I'm going to express my opinion; plenty here will disagree with me. OO is not "better than procedural"; just different.

Any programming problem can be solved equally well, or equally badly, using either OO or procedural -- or functional or declarative or any other programming paradigm -- code.

Some tasks will lend themselves to the use of one paradigm over another; but an effective programmer in any general purpose programming language -- regardless of the (primary) paradigm it uses -- will be able to write an efficient and maintainable solution.

Learning OO is a good thing for a programmer to do -- and so is a little functional experience, and some declarative etc. -- but do it for the right reasons; and do not expect it to be a passport to anything in particular.

If you are an effective procedural programmer, and can demonstrate that, it should be enough to get you a job.

Learning OO can improve your skills, if you are of the mindset and aptitude to see how and when to make use of it -- and when not. But if you do not have the aptitude for programming, it will not benefit you.

Without hesitation I can say the 10 worst programs and the 20 worst programmers I've encountered in my career were all OO -- rigidly so -- and that was what made them bad.

And I'll go one step further: any potential employer who won't employ you, simply because you don't have, or don't claim to have, OO programming experience, is not an employer you want to work for.

Now please don't take this as saying you should learn to use OO programming; but do not see OO == "programming" and procedural/imperative == "scripting"; the difference between the two is at most a matter of scale; but mostly there is no difference at all. They are simply synonyms. With the use of the term 'scripting' generally being applied to programs written in dynamic, 'interpreted' languages; but otherwise an artificial distinction.