Re: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances

[eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com]

"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- editors-writers -dot- info> wrote on 08/13/2003
02:15:22 PM:

> It is unfair to expect people to have what they cannot get
> on their own. If
> jobs are being advertised on the Internet, that tells me
> that the "normal*
> ways that companies have of filling these jobs is not
> getting results and that
> the companies are resorting to using the "outside." If
> they are going outside
> the normal word-of-mouth, referral type scenario, they
> should open the jobs to
> the general public and not a special class of people.

Bonnie, I realise that you really want to find work and are undoubtedly
getting frustrated with the rejections. That's the reason you vented on
TECHWR-L. Respondents in this thread should take that into consideration
and just give you some slack. But on the other side of the coin, it's no
use belabouring the point or trying to make it into something else with
those that aren't giving you unwavering support.

To get into a discussion of fairness and the job market is just rubbish.
LIFE is unfair. Soviet Russia was supposed to be fair. It wasn't, didn't
work. No system ever invented/implemented will ever satisfy everyone that
it's fair. (Doesn't an old saying point out that it's only fair when
EVERYONE hates the decision?)

College/University degrees have been mentioned as another barrier of
questionable worth. But there are thousands of other such
barriers/requirements. Having to know one specific obscure programming
language even though you have tons of experience with many others for
example. Then there's the job ads that want you to have the skill set that
only one human being on the planet has (the guy that just retired/died).
Some are patently ridiculous, such as requiring more experience in a
subject than the time the subject has existed.

Claiming that degrees are obtainable is a laugh as well. If you have the
time and resources to obtain a four year full-time University degree, you
have the time to work your way up towards anything. Heck most degrees that
are worth anything have their own set of barriers and requirements. You
can't just walk into a University and start taking classes.

Security clearances may be difficult (even impossible) to get and hold,
but if a company figures it's cheaper to try and poach someone with
current credentials than pay the time and money to clear an outsider, then
that's their prerogative. They're the one's taking the risk of failing to
deliver product. Perhaps they ARE working on clearing someone internal but
are hoping they may be able to fill the position sooner and not have to
replace the internal worker and train a replacement later(and IMO it would
be a good approach for them if they were).

In the end I might even be inclined to argue that the requirement for
clearance IS fair. After all, if some one with clearance is available
isn't it only fair to hold the job for them instead of giving it to
someone that has yet to perform the necessary steps to get clearance
themselves?

If we're not happy with it, well that's life I'm afraid. I do feel for
those that are in a tough situation, but I don't think there are any
legitimate changes we can demand.

To another sub-thread in this one:

Someone brought up the bug-a-boo of foreign workers and immigration
policy. You know what? That's even more pathetic than the complaints of
sending work off-shore. A company has made clear the credentials it wants
in a worker. Sure, you want to stay exactly where you are, but someone
else is willing to move and fits the bill exactly. It's chauvinistic to
think that one person's knowledge/experience which by measurable criteria
is superior to your own is worth less than your inferior qualifications
and the required training/certification costs it would take to get you up
to par.

Putting on my asbestos underoos.....


Eric L. Dunn
 Senior Technical Writer