I deal with a Japanese company who opened a subsidiary in the US. They brought their "job for life" mentality with them and are slightly flummoxed by the fact that they now have no tools to deal with US employees who do not produce. I see that with Europeans I know as well who make a poor hiring decisions at their peril. Over here when you do not do the job you are sent down the road. Not so much when unions get a toehold, but still for most people in Canada and the US you still need to produce results to keep your job or advance. 

Interesting article from today's WSJ that looks at another angle of this. There are some aspects that are not considered here, but I thought it added another dimension to the discussion nonetheless. It's subscriber-only, so I'm forced to paste the full text.

World News: Europe Is Hiring -- But Workers Aren't Ready

Michaels, Daniel. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]30 Oct 2019: A.9.

 

Barbara Colombo sells complex machinery made at her family's factory to businesses in 126 countries but is still having trouble convincing unemployed young Italians to get skills so they can join the workforce.

Though every third young Italian is jobless, Ms. Colombo's Ficep SpA and other companies in this thriving industrial region near Milan are struggling to fill well-paying factory jobs. The local vocational school, because of low enrollment, had only 80 graduates when nearby companies asked for about 300 last year, she said.

"We don't have enough job candidates with the right skills to fill open jobs," she said. "This gap is a paradox."

Across Europe, job training hasn't kept pace with demand for skilled workers such as software engineers and digital-savvy technicians.

The shortage "is one of the top issues for all our members," said Markus Beyrer, director general of pan-EU trade group BusinessEurope.

European schools that once excelled in vocational training haven't kept up with technological changes because of spending cuts made during the economic crisis a decade ago. Since then, they have lacked political attention, funding and resources to catch up with rapidly changing industries.

Manufacturing giants that once relied on vocational schools for staff have downsized and fewer new companies turn to trade schools when they hire.

Exacerbating the shortage, not enough students are pursuing engineering and technical studies that lead to good jobs in part because many of them fear manufacturing work is doomed, according to studies by McKinsey & Co. and others.

Multinational manufacturers are investing in training and looking around Europe for qualified workers. But small, family-owned companies with fewer resources struggle to stay competitive.

Insufficient labor constricts production in 17% of industrial companies in the European Union, EU data show. While down from 21% late last year -- the highest since the EU began collecting data in 1985 -- that is almost twice the precrisis level.

The squeeze varies by country. In Ireland, a wave of investment by U.S. tech giants including Facebook Inc. and Microsoft Corp. has created huge demand for software engineers. The rush has cut unemployment and helped lift an economy crushed by the financial crisis a decade ago.

These companies have met their demand for engineers by attracting workers from across Europe to Ireland's capital and paying high wages. But the hiring spree has complicated life for local tech startups.

"I can't get enough engineering horsepower for the money I have in Dublin," said Alan Coleman, chief executive officer of Sweepr Technologies Ltd., an Irish startup that improves home Wi-Fi service.

Sweepr looked to Spain, where unemployment is 14%, hiring engineers in Madrid, where each costs about one-third less than in Ireland, said Mr. Coleman.

Italian official unemployment stood at 9.5% in August. Of almost 200,000 job openings expected through 2021 in Italy's most competitive sectors -- including machinery, food and textiles -- employers will struggle to fill roughly one-third because of inadequate education and training, industrial trade group Confindustria predicts.

"In Italy, there are too many students who are studying something not requested by the market," said Luigi Galdabini, owner of machine-tool company Cesare Galdabini SpA in the town of Cardano al Campo. "It's easier to find a lion in the streets here" than to find a qualified mechanic or mechanical engineer to hire, he said.

Ms. Colombo's family got so frustrated by the skills shortage that in 2012 they opened a training academy.

Founded by Ms. Colombo's grandfather in 1930 to produce cutting and punching machines, Ficep shifted to machine tools and then to producing digitally controlled systems that customers use to churn out complex metal parts for buildings, bridges and other structures.

"People have to be flexible in using new tools and software," she said. "Young people have it in their DNA."

But young people aren't interested. "In Italy, there's a prejudice against the manufacturing sector because people think it's dark, dangerous and difficult work," said Ms. Colombo.

I worked for an engineering company that was based in Houston.  The owner/founder  sold the company to a large UK engineering conglomerate that bought engineering companies in order to get market share in industries they could not break into themselves.  The owner/founder stayed on as a consultant.

They changed the way we organized engineering projects, put in a quality assurance dept to audit the projects, got rid of most of the "old hands" that knew how do execute design/build  projects in their sleep,  threw away 20 years of project "go-bys" which resided on shelves in all the hallways(safety reasons) which basically  were used as a reference library,  raised rates to the clients to pay for the quality department and then put profit ahead of quality.   By this time the owner/founder walked out.  He had the office next to mine, he was somewhat of a legend in the business, so when he was leaving, carrying out his last box , he made a remark to me that "enough is enough".   At some point it was decided that they would only execute "large" projects that required teams of 100 or more  even though the company had made its name executing smaller turn-key projects with 10 person teams.   So they basically dropped all the small clients that had kept everyone going for years and only went for projects that potentially would generate fees over $100 million.     Not many of those are ever out there. 

Our UK masters could not understand why clients were dropping us, why clients were complaining about paying extra for quality audits and not getting quality, or why all our bids were 7 to 10% higher than everyone else.    The UK masters didn't understand that our projects were set up so the Project Manager was also the technical guru who knew how to put the end project together or that some engineers had multi-discipline roles because that avoided silos in communication flows.   They created silos that hindered communication.   They treated all the Project Managers like potential thieves who knew nothing about engineering  so we had to justify every dime and go before the monthly review board for any changes to be approved plus were not allowed to solve engineering problems that popped up occasionally.   The UK master's heads were so much up their behinds they though they could make the local industry change to their way of doing business instead of realizing that "when in Rome do as the Romans do".   They had a huge EPIC contract pulled from them by a major operator,, acted like none of the reasons belonged to themselves, and carried on trying to sell jobs as if no one heard of the failure.   I quit when it got to the point that only con artists would talk to us, they assigned me to manage a project that had no pathway to get paid, and I knew from past history that I would be blamed for this even though the local business unit President was the one driving us to execute with no contract. 

Finally the UK masters overplayed their hands and bought another, larger company to get into a new market not realizing that this larger company was liable in a billion dollar lawsuit for a delivery failure.     Within a year  the original  company was in such dire straits the UK master's Board of Directors  fired the president, and all the executives,  and sold the entire mess to another engineering conglomerate for less than 20% of the value of the company they had just purchased.   

z31maniac said:

I know just on my team, the Commerce team, we have Tech Writers in Manilla, California, Canada, OKC, London, and Barcelona. 

The major gripe the US group has is the dramatically lower number of PTO/Holidays that we get here. There is a vast difference between people in different countries, doing the same job, and less time off...........although the US employees are typically paid better as compared to standard of living in the other countries. 

That's an interesting point: yea, American homes are bigger, and we drive bigger cars, and carry more debt, but outside of having a good retirement, good healthcare, and a happy life, what exactly is the standard of living? Why does America need to set that standard, and is the standard of living for someone making $100k in America really that good if they never have a day off? 

This is kinda what I'm getting at. Yea, Europeans might live in older homes, with junky (fun!) roads, and drive smaller cars, but is getting twice or even three times the amount of PTO throughout their ENTIRE CAREER a good trade off? I'd certainly think so. 

pheller said:

z31maniac said:

I know just on my team, the Commerce team, we have Tech Writers in Manilla, California, Canada, OKC, London, and Barcelona. 

The major gripe the US group has is the dramatically lower number of PTO/Holidays that we get here. There is a vast difference between people in different countries, doing the same job, and less time off...........although the US employees are typically paid better as compared to standard of living in the other countries. 

That's an interesting point: yea, American homes are bigger, and we drive bigger cars, and carry more debt, but outside of having a good retirement, good healthcare, and a happy life, what exactly is the standard of living? Why does America need to set that standard, and is the standard of living for someone making $100k in America really that good if they never have a day off? 

This is kinda what I'm getting at. Yea, Europeans might live in older homes, with junky (fun!) roads, and drive smaller cars, but is getting twice or even three times the amount of PTO throughout their ENTIRE CAREER a good trade off? I'd certainly think so. 

Sorry, should have used Cost of Living instead of Standard of Living, because as you mentioned, much of the Standard of Living isn't necessarily how much you take home. Looks like I left of Montevideo from that list as well. For example, I would consider transferring to the Barcelona, Spain, office just to live outside of the country for a bit. They cost of living there is MORE expensive, but if I was approved to move offices I would make LESS money. 

It seems like it would be worth it, but hard to tell without actually getting to experience it.

It's also a good question of if how many really use all that Vacation time, or even want to. I know i'll need to make some us of all my stored time at my company, but I'm one of those people that likes structure and would rather work a little bit each day than not at all. Gets me up in the morning.

I can add more fuel to the fire of personal stories of companies treating employees as a disposable resource- since you can make a paramedic in about a year, all the companies in the Midwest I've worked for have treated them like something to use up and toss out since you'll get more shortly. The one that stands out the most tho, was another medic who became a assistant manager after several years- she was beloved, but after she became "The man" attitude around her changed tho she didn't- until our company began running her ~60 hours each week. I've done that before for several months, and you're barely even human at the end of it all.

America has a HORRIBLE attitude towards leadership and it just feeds off itself now. We hate our middle management, our politicians, our 'leadership' for little more than their position- and then wonder why a new manager will treat them badly? And when one is bad- how do we get rid of them? Companies don't care unless the bottom line is affected or until they become some kind of liability- even if they just dont work they can still have a job, per my own experiences, so long as they fill a seat and drive!

I really hope America takes in that forced "maximum" of CEO pay and partial employee ownership. I seriously think our workforce has to begin choosing some of their own managers to start fixing this problem.

In my opinion the leadership thing comes down to the business philosophy at work, whether the company goal is to provide the best product they can and dominate that way or if the goal is just to maximize profits. From what I've read and seen, the job of a CEO is to grow share prices and that is when things like smaller raises and cuts to the time off policy start happening. In my limited experience as a worker, when profit maximization takes hold, quality goes down and profits follow when your reputation changes. I saw that happen first hand earlier this year.

That's not to say that I think Euro companies are any different, they just operate in different cultures. I think the big difference is the way we handle time off as it relates to quality of life. Live to work vs work to live, like people have already said. Why does the American worker not use their time off when we already get less than a lot of Europeans? Is it our work ethic or have we been trained to be afraid of using it? The more my employer starts to value profit over all, the more I feel like taking time off is risky. For some reason. Societal training, perhaps, just like the taboo of discussing wages?

Absolutely agreed, especially about the 'trained' bit at the end. With the decades of demonizing social help, sick leave or any time off for people I think tons of outrage is false and manufactured to keep people arguing- like how sorting people into generations of "boomers" or "millenials" was made up by a marketing firm, for instance.

Taking PTO definitely has a sort of taboo feeling associated with it. It's like you don't want your higher up(s) to think you're not being of value or providing to the team. Then comes the thought of do they actually need you/your position. 

For wages, I think no one wants to talk about it because they don't want to think they got cheated out of making more money during negotiations. Bright side to this is that Glassdoor is now a thing that's widely used and people willingly post what they make. The hard part is trying to find your exact job title and more than one person who submitted it at that particular company.

FuzzWuzzy said:

Taking PTO definitely has a sort of taboo feeling associated with it. It's like you don't want your higher up(s) to think you're not being of value or providing to the team. Then comes the thought of do they actually need you/your position. 

For wages, I think no one wants to talk about it because they don't want to think they got cheated out of making more money during negotiations. Bright side to this is that Glassdoor is now a thing that's widely used and people willingly post what they make. The hard part is trying to find your exact job title and more than one person who submitted it at that particular company.

That's weird, I'm glad I've never been in a position to be made to feel bad for taking PTO. Hell currently, our bosses give us a few "PTO" day a year that we don't record in the system to up the available days off we have. They do this because of a huge policy change when we taken over. 

Non-management people went from having the same "unlimited PTO policy" as the managers, to being restricted to what I shared earlier. They realized things like that were a big part of the compensation we all agreed to, and they didn't think it was fair to have it taken away either. 

Flip side is after the merger the RSUs I received as a sign-on bonus essentially doubled in value.

I wouldn't say PTO is frowned upon at the few places I've worked that even had it, the problem was if you took a week off work, you spent the next two weeks working overtime to make up for nothing getting done while you were gone.

RevRico said:

I wouldn't say PTO is frowned upon at the few places I've worked that even had it, the problem was if you took a week off work, you spent the next two weeks working overtime to make up for nothing getting done while you were gone.

Unless you work in a small company, there should be somebody that can do your job while you're gone. They may not be able to do it as well, but work shouldn't pile up while you're gone. 

That's not always the reality. For example, LEAN staffing means that they are going to cut until there is one person that can do your job and they aren't going to want you to take any time off. This also plays into the comment above, where people are afraid to take time off in the event that the company sees that things continue to work while you're gone and hand you a pink slip. 

In reply to Brett_Murphy :

Or in some cases "lean staffing" is because we can't find anyone to fill the position.  This is sort of my situation right now, hence why I live in PA and work in NH and the client is paying an extra $200+/day for me to be here.  Having been with the company for close to 19 years, I now get over 4 weeks of PTO and we can only carry over a week (and they don't buy it back from you).  So... we take our vacations.  But when I do go on vacation, pretty much nothing gets done... or at least, nothing that I can do via my phone or my on laptop in the morning before I go out to do vacation stuff... 

RevRico said:

I wouldn't say PTO is frowned upon at the few places I've worked that even had it, the problem was if you took a week off work, you spent the next two weeks working overtime to make up for nothing getting done while you were gone.

IMHO, that's a problem with our system.  Vacation should be relaxing and refreshing to your soul- not a worry that when you get back, you face piles of work to make up for lost time.  All the latter means is that you hate going on vacation, as you dread the return.  That's just insane.

If the work you do is so time sensitive, then someone should be able to make it up while you are gone, otherwise, a week gap in your work should be planned into the over all schedule of the project.

RE: Leadership.

It's not so much that it's bad, it's that it's mostly really, really confusing.  And in many cases, incredibly contradictory.

A good example that is in the news right now is Boeing and the 737Max.  So I'm sure you have heard about the single point failure that then relied on the untrained pilots to deal with the fault.  And the CEO now pledges that it will never happen again.

To me, the REAL question is- how did it happen in the first place?  And this is where the confusing leadership comes in....

Boeing and other aircraft makers have been doing E-controls for many decades now- no physical connection between the pilots and the things they are controlling.  Which means that they have been using redundant systems with safety back ups for multiple decades.  I know this 100% because back in 1993, we were using aircraft standards when we were developing electronic throttle controls for cars.

Which means that Boeing has been operating with procedural systems to actively prevent the single point failures as part of their culture for somewhere around 30 years.

What happened inside the company that those exact procedures were NOT followed?

This has been happening in every single company for a long time- all of the direction comes from some manager at some level that thinks they can skip it, even though you should not.  EXACTLY like the story jharry3 listed- just replace the context.

It's very confusing to people to have robustness and quality always put into your mind, that the procedure should never be skipped, and that quality is job one- only to have someone make a decision opposite to that- which ends up costing a company millions or billions of dollars.

How in the world does that even happen?  How do leaders get taught how to lead so that they think they can skip steps that are required?  Or that they actually know better than experts? 

Another question- when profit margins are really thin- who keeps thinking that you can cut products and still make money?  Especially when it's part of the product that the consumer fully interacts with?  More so when you have a competitor that has actively been adding value to their product so that they make MORE money than everyone else even though their costs are higher.

Yea- leadership is very, very confusing.  Which is why it's constantly being questioned.

alfadriver said:

RevRico said:

I wouldn't say PTO is frowned upon at the few places I've worked that even had it, the problem was if you took a week off work, you spent the next two weeks working overtime to make up for nothing getting done while you were gone.

IMHO, that's a problem with our system.  Vacation should be relaxing and refreshing to your soul- not a worry that when you get back, you face piles of work to make up for lost time.  All the latter means is that you hate going on vacation, as you dread the return.  That's just insane.

If the work you do is so time sensitive, then someone should be able to make it up while you are gone, otherwise, a week gap in your work should be planned into the over all schedule of the project.

I was going to say something similar. But thankfully our projects are over a much longer period of time, compared to previous jobs. IE, we do two releases per year of new features, and those are the main focus. 

In reply to alfadriver :

That's a nice, pretty world you live in...

...in my world, the race car stops (or even slows down) for no one.

And a year later, we still haven't found anyone to do what I do here in NH, no matter how much $ we offer. So the end result is I'm more or less on my own.  A guy who went to school for journalism in charge of the electrical design of a $100M project.

Berk.  I really didn't want to think about it like that... 

In reply to Ian F :

Like I suggested, that's a problem with the systems we have.  Does your employer really want to see you burn out, and then maybe crash out a $100M project?

Someone needs to look into why people are not taking the jobs, as there IS a reason.  Is it like the above story in Italy where there's just nobody to take it?  Or that people have some kind of terrible opinion of your company?  

Ian F said:

In reply to alfadriver :

That's a nice, pretty world you live in...

...in my world, the race car stops (or even slows down) for no one.

And a year later, we still haven't found anyone to do what I do here in NH, no matter how much $ we offer. So the end result is I'm more or less on my own.  A guy who went to school for journalism in charge of the electrical design of a $100M project.

Berk.  I really didn't want to think about it like that... 

Sounds like you're worth at least 2x what they're paying you. 

In reply to alfadriver :

No, but the problem is everyone else in my dept is more or less in the same boat.  We have suspicions as to why we can't hire anyone local up here, but the issue is also across all offices all over the country.  And other companies. Very few engineering students go to school to do what I do and between burn-out and retiring baby boomers, there is definitely a lack of people available.  Some of it might be us - at least in NH - since most people know the client we work for and know how tough they can be - re: upgrading an Indy Car during the middle of a race analogy I made earlier.

Some background: Lost my job in July and started at a new company this week.  Manager position in both.  First company I had a staff of around 100 (globally) and this company I have 6 (but will probably get another 5 more).  Both had "unlimited" PTO (which basically is a finance move to keep vacation off the books), but I badger my team to make sure an take it.  Benefits at the new company (which is about 10% the size of the old) are about 5X better in both cost and perks.  Free lunch from GrubHub on Monday's and Wednesdays', catered on Friday's.  Drinks (including beer and wine) in the breakroom, snacks, gaming tables (pool, ping pong, etc) and hammocks for naps.  However, we're a hosting company, so there will be multiple late night/weekend sessions in my future.  Oh, and I got a pay raise to boot. 

I probably won't convey this correctly, but I'll try:

I think the difference between US and European business is based on age.  The US is still VERY young in it's history.  If you think of it from the business aspect, they're still the scrappy startup competing with the big corps and as a result, the push is to be faster, better, cheaper and work crazy hours to get it done.  I think the US model is very much in the DNA of the country.  Then, think about how the US is the largest (and has been for quite a while) economy in the world and how much of that is based on the way we treat workers and business.  It's a constant strive to be the best and biggest, and workers suffer.  I think it will be a very long time, like hundreds of years, before we see a change.  And, that's only if we're willing to not be the best.

Other countries get more vacation, free healthcare, etc, but at what cost?  I had teams in India and while I know their cost of living was much less, I also know they had much less.  Things like cars, homes, clothes, appliances, more than two pair of shoes, were totally beyond they're means.  I'm not saying that having those things make us better/happier, but it's a datapoint to consider.  My same job in another country (NOT as an ex-pat) would be anywhere from 20% to 95% less than what I make here.  With more taken out for taxes, healthcare and a relative cost of living higher for what I have in the US I'm not sure that more vacation is appealing enough to consider it. 

Would I like more paid vacation, summer breaks and strict 40-hour work weeks?  Absolutely.  But, if I can be more successful working longer hours and taking less vacation, I know I'd probably end up doing that. 

And, I think that's what drives the entire US business.  Work harder, longer, faster, to become the best. 

-Rob

rob_lewis said:

And, I think that's what drives the entire US business.  Work harder, longer, faster, to become the best. 

-Rob

But here's the question- to what end?  What does that actually gain you?  You may get more money- sure.  But is that the only goal?

edit- and if you are working for someone else- is that harder, longer, faster, to be the best benefiting you or your owners more?

I'm not saying that one should not try to be the best- I'm more asking about what are you going to be when you are the best.

Ian F said:

In reply to alfadriver :

No, but the problem is everyone else in my dept is more or less in the same boat.  We have suspicions as to why we can't hire anyone local up here, but the issue is also across all offices all over the country.  And other companies. Very few engineering students go to school to do what I do and between burn-out and retiring baby boomers, there is definitely a lack of people available.  Some of it might be us - at least in NH - since most people know the client we work for and know how tough they can be - re: upgrading an Indy Car during the middle of a race analogy I made earlier.

I've seen companies go out of business when they could not get employees.  As I see it, either your company will go out of business, or they have to actually address the issue- whatever it is.

Ian F said:

Or in some cases "lean staffing" is because we can't find anyone to fill the position.  

- If you can't find anybody to fill the position, you're not offering enough!
- They found somebody to fill the position: YOU!
- Wraaa, skills gap, lazy Millenials, grrr
- warrgarble... bork, bork, bork


Ahem... sorry about that. I don't know what came over me. Finding skilled individuals that want to relocate to smaller markets is always tough. 

alfadriver said:

rob_lewis said:

And, I think that's what drives the entire US business.  Work harder, longer, faster, to become the best. 

-Rob

But here's the question- to what end?  What does that actually gain you?  You may get more money- sure.  But is that the only goal?

edit- and if you are working for someone else- is that harder, longer, faster, to be the best benefiting you or your owners more?

I'm not saying that one should not try to be the best- I'm more asking about what are you going to be when you are the best.

Totally get your point of to what end.  I wasn't trying to say that it's great, just saying I think it's the underlying drive in the US and why I think we're where we are. 

On one hand, it gains you more stuff, but at the same time, constantly working won't let you enjoy that stuff. The old "he who dies with the most toys wins" attitude.

-Rob