes profitable to do so, management
will eventually switch to machines.
It is true that machines and computers may require new skills, and
therefore create new jobs (computer operator, technician, Web page
designer, Webmaster, Java programmer, etc). However, this job creation
is an incidental part, while job elimination is the intentional part of
the logic.
New jobs need new skills, are less secure
Also, the jobs destroyed are actual people with real families, while the
jobs created are potential jobs. To qualify for these new potential
jobs, job-seekers have to go through a long and often expensive process
of retraining.
Furthermore, the same logic will also apply on the new jobs that ICTs
create -- these jobs will also be replaced (by automated software,
expert systems, "disintermediation", etc.) when it becomes profitable to
do so.
As the pace of technology development increases, the pace of job
elimination and replacement also speeds up. Even those who might have
the skills to acquire new jobs are under constant threat of replacement
or displacement. (Can Pascal or Dbase programmers still find jobs next
year as easily as last year?)
While the net quantitative effects of ICTs are still being debated,
their qualitative effects are clear: they have made human labor more
replaceable and jobs less secure.
[***Moderator's note: Members may recall that in August 1998, we posted
a summary of the ICT-JOBS Working Group discussion, which EDC and ILO
hosted in May-July 1998, and which had over 700 members. The article
below is another excellent summary of the ICT-JOBS discussion, with a
somewhat different emphasis.***]
Philippine Journal
October 9, 1998
Second opinion
ICT: job creator or destroyer?
by Roberto S. Verzola
Are information and communications technologies (ICTs) a net creator or
destroyer of jobs?
This was the topic which more than a dozen scholars, consultants and
union officials debated in an online conference sponsored by the
International Labor Organization (ILO) from May to July this year.
It is both
As can be expected, the discussants all acknowledged that ICT was both a
creator and a destroyer of jobs. That machines and computers are taking
over work previously done by human beings was something nobody denied.
All agreed that ICT was destroying some types of jobs. But all likewise
acknowledged that ICT introduced new ways of doing things, creating in
the process new types of work which did not exist before.
Despite very strong opinions expressed by both sides, however, they
could not agree which role dominated.
A job creator
Some discussants asserted that ICTs create new goods and services as
well as new market opportunities and income sources. Thus, they
stimulate general economic activity, which translates into more jobs.
The new ICTs, they said, are no different in their effects from the
industrial revolution, which enhanced our productivity and improved our
living standards. Historical records since the 19th century, they added,
showed that productivity, output and jobs have all risen together.
Today, the argument goes, ICTs help businesses save money, which these
businesses then invest elsewhere, creating new jobs. There is even a
shortage of skilled ICT workers.
... and a job destroyer
Other discussants claimed that ICTs are selective in their positive
impact, and that they lead to unemployment elsewhere. When bosses
introduce machines and computers, some workers invariably get fired. In
many workplaces today, machines and computers are taking the place of
human beings, who are then left to fend off for themselves. A 1994 study
by the Communications Workers of America, for instance, showed net job
losses due to ICT over a 10-year period.
Not even statistics, however, could settle the issue. As one participant
noted, the available studies today are confined mostly to Northern
countries and a few Asian and Latin American NICs. The present data are
too ambiguous for a definite conclusion, and one can find data to
support either position. It is also difficult to capture in statistics
the effects of ICTs on the informal economy which in many countries, is
a big part of the whole economy.
Some insights emerged in the discussions which can help us better
understand the impacts of ICT on labor.
Work-at-a-distance, manage-at-a-distance
ICTs facilitate work-at-a-distance. This could led to the increasing use
of teleworking, to which many workers react ambivalently.
It is true that teleworking provides new opportunies for women in the
home, for instance, or entrepreneurs in remote villages. But teleworking
also breaks up labor cohesiveness and weakens unions; furthermore, it
tends to exclude the teleworker from traditional social security and
other job benefits.
ICTs also provide management with new options in designing work
processes and the workplace. They can ask their workers to work at home,
or they can gather previously decentralized functions like
decision-making and put them all in one central unit, decentralizing
some functions and centralizing others, in whatever mix they find most
advantageous to the company.
Jobs: from large to small firms
ICT has also made the virtual firm possible, an enterprise that
outsources much of its requirements and relies on ICT to hold the
organization together. Much has been made of the advantages of the
virtual firm -- flexibility, efficiency, and competitiveness.
Outsourcing also tends to transfer jobs from large companies -- which
become virtual firms -- to smaller companies. What is a dream to
corporations is a nightmare to labor unions; small firms are more
difficult to unionize and tend to violate labor laws more often. One
effect of outsourcing is labor contractualization.
Who decides?
The key, it seems, lies in the decision-making that leads to ICT use.
Invariably, it is management which decides when to introduce and when
not to introduce ICT into the workplace. Thus, the criteria for ICT use
will be management criteria, not labor criteria.
>From the management point of view, machines and computers are very often
preferable to human labor. Machines don't form unions; they don't go on
strike. Machines can be upsized, downsized, rightsized or whatever-sized
anytime; they can be run faster or slower, longer or shorter. Machine
outputs are more consistent and reliable, resulting in better quality
and lower cost.
Whatever is profitable
Where it remains more profitable to use human labor instead of machines,
management will obviously stick to human labor. They can relocate where
human labor is cheap and maintain control through ICT and
telemanagement. The logic of profitability, however, will continue to
reassert itself; as soon as it becomes profitable to do so, management
will eventually switch to machines.
It is true that machines and computers may require new skills, and
therefore create new jobs (computer operator, technician, Web page
designer, Webmaster, Java programmer, etc). However, this job creation
is an incidental part, while job elimination is the intentional part of
the logic.
New jobs need new skills, are less secure
Also, the jobs destroyed are actual people with real families, while the
jobs created are potential jobs. To qualify for these new potential
jobs, job-seekers have to go through a long and often expensive process
of retraining.
[***Moderator's note: Members may recall that in August 1998, we posted
a summary of the ICT-JOBS Working Group discussion, which EDC and ILO
hosted in May-July 1998, and which had over 700 members. The article
below is another excellent summary of the ICT-JOBS discussion, with a
somewhat different emphasis.***]
Philippine Journal
October 9, 1998
Second opinion
ICT: job creator or destroyer?
by Roberto S. Verzola
Are information and communications technologies (ICTs) a net creator or
destroyer of jobs?
This was the topic which more than a dozen scholars, consultants and
union officials debated in an online conference sponsored by the
International Labor Organization (ILO) from May to July this year.
It is both
As can be expected, the discussants all acknowledged that ICT was both a
creator and a destroyer of jobs. That machines and computers are taking
over work previously done by human beings was something nobody denied.
All agreed that ICT was destroying some types of jobs. But all likewise
acknowledged that ICT introduced new ways of doing things, creating in
the process new types of work which did not exist before.
Despite very strong opinions expressed by both sides, however, they
could not agree which role dominated.
A job creator
Some discussants asserted that ICTs create new goods and services as
well as new market opportunities and income sources. Thus, they
stimulate general economic activity, which translates into more jobs.
The new ICTs, they said, are no different in their effects from the
industrial revolution, which enhanced our productivity and improved our
living standards. Historical records since the 19th century, they added,
showed that productivity, output and jobs have all risen together.
Today, the argument goes, ICTs help businesses save money, which these
businesses then invest elsewhere, creating new jobs. There is even a
shortage of skilled ICT workers.
... and a job destroyer
Other discussants claimed that ICTs are selective in their positive
impact, and that they lead to unemployment elsewhere. When bosses
introduce machines and computers, some workers invariably get fired. In
many workplaces today, machines and computers are taking the place of
human beings, who are then left to fend off for themselves. A 1994 study
by the Communications Workers of America, for instance, showed net job
losses due to ICT over a 10-year period.
Not even statistics, however, could settle the issue. As one participant
noted, the available studies today are confined mostly to Northern
countries and a few Asian and Latin American NICs. The present data are
too ambiguous for a definite conclusion, and one can find data to
support either position. It is also difficult to capture in statistics
the effects of ICTs on the informal economy which in many countries, is
a big part of the whole economy.
Some insights emerged in the discussions which can help us better
understand the impacts of ICT on labor.
Work-at-a-distance, manage-at-a-distance
ICTs facilitate work-at-a-distance. This could led to the increasing use
of teleworking, to which many workers react ambivalently.
It is true that teleworking provides new opportunies for women in the
home, for instance, or entrepreneurs in remote villages. But teleworking
also breaks up labor cohesiveness and weakens unions; furthermore, it
tends to exclude the teleworker from traditional social security and
other job benefits.
ICTs also provide management with new options in designing work
processes and the workplace. They can ask their workers to work at home,
or they can gather previously decentralized functions like
decision-making and put them all in one central unit, decentralizing
some functions and centralizing others, in whatever mix they find most
advantageous to the company.
Jobs: from large to small firms
ICT has also made the virtual firm possible, an enterprise that
outsources much of its requirements and relies on ICT to hold the
organization together. Much has been made of the advantages of the
virtual firm -- flexibility, efficiency, and competitiveness.
Outsourcing also tends to transfer jobs from large companies -- which
become virtual firms -- to smaller companies. What is a dream to
corporations is a nightmare to labor unions; small firms are more
difficult to unionize and tend to violate labor laws more often. One
effect of outsourcing is labor contractualization.
Who decides?
The key, it seems, lies in the decision-making that leads to ICT use.
Invariably, it is management which decides when to introduce and when
not to introduce ICT into the workplace. Thus, the criteria for ICT use
will be management criteria, not labor criteria.
>From the management point of view, machines and computers are very often
preferable to human labor. Machines don't form unions; they don't go on
strike. Machines can be upsized, downsized, rightsized or whatever-sized
anytime; they can be run faster or slower, longer or shorter. Machine
outputs are more consistent and reliable, resulting in better quality
and lower cost.
Whatever is profitable
Where it remains more profitable to use human labor instead of machines,
management will obviously stick to human labor. They can relocate where
human labor is cheap and maintain control through ICT and
telemanagement. The logic of profitability, however, will continue to
reassert itself; as soon as it becomes profitable to do so, management
will eventually switch to machines.
It is true that machines and computers may require new skills, and
therefore create new jobs (computer operator, technician, Web page
designer, Webmaster, Java programmer, etc). However, this job creation
is an incidental part, while job elimination is the intentional part of
the logic.
New jobs need new skills, are less secure
Also, the jobs destroyed are actual people with real families, while the
jobs created are potential jobs. To qualify for these new potential
jobs, job-seekers have to go through a long and often expensive process
of retraining.
Furthermore, the same logic will also apply on the new jobs that ICTs
create -- these jobs will also be replaced (by automated software,
expert systems, "disintermediation", etc.) when it becomes profitable to
do so.
As the pace of technology development increases, the pace of job
elimination and replacement also speeds up. Even those who might have
the skills to acquire new jobs are under constant threat of replacement
or displacement. (Can Pascal or Dbase programmers still find jobs next
year as easily as last year?)
While the net quantitative effects of ICTs are still being debated,
their qualitative effects are clear: they have made human labor more
replaceable and jobs less secure.
Furthermore, the same logic will also apply on the new jobs that ICTs
create -- these jobs will also be replaced (by automated software,
expert systems, "disintermediation", etc.) when it becomes profitable to
do so.
As the pace of technology development increases, the pace of job
elimination and replacement also speeds up. Even those who might have
the skills to acquire new jobs are under constant threat of replacement
or displacement. (Can Pascal or Dbase programmers still find jobs next
year as easily as last year?)
While the net quantitative effects of ICTs are still being debated,
their qualitative effects are clear: they have made human labor more
replaceable and jobs less secure.
----------
>From: Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [GKD] ICT and Jobs
>Date: Thu, Jul 8, 1999, 8:34 PM
>
>
> [***Moderator's note: Members may recall that in August 1998, we posted
> a summary of the ICT-JOBS Working Group discussion, which EDC and ILO
> hosted in May-July 1998, and which had over 700 members. The article
> below is another excellent summary of the ICT-JOBS discussion, with a
> somewhat different emphasis.***]
>
>
> Philippine Journal
> October 9, 1998
> Second opinion
>
> ICT: job creator or destroyer?
> by Roberto S. Verzola
>
>
> Are information and communications technologies (ICTs) a net creator or
> destroyer of jobs?
>
> This was the topic which more than a dozen scholars, consultants and
> union officials debated in an online conference sponsored by the
> International Labor Organization (ILO) from May to July this year.
>
> It is both
>
> As can be expected, the discussants all acknowledged that ICT was both a
> creator and a destroyer of jobs. That machines and computers are taking
> over work previously done by human beings was something nobody denied.
> All agreed that ICT was destroying some types of jobs. But all likewise
> acknowledged that ICT introduced new ways of doing things, creating in
> the process new types of work which did not exist before.
>
> Despite very strong opinions expressed by both sides, however, they
> could not agree which role dominated.
>
> A job creator
>
> Some discussants asserted that ICTs create new goods and services as
> well as new market opportunities and income sources. Thus, they
> stimulate general economic activity, which translates into more jobs.
> The new ICTs, they said, are no different in their effects from the
> industrial revolution, which enhanced our productivity and improved our
> living standards. Historical records since the 19th century, they added,
> showed that productivity, output and jobs have all risen together.
> Today, the argument goes, ICTs help businesses save money, which these
> businesses then invest elsewhere, creating new jobs. There is even a
> shortage of skilled ICT workers.
>
> ... and a job destroyer
>
> Other discussants claimed that ICTs are selective in their positive
> impact, and that they lead to unemployment elsewhere. When bosses
> introduce machines and computers, some workers invariably get fired. In
> many workplaces today, machines and computers are taking the place of
> human beings, who are then left to fend off for themselves. A 1994 study
> by the Communications Workers of America, for instance, showed net job
> losses due to ICT over a 10-year period.
>
> Not even statistics, however, could settle the issue. As one participant
> noted, the available studies today are confined mostly to Northern
> countries and a few Asian and Latin American NICs. The present data are
> too ambiguous for a definite conclusion, and one can find data to
> support either position. It is also difficult to capture in statistics
> the effects of ICTs on the informal economy which in many countries, is
> a big part of the whole economy.
>
> Some insights emerged in the discussions which can help us better
> understand the impacts of ICT on labor.
>
> Work-at-a-distance, manage-at-a-distance
>
> ICTs facilitate work-at-a-distance. This could led to the increasing use
> of teleworking, to which many workers react ambivalently.
>
> It is true that teleworking provides new opportunies for women in the
> home, for instance, or entrepreneurs in remote villages. But teleworking
> also breaks up labor cohesiveness and weakens unions; furthermore, it
> tends to exclude the teleworker from traditional social security and
> other job benefits.
>
> ICTs also provide management with new options in designing work
> processes and the workplace. They can ask their workers to work at home,
> or they can gather previously decentralized functions like
> decision-making and put them all in one central unit, decentralizing
> some functions and centralizing others, in whatever mix they find most
> advantageous to the company.
>
> Jobs: from large to small firms
>
> ICT has also made the virtual firm possible, an enterprise that
> outsources much of its requirements and relies on ICT to hold the
> organization together. Much has been made of the advantages of the
> virtual firm -- flexibility, efficiency, and competitiveness.
>
> Outsourcing also tends to transfer jobs from large companies -- which
> become virtual firms -- to smaller companies. What is a dream to
> corporations is a nightmare to labor unions; small firms are more
> difficult to unionize and tend to violate labor laws more often. One
> effect of outsourcing is labor contractualization.
>
> Who decides?
>
> The key, it seems, lies in the decision-making that leads to ICT use.
> Invariably, it is management which decides when to introduce and when
> not to introduce ICT into the workplace. Thus, the criteria for ICT use
> will be management criteria, not labor criteria.
>
>>From the management point of view, machines and computers are very often
> preferable to human labor. Machines don't form unions; they don't go on
> strike. Machines can be upsized, downsized, rightsized or whatever-sized
> anytime; they can be run faster or slower, longer or shorter. Machine
> outputs are more consistent and reliable, resulting in better quality
> and lower cost.
>
> Whatever is profitable
>
> Where it remains more profitable to use human labor instead of machines,
> management will obviously stick to human labor. They can relocate where
> human labor is cheap and maintain control through ICT and
> telemanagement. The logic of profitability, however, will continue to
> reassert itself; as soon as it becomes profitable to do so, management
> will eventually switch to machines.
>
> It is true that machines and computers may require new skills, and
> therefore create new jobs (computer operator, technician, Web page
> designer, Webmaster, Java programmer, etc). However, this job creation
> is an incidental part, while job elimination is the intentional part of
> the logic.
>
> New jobs need new skills, are less secure
>
> Also, the jobs destroyed are actual people with real families, while the
> jobs created are potential jobs. To qualify for these new potential
> jobs, job-seekers have to go through a long and often expensive process
> of retraining.
>
> Furthermore, the same logic will also apply on the new jobs that ICTs
> create -- these jobs will also be replaced (by automated software,
> expert systems, "disintermediation", etc.) when it becomes profitable to
> do so.
>
> As the pace of technology development increases, the pace of job
> elimination and replacement also speeds up. Even those who might have
> the skills to acquire new jobs are under constant threat of replacement
> or displacement. (Can Pascal or Dbase programmers still find jobs next
> year as easily as last year?)
>
> While the net quantitative effects of ICTs are still being debated,
> their qualitative effects are clear: they have made human labor more
> replaceable and jobs less secure.
>
>
>
>
