oDesk and similar companies, that connect potential workers with the projects that companies need done, are an extremely effective way to reduce the need for commuting while providing a responsive workforce. I'm surpised this article and the comments for it have been so focused on the physical presence of workers at a specific location. Working remotely is the way of the future.

Companies I worked for used to have the technical managers do their own interviewing and hiring after a preliminary screen by personnel HR. It made sense. Is that still a typical model for hiring in today's companies?

Seems to me that locating your plant where your workforce can easily get to it is a no-brainer. Or rather that if you don't do it you aren't using much of your brain.

The shuttle idea isn't bad, after the fact. Cheap and effective public transportation is even better--it helps not only the workers but the whole community.

 I really don't understand why big companies would want to move to fancy suburbs where their overhead will be much higher. What do they gain from it? What makes it worth the investment? Doesn't make sense to me.

@smkinoshita, I don't think businesses have a responsibility to do anything for moral or social reasons. But I have no patience for complaints when they do shortsighted or self-destructive things and then whine. I'll give you an example.

In my area (Cleveland) a lot of companies that run cube farms decided to move to the southeast part of Cuyahoga County (suburbs like Solon)-- or just across the border in Summit County (Hudson, Macedonia, Stow)-- a few years back.  As soon as that happened, their turnover doubled or tripled-- and they had severe problems getting the sort of low-skills, low-wage ($8-12) employees they need for those jobs.

Noting that most of the employees for those jobs were low-income black from the inner city-- and the areas they moved to were high-income surburban white-- one idiot CEO publicly bemoaned the racism that led blacks to refuse to work in white areas, etc...Lots of tongue-clucking and moaning on social attitudes and prejudices. 

Finally a friend-- who wroks for SEIU (which unionized the janitors for one company)-- blew a gasket and pointed out, loudly and publicly, that (a) none of those areas have bus or train service and (b) most of the target employees for those positions don't own cars.

He told them that if they wanted those positions staffed, they'd better run shuttle busses from major transit hubs-- or pay enough to attract people who could afford cars. 

Some of the companies immediately started shutte service and their "skills problem" vanished. (One even began offering low-income car loans paid for by payroll deduction for people who'd been there several years.) Others complained about the expense and effort, and are still bitching that they can't find qualified people. Blaming the market for a failure to do basic dule diligence is the sign of inept management, wouldn't you say?

I do not see how FB does it since I still have a very little faith on FB since it does not match the proper standards. Paypal is OK but can it match the requirement of the co-orporate world ?

@Rufus, I'd be interested in hearing some counter-points to your arguments as they have some good points. In my experience situations are rarely cut-and-dry especially when discussing a large sample, but this is a bit out of my area of expertise.

Businesses aren't in the business of stabilizing employment however, so obviously whatever pains they may be experiencing must not be bad enough to make them change.

This complaint is patent nonsense-- the problem is less with the schools than the logistics of the employers:

• Facebook has 15 locations. There's a gigantic open space East of Los Angeles, North of Dallas and West of Chicago.-- and another triangle bordered by DC, Atlanta and Chicago.
• Mozilla doesn't list jobs by location, but the 20 I clicked on only had US jobs in Mountain View or San Francisco.
• Of the 200 job listings I looked at for PayPal/eBay, about 80% were in either Seattle, or in one of three regions in California.

They don't offer relocation and they don't offer telecommuting. So the number of people unemployed in the United States has jack squat to do with the issue. They can't find enough people becasue (with a few exceptions), you can't work for them if you live in places like Minnesota, Arisona, North Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Missouri 

Did they locate in areas that have either (a) high unemployment or (b) a dearth of employment opportunities? Nope. Except for Facebook, they're smack-dab in the areas where everyone else is, where competition for people is most intense.

This is very like opening up a windlife refuge in the middle of the desert, and complaing that hunters have killed off all the deer and wild geese you were hoping to shelter. 

I'm also reluctant to offer encomiums to companies for training.  At one point in my lifetime, this used to be standard practice. The notion that it's the employee's responsibility to come to you knowing everything he or she might possibly need to know is very recent. In fact, widespread acceptance of this belief dates back to... amazingly enough, the same point in time that companies began complaining about the skills shortage.

Plus, "interns" are what people used to call "indenturred servants." Neither McKayla nor I are impressed by that practice.

The current employer mindset-- apparent at all three sites-- is:

1. Expect the employee to come to a position knowing 100% of the skills needed to do that job, so there is no growth potential whatsoever.
2. Demand that they work more than 40 hours, by taking calls, answering e-mails and working offsite.
3. Choose not to promote from within, because it (a) requires the candidate to learn the new job and (b) leaves an open position.

Many employers (not these three, I should note) also offer less than market rate for positions, In my area of the country, many employers complain that they can't get a compyter science graduate with 2-3 years experience and an MCSE for $12-15 per hour starting salary. 

The wonder is not that so many positions go unfilled. It is that anyone who thinks this way finds any candidates.

"Organizations need to consider what they really need vs what they can teach in a timely fash to make sure a new hire is successful"

@swijeyakumar: I think what you have referred here is a common dilemma most organizations face. Investing in training will improve the employee's productivity but companies are never sure of when an employee might leave. In that case the investment goes into waste. It's always difficult to figure out the right amount of investment they need to make in an employee when it comes to training.

Characteristics for high tech skills are evolving. Knowing the technology or having experience does not really get anybody anywhere. What becomes important of understanding nature of human being and responding to their needs. That requires creative and innovative minds.

Tech skills can be taught but often fit and soft skills are much more difficult to teach. Organizations need to consider what they really need vs what they can teach in a timely fash to make sure a new hire is successful