Career Tips

When employers get too specific


I am seeing this often.  I used to be a Lab Analyst for Groundwater, WasteWater, Soils Analysis, and reclaimed water.

I saw this position and kind of perked up, but I saw this requirement that made me think (would they really disqualify me if I applied anyways? Am I "close enough"?

Prior experience doing Lab Technician work with concrete products.

This is just an example, however, wouldn' t me having "Lab Experience" in general be good enough?

I would go on interviews like this, where they would ask me a question.

"We see you have experience here on your resume doing ..such and such...however...
do you have any experience analyzing food products?"

And I would say, "Well, no, but I' m willing to learn." Even though they already saw I do have over 2 years experience in analyzing things OTHER than food product or concrete (as I stated above).

Then they kind of make a face and say, "Weeeeelllll....we' re looking for someone has had experience with food products."

Personally, I don' t see how hard it is to learn something a little different from what I HAVE done.

Or "We see you have experience in groundwater sampling, however, we' re looking for someone with experience with SURFACE water sampling" Some lame excuse like that.

I read up on surface water sampling, and it' s not as involved as groundwater sampling, not much to it.

Don' t you think they are getting a little TOO specific or picky?

There is just no pleasing candidates.

Sure you can learn. So can I, given enough time. The employer probably has a lot of people who can learn. But they don' t have time to get you, me or them up to speed. They want someone who already knows what they are doing.

And maybe...just MAYBE...they are reading your whole resume and aren' t as enthusiastic about your experience as you are. Maybe they' ve tried to teach people with similar experience before and weren' t successful. Maybe they know where you worked, and your former employer' s processes, and aren' t impressed. Maybe they have good reasons but you just don' t want to hear it.

Frankly, it' s their right to get "specific" and "picky". They are not only going to pay your salary, but dole out money on your benefits, match your SSA tax, and give you a lot of things besides a job. Maybe you need equipment or certification or something that they need to pay for. You are going to cost them a lot of money. They have a right to hold out for a certain level of experience.

You can be disappointed you don' t make the cut, but ####.


Difference between me and him, I don' t insult people here.  And also, alot of people in these forums mostly agree with me or at least meet me halfway on some issues.

"Maybe they' ve tried to teach people with similar experience before and weren' t successful."

Then perhaps this business needs to start hiring people with the communications skills that it takes to transfer knowledge via training to co-workers.

"Frankly, it' s their right to get "specific" and "picky". They are not only going to pay your salary, but dole out money on your benefits, match your SSA tax, and give you a lot of things besides a job. Maybe you need equipment or certification or something that they need to pay for. You are going to cost them a lot of money. They have a right to hold out for a certain level of experience."

They also have an obligation to look out for the best interest of their owners. That means if they can hire someone who provides an extra $10,000/yr in profit, they need to spend $5000 once to get that person "up to speed."

And where do these companies get all this money to ' pay your salary, dole out money on your benefits, match your SSA tax", etc..? Perhaps it comes from investors, and the people you appear to think should act like any business that hires them is a knight in shining armor saving them from destitution.

You think this guy is going to cost them a whole lot of money? How much money do you think people that have no concept in investing in employees cost? Employees produce and collect paychecks the entire time they are employed, not just the first couple of months.

If only you didn' t think in such black and white terms, we could have a real discussion. Employers spend, on average, an additional 55 to 60% of your salary on benefits. That does not include the matching taxes, cost of getting you up to speed, training costs and other things I mentioned in my earlier post.  So they are going to look for what they think is best, and then if they are wrong they can take the heat with their investors. But you can be certain their investors aren' t thinking any differently.

Maybe if you owned a business, or worked for yourself, you' d know what goes on during the staffing process. As for me, I am tired of reading the the same c*** every time someone posts here. I won' t be back because no one wants to hear anything except "You are absolutely right, and Corporate America is wrong! Especially HR! It' s ALL THEIR FAULT!"

Good luck to you all. Based on some of the drivel I' ve read - including that laughable blog.

"Good luck to you all. Based on some of the drivel I've read - includingthat laughable blog of MonsterReader's - you are going to need it."

Well, if it isn't HR then it's the company that HR works for.  Of course, I had recruiters that were pretty Johnny on the spot with their turn-around in their responses....others....well....*crickets chriping*. lol.
Employers have gotten spoiled  during previous times of massiveunemployment.  They are also cheap, and don't want to trainanybody.  They look for people who can just move into a positionas if they had always been there, and run.

This is massively stupid in my view, but they, as the employer, continue to do this.

I worked in corporate IT, leading large business applicationdevelopment projects that used, for example, a certain softwareset  referred to as Peoplesoft.  Peoplesoft applications areupdated from time to time by the vendor, and these updates come as'releases' or 'versions'.  So there is Version 8.3, then maybeVersion 8.5, and so on.  Usually each new release or version makesa few significant changes, and perhaps many minor ones, but the overallapplication is virtually unchanged, and the actual work with thesereleases or versions is the same.  But you have most employers whowant Peoplesoft analysts and programmers looking for people withVersion 8.5 experience, for example.  If you have 4 years ofexperience with Version 8.3, they will tell you that you areunqualified and they don't want to talk to you, even though the realityis that someone with almost any PeopleSoft experience could do the workwithout much problem.  But the employers just won't consider it.

Now, companies that have been using applications like Peoplesoft forsome time go through these upgrades every couple of years or so. So they have been running & working with Version 8.3 for threeyears, let's say, then they decide to make the upgrade to Version8.5.  Given the logic they use in hiring people from outside inwhich they only will take people who already have Version 8.5experience, you would think that they should fire their entire currentstaff because they don't have Version 8.5 experience either and aretherfore unqualified to work with it--they've been working with 8.3 forthe past 3 or 4 years.  Of course this doesn't happen.  Thisreflects the disposable nature of technical knowledge & experience,most of which is concocted by companies who don't want to train anyoneany longer.  This is part of how an entire generation of softwarepeople have been discarded by American corporations, mostly BabyBoomers.

This kind of thing in tech jobs, by the way, is used as a justificationby companies like Microsoft and a host of others to push the expansionof the H1B immigrant visa program.  Guys like Bill Gates go beforea Congressional committee whining about the 'fact' that Microsoft can'tget enough people from India into this country to work for Microsoftbecause there are not enough workers here who have the necessaryskills.  Gates, of course, is lying through his teeth, as heargued that, to him, immigrant workers from India have done more forthis country than all the American workers every have.  What hedidn't mention before this Congressional committee is that Microsoft isinvesting billions of dollars in India and will likely hire more peoplein India than it will in the U.S.  All this while Gates blamesAmerican workers for being unskilled, lazy, and expensive.  Theguy should be ridden out of the country on a rail.


Very very good post.

We are selling our country out to Indians (I have to add for I have been to college with a couple of them, some are pretty intelligent)

At any rate, ever saw that show "30-days" (from the director of SuperSize Me?)  Well he did this documentary on how this guy who trained indians for his position and he then later got fired from that position, lol

So what does he do? He takes a plan to India, and gets a job at a call center there, for 30 days.

Anyhow, yeah, that' s why I gave up on getting a job in IT (or kind of looking or just not enthusiastic about it)

"What, you don' t have experience in Excel 2003, but you have experience with Excel 2000?....sorry,  we' re looking for someone with Excel 2003 experience." ANd some of these people are wizzes in excel.

I have NT 4.0 Certification  but nothing higher than that, I attempted to go for Windows 2000 Cert, but I figured (hold on a second, I bet they' ll come out with Windows 2003 certifications) And sure enough..boom. lol

Of course I think NT 4.0 to Win 2000 was a major change though, with all the Directory Tree and Leaves format.  Of course those are operating systems, not applications/software versions.

But , the employers are REALLY splitting hairs with what you described.

So whats' their problem, they can' t say, Well, you have People soft 8.3  and ...heck that' s good enough , YOUR HIRED!"

To be honest, you know what I would do?   I would actually look at the job desc, and if it required 8.5 exp....and you have a good 8.3 experience, I would seriously fudge on your resume SAYING you have 8.5 experience.

1. You could probably get away with it, because with your previous knowledge of the software, you could "wing-it" very easily .  I mean, how hard could it be, right??

2. Chances are, depending on the company, they might not even be USING the 8.5 "new" stuff or very rarely use it.  Peoplesoft is , after all still Peoplesoft.

This "flavor of the month" mentality is ludicrous.  You can' t win.  Good posts from both of you.

What does all that have to do with concrete testing?  Or ground water?

Hey, is it OK to make concrete with ground water?  How about waste water?  Is waste water the same thing as doody water? 

I have a shallow well for my lawn sprinklers, I think they call that reclaimed water.  Does that mean that I' m watering my grass with doody water?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Career Tips

  1. Interview Tips
  2. Resume Tips
  3. Salary Tips
  4. Career Change Tips
  5. Job Search Tips
  6. Career Tips

© Rights Reserved. Career, Resume, Interiview Tips | Partners | Sitemap