On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 13:56:49 GMT, pamela wrote:

On 13:26 17 Nov 2017, alan_m wrote:

On 17/11/2017 12:21, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

I have brought many new graduates into the computing industry.
Back when I started doing this in the 1980's, it took about 2
years before they started paying back - until that point they
are consuming more management/training resources than they
contribute back in work. So unless they stay for probably 4-5
years, they were only a drain on the company. This was within a
large UK company (GEC).


But back then the GEC/Marconi way was to de-skill the graduates
first by giving them completely menial tasks and then at the end
of the second year re-train then in the inefficient corporate
ways.

Sounds like joining a religious cult! Your old values are wiped
out and then new ones installed.

These days you may find that with certain ways of recruitment to
weed out the dross before employment, sponsored formal training
and giving work experience in holiday periods before full time
employment gets you well motivated graduates that give
productive output in a very short time. Long gone are the days
when an engineering graduate will have (or want) the same job
for life or even possibly stay with their first company for more
than a couple of years.

Companies have partly brought that upon themselves by mass firings
of loyal workers who, rightly or worngly can no longer rely onthe
company rtaining them through thick and thin.

Even with more highly paid skilled jobs poor management will
give you an inefficient work force.

When I worked for GEC in the early 1990s failed engineers became
managers who were then promoted to a level of incompetence.

I've seen that too many times: promote someone out of the way so
they don't mess things up any more.

Same here. Often the people who were good at their job were kept
there and not promoted. Therefore there was a kind on incentive to be
bad at the job.

--
If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong?