Job Application Fee: A Game-Changing Tool for Winnowing to the Winners

Problem Statement

After carefully reading the requirements and duties of the position, some job seekers may apply for a position in which they could potentially learn all relevant duties but have only performed a few of those in actuality. In turn, this lower end of the applicant pool tends to think, "Hey, my chances are 1 in 100 if I apply and 0 in 100 if I don't, so I'll apply despite an unknown number of more experienced people going up against me."

The over-optimistic job seeker hopes, “Although there are probably dozens of more experienced applicants, their communication skills might be inadequate to describe their experience in the best way compared to the talking points demanded by the scoring rubric. Who knows? Given the minimal opportunity cost, I may as well pursue this position.”

Presuming a telephone interview takes around 20 minutes and post-interview notes by the phone screener require another 10, each interviewee occupies at least half an hour of paid personnel time. Double or triple this cost, depending on how many interview panelists are involved. I made a cost matrix to illustrate just how expensive it is to interview first-rounders:

Number of Interviewers	Interviewer Wage	Number of Applicants	Time per Applicant	Total Cost
1	$15/hour	100	1/2 hour	$750
2	$15/hour	100	1/2 hour	$1,500
3	$15/hour	100	1/2 hour	$2,250
1	$20/hour	100	1/2 hour	$1,000
2	$20/hour	100	1/2 hour	$2,000
3	$20/hour	100	1/2 hour	$3,000
1	$15/hour	100	1 hour	$1,500
2	$15/hour	100	1 hour	$3,000
3	$15/hour	100	1 hour	$4,500
1	$20/hour	100	1 hour	$2,000
2	$20/hour	100	1 hour	$4,000
3	$20/hour	100	1 hour	$6,000

NOTES: To calculate the cost of 200, 300, or N applicants in each scenario, multiply the Total Cost by 2, 3, or (N/100). I included 1 hour as a potential time per applicant to account for capitalized expenses of pre-interview screening exercises such as iCIMS (cheat sheet accessible on the top-right tab of this blog), as firms spend time and money to maintain the online functionality of such stratagems, if not administer them in person. Also, temp agencies process a bunch of paperwork for each temp, whether ultimately hired or not, so this must be accounted for. Continuing forth:

On the job seeker’s end, a face-to-face interview costs more time and perhaps a comparable amount of money when you account for gasoline; the risk of running off the road in frustration over a slow, lengthy drive in unfamiliar territory; and the stress of a commute just for a glorified game of chance -- “maybe” getting that job.

[Optional Rant: Show]

NOTE: Thinking and acting, “That job is mine!” doesn’t work, either. None of the thousands of job coaches who have lived ever figured this out! Willpower means nothing without proper instrumentation. Does visualizing yourself breathing easily while you’re drowning make you capable of breathing underwater? NO!!!

[/Optional Rant : Hide]

Thankfully for job applicants, organizations are increasingly using phone interviews to identify who gets a second-round interview face-to-face. Although a telephone screen isn’t costly for the job candidate, the pre-screening tests of psychological exam and “common sense” customer service skills costs money due to the license paid to administer online these test batteries.

Anyone who’s worked in a call center at any time in the last five years can tell you about the computerized simulation that serves as a litmus test for who gets to reiterate their résumé to an actual human -- albeit one lacking humanity, as HR personnel are wont to check theirs at the door when entering the office every day.

Thankfully for job applicants, organizations are increasingly using phone interviews to identify who gets a second-round interview face-to-face. Although a telephone screen isn’t costly for the job candidate, the pre-screening tests of psychological exam and “common sense” customer service skills costs money due to the license paid to administer online these test batteries.

Anyone who’s worked in a call center at any time in the last five years can tell you about the computerized simulation that serves as a litmus test for who gets to reiterate their resume to an actual human -- albeit one lacking humanity, as HR personnel are wont to check theirs at the door when entering the office every day.

All things considered, it’s more surprising an algorithm hasn’t been patented to weigh candidates against organizational biases and then auto-pick by experience. Then again, clever people such as I could ascertain how to “game” the system by trial and error, so an anthropomorphic watchdog remains necessary.

Have you ever heard of computers pulling off a conspiracy to keep someone unemployed for so long? It’s because computers aren’t biased against an individual’s very existence -- unless so programmed by decision makers!

Too Many Jobbers in the Tournament of Champions

The most extreme examples of people having no chance to actually be selected -- yet, nonetheless offered a half hour of well-paid staffing personnel time for an interview -- are found in publicly funded state agencies and state universities. Although I’ve never been interviewed for a federal or municipal job, I’ve had dozens of first-round interviews for various positions at universities and in state agencies.

But given the lack of a second-round interview after so many tries, it should be quite evident to someone who sees my name pop up again and again in the ATS -- with the same work history, due to the glass ceiling of quasi-relevant, semi-credible “self-employment” -- that an easy time-saving measure would be to do as the private companies do: Send the template “thank you for applying, but…” rejection email a few minutes after receiving my application, as nothing has changed, and no amount of job interviews will change anything.

However, agency regulations prohibit the human resources department from refusing to interview any applicant who minimally qualifies for the position, such as by a score of 70 percent or greater on the civil service exam. Some will protest, “70 points do not mean 70 percentage points,” but I’ve never seen a maximum score higher or lower than 100. Ergo, N points implies “N out of 100,” which means “N percent.”

There is only so much utility to the job candidate that may be gained from facing the same first-round interview questions over and over again. On the bright side, I’ve slogged through enough such inquiries to understand the question clusters that are asked of each policy analyst position in the State of Wisconsin government and can therefore advise accordingly as an unofficial expert on the subject.

Then, you wonder why the UW-Madison College of Agriculture and Life Science (CALS) interviews the 17th-ranked candidate on their “civil exam,” which is merely an applicant’s own written comparison of how their work history demonstrates the skills and abilities called for in the position description.

Again, the job candidate can benefit by knowing his or her rank in terms of experience, something which the State of Wisconsin actually deigns to disclose! (That is quite refreshing, although I’d like to know who I beat in the qualifying round for “Top 10” and who the nine other finalists are. Networking, you know? Not to make them unavailable for interviews or anything.)

So, what’s the big deal?

Opportunity Costs Aplenty

Because of the aforementioned low opportunity cost of trying for the brass ring, the barely-qualified-to-work-at-all candidate is given as much first-round consideration -- and man hours of processing interview notes and scheduling emails -- as the ones who actually have prior experience that will get them into the second round of interviews.

Allowing these minimally qualified individuals to interview is a waste of resources because they are not selected vis-à-vis the more qualified applicants, due to having never been hired for those positions that could potentially involve the duties necessary to qualify into the presently desired employment.

There’s even more cost to the interviewers when written essays are scored in a highly regulated fashion prior to commencement of first-round interviews. And while no real “cheat sheet” or “brain dump” exists for a given Wisc.Jobs civil exam, it would be mighty helpful to know which positions track well into the ones advertised. For example, which jobs best prepare a candidate to be a serious contender for Level 1 University Services Associate?

It pays $14 hourly and seems to be the most entry-level position -- even lower than the $15 hourly University Services Program Associate (note the USPA vs. USA designation) -- but there aren’t any obvious stepping-stone opportunities listed, such as $10 hourly office positions, on Wisc.Jobs.

“Good luck” interviewing an incumbent for a potential revelation. Informational interviews are increasingly difficult to get as you get older because people just don’t trust career-curious guys in their early-to-mid adulthood. Maybe when you’re old enough, you can pull off a grandfatherly vibe to loose their lips, but it is always a tough sell. It’s not like you can just walk into ShopKo and talk yourself into a job! (One woman at a job center claimed to have done this, but then why was she hanging out in a job center? I smell a twinset-wearing rat!)

Working in government doesn’t mean a person is public about his or her work history; in fact, most seem to be embarrassed by it, much as they would hide a tumor! I am happy to say that I’m proud of my work and proclaim my employment history wherever possible. Ninnies need not apply when they’re up against me in the candidate selection process!

[Optional Rant: Show]

Good luck trying to weasel that information out of the minds of HR. They “cannot disclose because it would give an unfair advantage” and, “We cannot identify which positions the chosen candidate held previously because it would violate applicant confidentiality.”

The right to keep private one’s trade secrets for getting a particular job apparently supersedes the whole “atmosphere of learning” -- the latter just isn’t important to the university when you’re trying to persuade them to pay you a salary instead of you paying them tuition!

Universities are so selfish, that I refuse to donate even if I somehow end up earning a lot of money. I’ll invest in blue-chip stocks and advertise against universities generally -- but promote a university? Not unless they pay me good money to do so!

And yet, universities are similarly bound by civil service exam guidelines for most of their non-student positions. Obligated to interview all who surpass the minimum threshold -- but by which regulations?

No one seems to know. The closest I got was a red herring, when “LVT” in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) at UW-Madison blamed my February 2013 non-selection for Level 2 Financial Specialist on the 2011 budget reconciliation bill, claiming the position remained vacant after interviews of multiple candidates.

“It was Governor Walker’s fault!” Yeah, right -- and every executive officer in the United Council of UW Students is always “in a meeting” and can therefore never discuss policy over the phone. LIES!!!

Having read the entire JSR1-2011 legislation -- something I highly doubt LVT did, as hearsay seems to be her preferred method of learning about issues -- I pressed her for further details. LVT then copped out by saying, “I don’t know specifically. I’d have to ask my steward, but she’s busy.” Another lie! How wonderfully poor of an example set by UW staff.

But in the cynical minds of many HR henchfolk, it would be a greater evil to let me enjoy the fruits of professional employment, so the end justifies their means. Whatever they can legally do to ensure I’m never hired, is precisely what they will do.

And lest none dare call it conspiracy, what is to stop the following scenario? “Welcome to our HR Conference of Evil. Your job is to prevent Joe Ohler from getting any job, even the LTE laborer ones. If he rises to prominence, then our status shall be jeopardized.” [In unison] “Yes, master!”

[/Optional Rant : Hide]

Half-Baked Decisions Waste Dough

Now the same under-qualified guy, having accrued perhaps another half year as self-employed policy analyst, recurs in your ATS. If you’re in the private sector, then you say, “Hey, I recognize him. He has nothing to offer, despite his claims. Next!”

If you’re in the HR department of a municipality, then you say, “I don’t recognize him, so we can’t trust him. Let’s get one of the children of the Common Council members to fill this position.”

If you’re using the federal ATS, then you don’t say anything because an algorithm scores résumés and determines which are “most qualified.”

But if you’re in the HR department for a state agency or for a business unit within a UW System campus, then you say, “His name gives me pause, but he qualifies minimally, so we’re obligated to ask him whether he wants to interview.”

I applied for LTE agency positions but was never granted a first interview. This most evidently is because those rely upon a different type of confidential evaluation and not upon the “write essays about your job history”-type civil exams used for permanent state-funded positions.

Although 4 LTE vacancies were posted, I was not interviewed for any. Nonetheless, some mirth is appropriate to cleave the clouds of job seekers’ gloom: Read my cover letter for fraud investigator!

I’ve devised the perfect solution to the dilemma of when less-than-best-qualified people -- who are no good at getting any job experience involving the duties of the jobs for which they apply -- come knocking at your door at an organization where your operating rules prohibit an instant write-off of such folk:

Why not a “candidate consideration” fee to absorb some of the cost?

The Penultimate Solution to Undesirable Job Candidates

Barring an applicant altogether would be the last resort; discrimination complaints could be costly, even if you prohibit someone based on “poor organizational fit.” And how do you know for certain, without granting another first-round interview for a future vacancy, whether the candidate who was merely minimally qualified last time has not become the best qualified in the interim?

Rather than risk a move that critics might call discriminatory, you should charge an employment application fee to every applicant for a given position! Make this a universal policy to minimize the chances someone could claim discrimination based on anything other than skills and job experience (which are associated with income, but not to the point of “disparate impact”). Why not raise the stakes by assessing a fee every time someone wants to be considered for a job?

Let’s face it: White-collar employers already discriminate against blue-collar workers for not having relevant experience, so additional discrimination based on inadequate income to afford a bunch of job applications won’t really harm applicants as much as it would help organizations recoup recruitment costs.

It’s really no crueler than not hiring someone who drove 100 miles for a job interview; and human resources personnel are already divorced from their humanity anyway; so why not give this policy a whirl?

Although the amount levied would depend on the compensation and duties of the vacancy, such an additional investment on behalf of applicants would further force candidates to prioritize which positions they pursue. The partially qualified candidate will not even bother this time if s/he is low on cash and doesn’t already know someone in the organization advertising the job.

Internship Surcharge and Job Placement Fee as Business Model

More profitable than an unpaid intern, one who pays your organization on a daily basis for work experience is definitely a way to boost your company’s bottom line -- or to offset public expenditures if you’re a government agency. The applicant pays for his or her own background check in addition to the daily pay-to-work fee; I explain in the section “Benefit to the Candidate” why a job seeker would do this.

Insurance costing you $50 a day for an untested temp or idiosyncratic intern? Charge $100 per day, to cover the daily insurance premium, in addition to the candidate paying the entire cost of the background check ($15 for the State Department of Justice report and $X for any other credential checks). In other words: Organizations have more to gain financially from my proposition than they would lose, both in the short-term and long-term time horizons.

What about protecting against people who hate your organization, such as irate interviewees who were not hired? The job experience placement fee / internship surcharge would be sufficiently expensive to cover the cost of liability insurance, dispute remediation, and/or conflict resolution for if / when your existing employees find the intern to be annoying and file a grievance. And if your employees find the pay-to-work person intolerable, then you can dismiss him or her without a refund.

Require every paying intern or pay-to-work temp to pass a pat-down inspection and bag / briefcase search for weapons whenever entering the building. Most big firms have security guards for this purpose, and the worst that can happen is that a very strong temp hurls a desk at someone or dumps a cup of restroom juice into the water cooler.

Benefit to the Candidate

A vacancy isn’t really an opportunity if you’re one of the last people one imagines when thinking “ideal person to fill this job,” so save your hard-earned dough -- obviously earned at some palooka job, due to your inability to get anything better, despite your yeas of tertiary education, student government budget work, and other accolades -- and write another blog post in the time it would have taken you to perfect another résumé and cover letter. You’ll have more to show for it!

It is only fitting that I first proposed companies begin charging a job application fee. It takes someone who’s interacted with literally hundreds of organizations’ candidate selection processes to understand how badly such a fee is needed before you'll see fewer people pressing their luck with so many opportunities!

I also recommended organizations charge interns and potential employees for the privilege of working there, as the value of on-the-job experience could potentially outweigh the application fee presuming the company lets the person observe and question others in the job instead of just being stuck in the peanut gallery.

Conclusion: We Have a Winner!

I cannot over-emphasize the utility of the position-oriented or department-specific job application fee or candidate consideration surcharge. Under the status quo, it seems many organizations spend way too much time inviting marginally qualified candidates, only for both sides to be disappointed. Why?

The job application fee would provide incentive for a candidate in low demand by the labor market to decline consideration. Candidates in high demand from the labor market are more likely to forgo an opportunity, irrespective of an application fee, because they're just that skilled at making the right connections at the right time.

The present tendency, without charging the fee, is to end up with even more minimally qualified job candidates than you would if you were to charge a job application fee; the surcharge moderates this “natural” imbalance.

Remember the cost table from the start of this article? Here is a net revenue table demonstrating the fiscal benefit of a candidate consideration fee / internship surcharge / pay-to-work fee / whatever you want to call it your organization:

Cumulative Search Cost (All Candidates Screened)	Number of Applicants	Daily Fee per Applicant	Days on Job	Applicant Revenue	Profit
$750	100	$75	1	$750	$0
$750	100	$75	2	$1,500	$750
$750	100	$75	3	$2,250	$1,500
$750	100	$100	1	$1,000	$250
$750	100	$100	2	$2,000	$1,250
$750	100	$100	3	$3,000	$2,250
$1,500	100	$75	1	$750	($750)
$1,500	100	$75	2	$1,500	$0
$1,500	100	$75	3	$2,250	$750
$1,500	100	$100	1	$1,000	($500)
$1,500	100	$100	2	$2,000	$500
$1,500	100	$100	3	$3,000	$1,500

As calculated above, the break-even fee in the minimum-recruiting cost scenario would be around $75. But that’s if you have enough applicants paying the fee; a smaller applicant pool might be charged more to compensate with larger margins for the smaller volume.

Even if the prospect of a consideration fee scares away some candidates, these are unlikely to be the best qualified; those who are doing well in their careers would think nothing of plunking down a Benjamin or two for a chance at higher earnings in a better job.

And there you have it: I have solved a problem for human resources! Call me a corporate hero.

Tired of Foreign Workers Getting Your Jobs? Then Comment via the Regulations Portal!

To practice what I believe my job would be like if the federal government hired me for one of the regulatory specialist jobs for which I applied, I perused the Federal Register website. I browsed the Antitrust Division notices in particular because these could potentially be useful to mention in a cover letter to an involved firm.

Announcing its first change of membership since October 1998, the technological development consortium The Open Group, LCC submitted a notice that was published in the Federal Register on May 31. In the far-right column of page 3, the notice lists UW-Madison from Wisconsin and Van Haren Publishing from the Netherlands. Here's an annotated screen capture:

A search on the UW-Madison website returned professorial papers on UNIX-related computing such as “X server code” and “zone-based data striping.” The absence of minutes, agendas, or other reports on the UW website suggests The Open Group is more like memoranda of agreement among the participating organizations than an actual governing body. And since January 2014, Van Haren Publishing and I have been mutual followers on Twitter -- thereby giving me two ties to The Open Group.

Returning to the main page of the Federal Register website, I moved onto the list of proposed rules for which the public comment period is open. It bears mention that each web page containing proposed rule text has a comment button in the upper-right corner.

Clicking the “submit a comment” button redirects you to the appropriate rule-specific page on the Regulations.gov website, the only collective portal for any online comments to public agencies regarding their rulemaking. Otherwise, you would need to visit each agency website and submit comments through their specific channels.

Before you comment -- or technically speaking, “send a public submission” -- to any federal agency, download and read the official guidelines for creating influential comments. I especially appreciate how the document says not once, but twice, that a thousand duplicate comments or “form letters” are wasted effort unless each contributor adds his or her own experience and supporting facts to the public submission.

Remember that you are competing with think tanks and lobbying groups that have retained some of the sharpest minds -- though not all -- and therefore need to do more than act like a parrot reiterate some publicist's message on the matter!

I’ll add some helpful hints the official guidelines omitted:

1) Don’t threaten any government employee -- that would be a terroristic threat -- or anyone at all in your comment to the agency. Some issues can be highly emotional, but the last thing you need is for the agency to sic the FBI on you over a perceived threat! So play it cool; use professional language.

2) Although the guidelines state, “There is no minimum or maximum length,” the online comment submission form has a maximum length of 5,000 characters. The quickest way to check this in Microsoft Word is to highlight your comment; next, click the “Review” tab; and then, click the “Word Count” button.

If it pains you to trim part of your over-long comment, then save your omitted text for another commenting opportunity. With approximately 430 interdependent agencies proposing at least a few rules each quarter, there are many occasions for you to be heard!

My comments tend to speak generally about policy through repeated interrelated themes, each of which pertains at least tangentially to broad set of rules, so as to maximize exposure in the public record to ideas that I support.

This allows many opportunities for contacting a wide variety of agencies regarding their proposed rules and creates a megaphone effect while diversifying the commentary to suit the particular agency-promulgated rules under question.

3) If a proposed regulation hurts your personal job prospects in any way, then let the agency know your specific story. The human element is underrated in the regulatory winnowing process. Segueing from the third point, I commented on three proposals that caught my attention in terms of being relevant to me and well enough within my grasp of policy to comment both intellectually and practically. From briefest comment to longest:

The Pipe and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is renewing oil pipeline inspection regulations, including requiring every sub-national government (regional compact, state government, municipalities, etc.) that desires to regulate intrastate oil pipelines must first be certified by PHMSA.

Here’s my comment, Tracking Number 1yj-8cff-5teo, on another facet of the regulations:

“I’m surprised an energy lobbyist hasn’t commented on these proposed rules. As an everyday citizen, I appreciate PHMSA’s requirement that operators of underwater oil pipelines must periodically inspect for any protrusion to the surface. The corrosive potential of a marine environment cannot be understated, so thank you for helping to prevent corrosion-related leakage.”

I also commented on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulation that would expand, by 24 acres, the designated critical habitat of the Vandenberg Monkeyflower. I feel sorry for whoever owns those 24 acres, as now the land cannot be developed in the foreseeable future.

If you comment by 4:59 p.m. EST on June 5, then your message will be viewable by the FWS! Here’s mine, Tracking Number 1jy-8cfv-t3dp:

“As an unemployed manual laborer and 2010 master’s graduate of the public administration program at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, I’d say the job prospects of college graduates are about as endangered as the Vandenberg Monkeyflower.

Just as the FWS socks away critical habitat for endangered species, we should -- as a national grant-making policy -- partition more of the existing university system budgets to provide exclusively for internships and on-the-job training rather than for class assignments or wasteful programs such as mandatory “literary” and “inequality” studies that only serve to alternately distract and divide our potential workforce.”

My third submitted comment regards a rule proposed by Citizen and Immigration Services that would authorize 4-H nonimmigrants to apply for work visas. Part of the policymakers’ argument is that H-1B workers are more likely to remain in the U.S. and become citizens if their spouses are allowed to work here.

But why the need for so many skilled worker visas? Do our universities suck or something? *Nodding in the audience* Okay -- but the quality of our graduates reflect the universities, so university officials ought to be embarrassed at the scores of H-1B visas issued.

Thousands of positions filled by workers on visa could be filled at comparable expense by those who are already loyal to the United States; a little more training, but less INS/CIS paperwork and a generally reduced security risk. Why invite industrial espionage from those who grew up with sympathies towards a different country?

(NOTE: Liberal arts universities are doing their best to make America seem like not such a great place, though! That’s why traitors born here, such as “Fast” Eddy Snowden and Brad “Call me Chelsea” Manning, have seemed more prevalent in recent years.)

To answering the above questions: It’s because the universities refuse to more intimately involve corporations in establishing curricula, thereby limiting the labor market utility of any hands-on experience gained through a university. I’m sure at least a few eggheads understand that, but their self-interest in so-called “academic freedom” creates market inefficiencies when it comes to training the workforce, thereby exacerbating functional employment!

For my own sake, I commented at length against the proposed H-4 work authorization and advised H-1B visas be contracted by 10 percent. Once the CEOs are done whining to the editors of Fortune magazine, they’d get cracking at training local talent to replace their precious foreign talent. Without further preliminaries, the Tracking Number for the following comment is 1jy-8cfw-gjx1.

“I don’t feel sorry at all for employers who suffer “detriment” because they are unable to hire foreign talent! Why? Because they are causing me and millions of fellow able-bodied, able-minded under- and unemployed workers to experience the same economic loss those organizations claim, if not greater, by refusing to hire us!

I earned a degree in public administration to get a government job, but that apparently does not count towards any substantive expertise or qualification. I received no interviews for over a year after graduating before deciding to undertake my own policy analysis in my spare time at my blog, JoeOhlerJr.WordPress.com.

My landmark policy to date is proposing university student workers be allowed to finally earn unemployment insurance -- after years of state-by-state legislative prohibition -- and estimating the fiscal impact of the same to be over $2 million economic growth in each state, on average.

I’ve yet to break through into the second round of interviews, so my dream of a white-collar job is unlikely to ever come true, despite my efforts. That is why I went to college in the first place, but those eight years and $50,000 are now in a figurative black hole.

I’ve also applied for a bunch of private sector jobs. Three years after graduating, I finally received a four-day tryout at a pump assembly plant for $10 hourly. My job was to unpackage 1500 tightly packed units, movable only with sustained force through both hands over the length of each box, during a 10-hour shift: 7:30 a.m. through 5:30 p.m.

I developed tendonosis, filed a workers’ compensation claim, and was blacklisted at area temp agencies for over a year. Then, I received an interview at a grant-subsidized temp agency. They had advertised a permanent position but proposed I start as an LTE at the minimum wage, to which I expressed enthusiasm.

But a week later, the receptionist informed me that I was not selected and that there were already too many experienced people in the area to be hired. Given the general preference for previously fired, but experienced, workers over the worker without prior experience, it is doubtful I’ll ever work again -- not because I lack ambition or an education, but because employers are hiring foreign workers instead of locally.

A pressing question for the public is: When will employers stop being skinflints and start training local, born-in-the-USA citizens who want to work -- and perhaps already have a few degrees -- but still don’t have the specific training sought by that employer?

Some manual labor and office jobs I seek are filled by foreign workers, with the office work at starting salaries exceeding thirty thousand dollars -- wages substantially greater compensation than for what I would ask in exchange for the privilege of office work. Cue the red-faced CEO screaming, “WE DON’T HAVE QUALIFIED TALENT LOCALLY!”

And instead of yelling back, I disabuse him of executive ignorance by proposing a native-friendly solution that should be obvious to someone of his qualification but is most evident to the common worker: If the universities aren’t providing enough of the training you demand from new hires, then train the semi-skilled but inexperienced job seekers yourself!

CEOs should reallocate some of their distant underlings’ compensation to instead purchase valuable training time. HR should reduce the starting compensation of entry-level professional employees, hire more people without significant prior experience, and train them to eventually earn a higher compensation. A Department of Labor rule to this effect would restore America’s former economic glory and global influence.

Those universities that consistently fail to produce employ-able graduates actually hired by global firms should be shuttered, for they are a waste of public taxpayer money and therefore a misuse of corporate money -- funds that would be better spent directly training inexperienced employees rather than subsidizing $6 billion degree farms.

I hereby oppose extending employment authorization to spouses of those in the U.S. on H-1B visas or otherwise here on H-4 nonimmigrant status. I would also reduce the number of H-1B visas by 10 percent, by attrition.

The Department of Health and Human Services would thereby force the hand of corporations, and thereby necessitate greater investment in the U.S. workforce already here, by refusing additional 4-H work authorizations. When federal agencies companies to do so, they will hire local talent despite HR’s irrational fear, uncertainty, and doubt caused by their inaccurately low perception of my value as a potential employee.

Don't sell our American workforce down the river. Hire local; hire from within the U.S.! And if your locals don’t have the skills, then stop being a cheapskate -- and start training them the way you want; universities will never do this.”

If you agree with me, then let the agencies know! You can even comment confidentiality, if you like. I commented under my real name to draw attention to myself as a means of reflecting some of that mindshare towards fairly obscure issues such as unemployment compensation for student workers. The worst that can happen is you end up in the national spotlight!