TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances From:"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- editors-writers -dot- info> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:47:56 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Plato" <gilliankitty -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Sent: August 13, 2003 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances
>
> "Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- editors-writers -dot- info> wrote in message
>news:209075 -at- techwr-l -dot- -dot- -dot-
>
> > No, you are right. If I am excluded from 80% of the existing technical
> writing
> > and editing jobs right now (which is what I judge the situation to be), I
> > cannot be the only one, and the exclusion of people like me from the pool
of
> > people who can be hired surely is negatively affecting the already high
> > unemployment rate.
>
> Security clearance is only required for defense department and national
> security related work. While security work is common right now, I think your
> 80% assessment is inaccurate. Just because you see 8 jobs out of 10 in one
week
> requiring security clearance, does not mean 80% of the jobs on the common
> market require such clearance. I do security work, and I've done numerous
> information security jobs and did not need to get security clearance.
>
I am basing my judgment on the ads I have seen, yes, so that may not reflect
the actual rate in the field, but it seems to describe the current situation.
> The high unemployment rate is due to numerous factors, the least of which is
> things like security clearance. The overall economic conditions and the
> commoditization of skills is driving unemployment way more than security
> requirements.
>
I did not say the high unemployment rate was due to security-clearance
requirements. I said it was making a bad situation worse for unemployed people
like me.
> If you don't have the skills that employers are demanding, then acquire
those
> skills. You can't expect employers to lower their requirements, just to
"fill
> slots."
>
Who said anything about not having the skills? Even a quick reading of my
initial post and subsequent comments will show that I am talking about
security clearances, not skills.
Bonnie Granat
GRANAT EDITORIAL SERVICES http://www.editors-writers.info
Overnight service available