to think that this employer IBU?

[PrettyLittleBrownEyedMe]

I was interested in the thread recently about finding staff recruitment very challenging. There seems a striking contrast between employers being unable to find good staff, and good people finding it hard to persuade employers to take them on. I've also posted lately about my own middle-aged job-related angst

So I've found a job I'm thinking of applying for, and I think it's a good representation of how something's gone awry in the job market. The person spec lists NINETEEN different 'essential' criteria you must meet as well as another eight 'desirable' ones - and all for the princely sum of £16000 p/a.

AIBU to think that these are unrealistic expectations on the part of the employer? If they feel they really need someone who fits such exacting requirements, why do they believe they only need to pay that person such a small amount of money? Thoughts gratefully received to help me understand the job situation out there...

It's difficult to form an opinion without knowing what the job is and what the criteria are. Even an "unskilled" job which doesn't require employees to have any formal qualifications will still need them to have certain transferable skills and competencies.

Yes, £16,000 isn't a very high wage. Yes, generally a lot of people should be better paid than they are. But I don't believe it can happen in isolation, because all you end up with then is wage inflation and the same problems.

Depends what the criteria is. by the time you've added in Math, English, visa, able to send email, use word processing, dbs and be a team player, that's already 7 essential criteria.

Agree we can't really comment without further info.

Is it possible the person already has someone in mind and is making the field as narrow as possible?

That is true, and I do take your point, but I can't help but feel that if someone had the 7 things you mentioned AND matched on ANOTHER 12 points which the company felt were also crucial, then they'd be worth more than £16k already!

I agree to a certain extent.
I see jobs advertised at my level with a salary that I was on over 10 years ago.
Luckily I'm not in a position to need to apply for them but it does seem to be a bit daft that salaries haven't really gone up in all that time

Sorry, my last message was to bloodyteenagers

I'm a bit reluctant to give out more details in case I scupper any chances I might have!

I hate the way that anyone on 16k and under is seen as an unskilled monkey who should take little pride or responsibility in their work, tbh. Although, I've only ever seen that on here.

I'm in Liverpool, in areas, such as ours where employment is unstable, you find that the unemployed is highly skilled, if not qualified.

What helps is the availability of good voluntary work and previously, a range of free Adult education/skills classes.

Employers put the ideal and if the applications don't come in (very unlikely in today's market), then they lower their requirements.

A lot of jobs in Social Care need a big list of skills, but the wages are low.

hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless-theyre-100-qualified

Women tend not to apply if they don't meet all the criteria. Which is a barrier to getting the right people.

The reality is that we're currently in an employer's market, so employers have the choice of applicants and as such need to narrow the field considerably in order to not be too inundated with applicants.

On average, an administration job in London has between 150/250 applicants. So imagine having to sift through that lot in order to get maybe five to interview. As such, the best way to narrow down the field is to increase the criteria required. I regularly see jobs for admin assistant level jobs where "must be educated to degree level," is a standard criteria. Doesn't matter what kind of degree, just as long as it's a degree. that cuts their pool of applicants down signifficantly without even having to try.

The downside of course is that even though that has the short-term impact of reducing their sift, in the longer term a degree level candidate is likely to only be working for them until something they are more ably qualified comes along, at which point they will have to recruit again.

It's simple. Not all of the essential criteria are actually essential.

There's research that shows that women will tend not to apply for a job if they don't meet all of the essential criteria, while men will apply even if they meet only two out of (say) five.

The long list is probably the result of poor drafting (by committee?). The real essentials should emerge in the job interview, especially if you ask (a good question would be: what do you think the top three criteria are?)

And if they're asking for the moon on a stick for £16k, then that's your clue to negotiate hard on salary if you are offered the job.

Job ads are not the job, they are the employer's opening salvo in a negotiation. Treat them accordingly.

Not really. The 7 include a minimal level of education. The right to work in the country. Pass a dbs and basic computer skills.
Another one often included is experience but not essential as full training given. Or being a team player/work alone and use initiative. Some also include to look presentable (cannot think of the exact wording).
A lot of those should be standards anyway and not needed to be put into job applications. And if there weren't included the criteria would drop.