Jon Stewart makes a good point, but doesn't take it far enough.

[agamemnus]

On Wednesday (24th of October), Jon Stewart devoted 2/3rds of the show to talking about how employers--especially government officials-- are ignoring veterans' job applications because they don't have the right certifications, even though they have more than enough experience necessary. He gave an example of two former military field medics who could not get jobs as EMTs/nurses/etc. because they didn't have the two-year certification necessary.

He blamed part of it on the Republicans for blocking a bill that would have established an agency to remedy that (or something like that) and help veterans get jobs, at a cost of 1 billion dollars.

Here's a link to the day's show on Comedy Central:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...2-dakota-meyer

I posit that it is not just a problem with government, but with society. Many people who do the hiring no longer understand anything but certifications, numbers, and checkboxes (how many years have you worked? Are you currently employed? Do you have a degree in exactly what we are hiring for?). I strongly believe that it's a societal problem for the US and many other countries, for whatever reasons.

I also believe this inability or unwillingness to process candidates for a job in terms of their overall experience is the main reason for the economic woes of our country -- in economic terms, it is an inefficient allocation of resources to place unqualified people who can produce exactly the right stats and numbers in jobs rather than qualified people who can't.

[Loki]

I think the problem has to do with the HR folks doing much of the pre-interview screening. They know little to nothing about the jobs for which they're screening candidates, and the easiest way for them to do their job is to emphasize objective measures, such as having certificate x, college degree in/from y/z, etc. So people who have a cookie-cutter resume get the interview, while people who don't do not. Once you get past the HR round of interviews, I think talent/hard-work/fit become easier to demonstrate.

[agamemnus]

I thought about this for a long time, Loki. Questions came up, such as "why is this system perpetuated?" The inevitable answer I came up with, which I have been saying before here, is that big corporations where this usually practice takes place in (and it seeps into other businesses, too), don't care because they're making money anyway. This, in turn, was/is caused by a completely messed up business financing system in the country*, with banks unwilling to lend to small businesses who could and do do it differently (due to monetary policy), AS WELL AS oligopolies in many industries (including finance, in many spots). Until big companies start to really hurt due to these practices, things won't change.

*: Take Zynga. Bajillions of dollars invested into one company that simply wastes the money, when this money could have been invested into thousands of smaller companies instead that are much more frugal and would have employed multiple times more people, collectively, than Zynga. (which just canned their entire Boston office) But I digress...

[Loki]

There's probably a minimal difference between having a mediocre entry-level worker and an above average one.

[agamemnus]

There's probably a minimal difference between having a mediocre entry-level worker and an above average one.

Hrm, but the above-average one who doesn't get the job won't progress to realize their "corporate potential", and neither will the mediocre one. Also, see: Rand's horror stories.

[Lewkowski]

Isn't Jon Stewart a comedian?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Isn't Jon Stewart a comedian?

Textbook example of an ad hominem.

[Lewkowski]

Textbook example of an ad hominem.

Adam Sandler makes a good point but doesn't go far enough.

Jim Carry makes a good point but doesn't go far enough.

Some random bum on the street makes a good point but doesn't go far enough.

Those are all equivalent. I'm all for arguing about the idea instead of the person making the argument however the only reason this was posted was because it was Jon Stewart. The total pussy who mocks political commentators but then when someone attacks him for being a hypocrite he hides behind being a comedian. He can be taken seriously as a political commentator only if he's willing to have an honest debate. The difference between him and someone like Bill Maher is that Bill Maher doesn't hide.

[agamemnus]

The difference between him and someone like Bill Maher is that Bill Maher doesn't hide.

I respectfully disagree. Bill Maher is a borderline-conspiracy freak and has an exceedingly foul mouth.

[RandBlade]

Adam Sandler makes a good point but doesn't go far enough.

Jim Carry makes a good point but doesn't go far enough.

Some random bum on the street makes a good point but doesn't go far enough.

Those are all equivalent. I'm all for arguing about the idea instead of the person making the argument however the only reason this was posted was because it was Jon Stewart. The total pussy who mocks political commentators but then when someone attacks him for being a hypocrite he hides behind being a comedian. He can be taken seriously as a political commentator only if he's willing to have an honest debate. The difference between him and someone like Bill Maher is that Bill Maher doesn't hide.

There are plenty of comedians who make excellent political points independent of being a comedian. Roman Atkinson (aka the Blackadder, Mr Bean, Jonny English etc) is one example here.

[Asmodian]

I like Jon Stewart but I actually disagree with this point as I do not think military skills necessarily translate well in to real world. Military driver does not necessarily have the same qualifications as a truck driver, given that a military driver operates under a different set of rules and priorities then a truck driver, probably rarely has to deal with intense traffic situations. A military paramedic also has different set of rules and priorities from a civilian doctor, unlearning certain habits acquired during military service is a disadvantage for vets.

[Lewkowski]

There are plenty of comedians who make excellent political points independent of being a comedian. Roman Atkinson (aka the Blackadder, Mr Bean, Jonny English etc) is one example here.

The issue with Jon Stewart is that when he gets into a political argument that he is losing he cowers behind the fact that he's a comedian.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The issue with Jon Stewart is that when he gets into a political argument that he is losing he cowers behind the fact that he's a comedian.

No he doesn't. He uses it when he criticizes your beloved Fair and Balanced network, and they reply with: "you're not Fair and Balanced either!". If one believes that Jon Stewart needs to be Fair and Balanced in order to criticize a News Network claiming to be is ridiculous.

And you just don't like JS, because he always has a field day with Fox News.

edit: He explains it quite clearly on Wallace's show. But also puts in the disclaimer: you will never understand this. And I fear this is true for you as well.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/100704624...x-news-sunday/

[Flixy]

Isn't Jon Stewart a comedian?

Well yes, but if you consider comedy an art, like music, film.. Even though they are artists they can still make good points. Just as musicians can make good points in songs, but it are still songs!

[Aimless]

Isn't Jon Stewart a comedian?

Aren't you?

[Lebanese Dragon]

I agree with you it's not the best strategy, but it's understandable. This qualification requirement is an excercise in quality control, and risk aversion. The Big Wigs don't like their other employees making judgement calls. So they just have a candidate must have (X, Y, Z) to make sure the people getting hired won't mess everything up, while they may not be the greatest either.

Think if you had this huge empire, and you trust your own judgment but not the judgment of others (to know what to look for). you might just say, only hire people with these qualification, beyond that you can choose among them. It's a risk control metric (you'll have some level of quality garauntee), and it's a lack of faith in the judgment of your managers that do you hiring at whatever local job site. It's like how Walmart managers must have a 4 year degree. Dude, it's Walmart that is unnecessary.

Isn't Jon Stewart a comedian?

George Carlin's a comedian doesn't mean he can't make good points.

[RandBlade]

The situation is perpetuated because it WORKS.

There are many applicants for each job (and many applications made by each applicant). HR people don't have the time to interview everyone so they get a criteria to sieve through. These are frequently publicly listed anyway. This saves time and leaves better suited individuals left.

Applying for a job you lack publicly required qualifications for frankly shows a lack of reading comprehension/organisation that is a negative in itself.

I've learnt the hard way many times that when you've determined standards, you stick to them. If someone makes an exceptional effort to get noticed then I'd always take a second look, but sending in a CV without even a covering letter is not exceptional.

[Nessus]

Applying for a job you lack publicly required qualifications for frankly shows a lack of reading comprehension/organisation that is a negative in itself.

In the first segment on the topic on Jon's show they had mock interviews with the two veterans where they weren't qualified on paper but had years of relevant experience. Criticism was then levied on Pentagon/US leadership for creating a situation where the veterans aren't getting those publicly required qualifications, despite creating the image that veterans would be a desired asset in the work place post-service. And the general senselessness of it all, and nightmarish bureaucracy for getting even the weaker certifications the military does provide. The point isn't that dumb, shell-shocked veterans are applying, unqualified, to jobs left and right willy-nilly, but that given that they do receive training and experience, often under fairly extreme conditions compared to the civilian work place (let alone the ivory tower elitist school sit-downs that are required for the publicly required qualifications right now), maybe they could be awarded similar if not same qualification documentation, and that maybe HR could look a little harder too.

A grateful nation sends its thanks!

[Loki]

Many businesses treat "veteran" as an affirmative action category, you know (including academia).

[RandBlade]

I agree that the government (as the soldiers employer) should do more to get them recognised qualifications. But the concern so far in the OP and others was against employers. Well I'm sorry but employers (and HR) are just acting sensibly.

I've hired unqualified vets before who'd served in Iraq/Afghanistan as I thought it was the right thing to do, not because of selfish reasons. Sadly regretted it each time. I'm not mocking vets and have a lot of time for them - If I spoke to one in the future if I was recruiting then I'd take a look again - but the solution isn't for employers to unilaterally drop their standards.

[Aimless]

I've hired unqualified vets before who'd served in Iraq/Afghanistan as I thought it was the right thing to do, not because of selfish reasons. Sadly regretted it each time. I'm not mocking vets and have a lot of time for them - If I spoke to one in the future if I was recruiting then I'd take a look again - but the solution isn't for employers to unilaterally drop their standards.

How can you call them unqualified, they have extensive real life experience with killing people while under great and potentially lethal stress. Surely their people skills should count for something in whatever business it is you do.

[Nessus]

Well, if you watch the episode, you can evaluate for yourself. Obviously I'm allergic to different things than you are, but it was a sensible enough bit IMO.

[RandBlade]

Well, if you watch the episode, you can evaluate for yourself. Obviously I'm allergic to different things than you are, but it was a sensible enough bit IMO.

Most online links to the Daily Show are blocked in the UK due to copyright unfortunately.

[RandBlade]

I'm not in the industry of getting people killed

[Aimless]

I'm not in the industry of getting people killed

Well you'd say that wouldn't you

Afaict the issue in the OP is about vets having trouble getting civilian jobs related to their wartime duties. You refer to "unqualified" vets, but do you simply mean vets without formal civilian qualifications in your business or do you actually mean vets who've had no exposure to your type of work during their military service?

[RandBlade]

Both.

[EyeKhan]

On Wednesday (24th of October), Jon Stewart devoted 2/3rds of the show to talking about how employers--especially government officials-- are ignoring veterans' job applications because they don't have the right certifications, even though they have more than enough experience necessary. He gave an example of two former military field medics who could not get jobs as EMTs/nurses/etc. because they didn't have the two-year certification necessary.

He blamed part of it on the Republicans for blocking a bill that would have established an agency to remedy that (or something like that) and help veterans get jobs, at a cost of 1 billion dollars.

Here's a link to the day's show on Comedy Central:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...2-dakota-meyer

I posit that it is not just a problem with government, but with society. Many people who do the hiring no longer understand anything but certifications, numbers, and checkboxes (how many years have you worked? Are you currently employed? Do you have a degree in exactly what we are hiring for?). I strongly believe that it's a societal problem for the US and many other countries, for whatever reasons.

I also believe this inability or unwillingness to process candidates for a job in terms of their overall experience is the main reason for the economic woes of our country -- in economic terms, it is an inefficient allocation of resources to place unqualified people who can produce exactly the right stats and numbers in jobs rather than qualified people who can't.

Beuacratic rules like these chiefly serve to give decision makers the means to easily say "no." I see it in my company all the time - a "no" to one person is based on "the rules" a boss can't do anything about while some time later another person quietly gets whatever benefit the rules denied the first. The yea/nay decision is all based on personal relationships. I think veterans are not getting hired because the public generally regards them as scary unknowns. A newly certified EMT is a mostly known quantity, not just in skill base but in the freaky factor. A combat vet is a trained killer, has seen and done things you only encounter on TV or video games, likely has some level of PTSD and may be dangerously crazy. No employer wants to deal with that, so they use the 'rules' to say no.

[Nessus]

Lewk is just mad because Jon said mean things about Sean and Rush

[Nessus]

If Lewk wants to be king of Bullshit Mountain, I honestly can't say I have a problem with that

[Flixy]

I like Jon Stewart but I actually disagree with this point as I do not think military skills necessarily translate well in to real world. Military driver does not necessarily have the same qualifications as a truck driver, given that a military driver operates under a different set of rules and priorities then a truck driver, probably rarely has to deal with intense traffic situations. A military paramedic also has different set of rules and priorities from a civilian doctor, unlearning certain habits acquired during military service is a disadvantage for vets.

Yeah those were my thoughts, someone who has experience as a doctor in the battlefield will probably require new training to become, say, a school doctor.