What IT Needs
-
Wow, and to be "certified" by that group they charge up to $350 per year!! That's a racket. If anything, certification needs to be free or very low cost from an organization that we need. It shouldn't be about gouging workers like unions do or trying to make only the affluent really able to consider the field. IT has always been open to those who are smart and willing, that's part of what makes IT great. It isn't like medical where there is a massive cost involved and only those with existing wealth, an incredible willingness to take on crippling debt or those lucky enough to qualify for sponsorship of some sort qualify. It should be open to everyone that knows the material - we shouldn't care about their age or income when showing that they can do the work.
-
You need licensing and bonding - even your plumber is licensed. Until we have that, wages in IT are going to be depressed. In SMB IT you probably make less than a plumber.
-
@Nic said:
You need licensing and bonding - even your plumber is licensed. Until we have that, wages in IT are going to be depressed. In SMB IT you probably make less than a plumber.
Bonding only makes sense for plumbers if they are "consultants" in IT terms. Plumbers don't really exist in great quantity "in house." Those that are full time employees working solely on their own employer's plumbing would not be bonded. That's an MSP type thing. Sadly bonding is pretty much impossible for IT because the bonding agencies can't handle it.
Licensing is tough because you need a licensing agency but IT isn't like other licensed professions and you would not likely want to pay top dollars to the ones that are licensed. Licensing might be good for entry level but at the cost of the rest of the field.
-
Yeah, you wouldn't need bonding for in-house IT. But I still think licensing is needed to keep people who don't know what they are doing out of the profession. Even your hair dresser is licensed.
-
All of this seems like a real longshot for SMB. They just care about getting the cheapest guy in the door. Like Scott mentioned in another thread, there are plenty of people who will work System Admin jobs for $14 an hour. Its really hard to fix that when SMB can employ a System Admin for $12-16 an hour.
-
@Nic said:
Even your hair dresser is licensed.
Yes, they are. But is there any field like IT that has licensing? Something that is business oriented and is creative, not structured?
Account, Legal and Medical are licensed for safety or legal reasons.
Hairdressers because it is a super low end field that is consumer facing.
I could see GeekSquad needing to be licensed because it is a consumer, non-business service. But I could see that as being a means of making Microsoft a legal requirement because it is the only thing that consumer people are allowed to support because that is what they are licensed for.
Because IT is so "product" oriented, it is very hard to license without making a single vendor or group of vendors a government mandate.
-
@IRJ said:
All of this seems like a real longshot for SMB. They just care about getting the cheapest guy in the door. Like Scott mentioned in another thread, there are plenty of people who will work System Admin jobs for $14 an hour. Its really hard to fix that when SMB can employ a System Admin for $12-16 an hour.
I think that the goal is to keep people from working at $16/hr.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
All of this seems like a real longshot for SMB. They just care about getting the cheapest guy in the door. Like Scott mentioned in another thread, there are plenty of people who will work System Admin jobs for $14 an hour. Its really hard to fix that when SMB can employ a System Admin for $12-16 an hour.
I think that the goal is to keep people from working at $16/hr.
SMB doesn't care about credentials if they see experience.
-
@IRJ said:
SMB doesn't care about credentials if they see experience.
It's the professionals that we have to change, not the companies. We need to remove the availability of workers at $16/hr, not make companies not try to hire them.
That's the real problem, why are SO MANY IT people willing to work at such a low wage when there are so many jobs available out there.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Wow, and to be "certified" by that group they charge up to $350 per year!! That's a racket. If anything, certification needs to be free or very low cost from an organization that we need. It shouldn't be about gouging workers like unions do or trying to make only the affluent really able to consider the field. IT has always been open to those who are smart and willing, that's part of what makes IT great. It isn't like medical where there is a massive cost involved and only those with existing wealth, an incredible willingness to take on crippling debt or those lucky enough to qualify for sponsorship of some sort qualify. It should be open to everyone that knows the material - we shouldn't care about their age or income when showing that they can do the work.
Agreed 100% - while this isn't a small undertaking it should never be funded by those you want to build it for. I was chewing on this (funding) lastnight and I think it can be done easily without a penny from those who it is designed for.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I think that the goal is to keep people from working at $16/hr.
Maybe we can phrase that as fair wages for the skill level involved, numbers just cloud things
-
@IRJ said:
SMB doesn't care about credentials if they see experience.
SMB cares (or should care) more than any other segment. They're the ones who can least afford to hire a bumpkin
-
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
-
@MattSpeller said:
Agreed 100% - while this isn't a small undertaking it should never be funded by those you want to build it for. I was chewing on this (funding) lastnight and I think it can be done easily without a penny from those who it is designed for.
You could get vendors to sponsor, of course, but that has risks. Look at CompTIA and their "neutral" exams sometimes being used as Microsoft advertising platforms. You can refuse to be like that, but it is risky.
Although having big vendors, like Microsoft, Google and Oracle, involved allows for very important input from the companies with the money to do the research.
Getting revenue from the people who hire IT would be best, but they are the ones who care the least.
-
@Nic said:
I think IT needs to be licensed for safety reasons, given all the security breaches and releases of data that happen lately.
I don't think certifying IT would do that. Maybe certifying a department, but because individuals are not often responsible for these things I am not sure how that process would work. That would be a little like certifying a mechanic so that someone doesn't drive too fast. The reality is, the owner of the car is at fault for 99.99% of accidents. The mechanic is rarely the one at fault.
Since IT does not get final decision making power over what they do, having IT licensed does not appear to solve the problem unless you make them like doctors or lawyers where they are allowed to over step the CEO and cannot be fired for doing so.
-
@MattSpeller said:
SMB cares (or should care) more than any other segment. They're the ones who can least afford to hire a bumpkin
True, but that hasn't stopped them up until now. SMB that cares already hires well. SMB that doesn't care, doesn't care.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@IRJ said:
SMB doesn't care about credentials if they see experience.
SMB cares (or should care) more than any other segment. They're the ones who can least afford to hire a bumpkin
How many SMB bumpkins do we see on SW?
haha
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Really?
You should see the applicants SMB gets, many are outright terrifying.
