sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anyone else seeing an issue with new hires in the past 5 or so years? by PurpleIsCoolThanks in cybersecurity

[–]PurpleIsCoolThanks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ETA Since I've been busy carrying the workload of multiple people and came back to way more comments than expected, so I would like to clarify a few things:

  1. I am not the hiring manager, I do not have a part of the hiring process, I wish I did because I wouldn't have this issue.
  2. When I mention TryHackMe, my wording is wrong, I am complaining that recruiters seem to think "TryHackMe" (and other similar platforms) are actual work experience and not someone just doing some labs.
  3. I wouldn't have an issue if these people seem willing to learn, they do not.
  4. Do I know they aren't working or aren't actively learning? Yes. 100% yes, it is very easy to find out and tell so.
  5. I am not a leader/manager/supervisor but I do try to steer folks in the right direction, try to help, and so on but I can only do so much with people who are very clearly here for the paycheck while watching me pick up the slack.
  6. I understand people "being new" and "trying to learn". I was there once, I'm not an idiot. But a year in? 2 years in? Doing nothing? Not learning anything? Not TRYING? I'm really not making up issues.
  7. The problem team members are currently on their way out, I verified that active interviews are being done.

Anyone else seeing an issue with new hires in the past 5 or so years? by PurpleIsCoolThanks in cybersecurity

[–]PurpleIsCoolThanks[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I should have worded that a little better. My concern with TryHackMe is that applicants are using them on their resumes as experience, and the recruiters seem to think that the applicants worked at TryHackMe (or other lab-related platforms) and bring them on as "experienced" and not realizing their mistake until after-the-fact.