Tech Recruiters Defend 'Blacklists,' Lack of Feedback, Screening Techniques 253
Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes Remember when executives at Apple, Google, and other firms "fixed" the market for highly skilled tech workers by agreeing not to steal each other's employees? That little incident made a lot of people think about the true modus operandi of corporate and third-party tech recruiters. Dice sat down with some of those recruiters, who talked about everything from "no poaching" tactics to the "blacklist" that exists for candidates who make boneheaded mistakes in interviews. The bottom line? Recruiters seem to pass the blame for some of the industry's most egregious errors on "junior recruiters and agencies," while insisting that their goal in life is to get you a job. How does that align with your experience?
oh boy! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:oh boy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but then the female employment ratio would fall even lower, and then you'd have all the Anita Sarkeesians of the world whining again and telling us to fix it.
As if education wasn't feminized enough, with boys in decline everywhere but stem (never a problem worth mentioning though) that they want men to yield the final "stronghold" they see men have, and it never occurs to them that they worked for it.
And then the white knight editors here at /. can gleefully post the story how everyone is failing women.
Everyone knows the HR dept is for liberal arts buffoons to lord over the rest of the company of actually productive workers. That and protect the corp from lawsuits.
Re:oh boy! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, but then the female employment ratio would fall even lower,
Would it? My experience, at several tech companies, is that the techies prefer a more gender balanced workplace, and would prefer to have more qualified female co-workers. Research has shown [economist.com] that much anti-women discrimination is actually coming from other women. Most female managers will tell you that they have more resistance from female subordinates than males.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My experience, at several tech companies
Additional anecdotal:
My experience, running a tech company and interacting with a great many other tech companies... Nobody gives a shit if you've got tits or a cock, or even both.
Are you competent? Awesome.
Are you incompetent? GTFO.
I'm sure somewhere, someone is being abused based on whether their parts are internal or external. No doubt. But we've got a tempest in a teacup situation going on. Which makes sense, techies aren't special magical creatures. They fall for news-o-tainment just like the r
Re:oh boy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you competent? Awesome. Are you incompetent? GTFO.
Okay, BUT... this brings us back to OP.
Anti-poaching agreements and "blacklists" are equally anti-competitive practices, and have no place in a responsible tech company. (Hear that, Apple?) Blacklists can be abused just as much as the other, PLUS it can encourage discrimination.
Let's say your HR staff has a candidate who is a tech wiz, but just not a good fit for the company. Rather than just turning them down, a less-than-honest PR dept. could blacklist them, to keep them from getting hired by the competition.
The same could be done if the hiring person or people just plain didn't like a particular gender or minority.
I've been a victim in the past of abuse by HR in a large company. The head of HR felt that rather than doing an actual job of HR, it was her real job to protect the company against grievances.
Re: (Score:3)
The head of HR felt that rather than doing an actual job of HR, it was her real job to protect the company against grievances
I'd like to hear what you think the actual job of HR is since every HR department I've ever encountered has only existed to protect the company against lawsuits. They certainly don't exist for your benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not naive enough to think they always work that way, but it is certainly part of the job description. While I did not expect a lot of help by HR against the company, at the same time I did not expect HR to lie break the law.
Re:oh boy! (Score:4, Interesting)
I once worked for a mid-size multinational (about 1200 employees). When I gained a supervisory position, and annual employee review time came around (itself a bad practice), I was informed in no uncertain terms that it was "unofficial" company policy to never give anyone a really favorable review, because that (A) kept salaries down, and (B) kept headhunters from other companies away.
My "this is a good company" score for them went down about 40% that day.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You've failed to consider the theory of "micro-aggressions". This is where the same shit men in tech (and everywhere else) pull on other men in tech (and everywhere else) is suddenly worse when it's pulled on women in tech. You know, talking over people, stealing credit, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
HR's real function is to make a legally passable showing at following government regulations without actually getting in the way of upper management prejudices. For example, pretending to not discriminate on age by asking precisely selected interview questions.
Re:oh boy! (Score:5, Funny)
For example, pretending to not discriminate on age by asking precisely selected interview questions.
"Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention. Now, imagine you see some children on your lawn. What's your reaction?"
Re: (Score:3)
> then you'd have all the Anita Sarkeesians of the world whining again and telling us to fix it.
You want to say that actually, it's about ethics in recruiting policies?
Re:oh boy! (Score:5, Insightful)
This. Recruiters today are nothing more than a pattern-matching algorithm; if you precisely match the list of skills they need, you're in. Any slight deviation - no matter how well qualified you are - and you won't get anything from them.
Recruiters would reject an application from Steve Jobs to work at Apple, because he didn't have 20 years of experience in the smart phone field.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My current employment was obtained by personal contact. So far, It has lasted more than 10 years.
My previous employment was obtained by personal contact. It lasted about 15 years (then I left for the current place).
I have been moved internationally in both places, and received various promotions and bonuses. Professional recruiters? Not since my first ever job.
Re:oh boy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Myself and most people I know that work IT (or most any field really) get their next and often better jobs from people they have met and known along the way in life.
You have to be personable and network, make friends...because when those folks get new jobs, they should become your FIRST contacts you make when you want to job hop.
When you get to the point where you might consider contracting yourself out...often your foot in the door is with contacts you already know.
It isn't always what you know, but WHO you know that most often gets you the job.
And if you can get a little personality and people skills to go with it, you will often get jobs over people that actually may have the edge on you from a purely technical perspective.
I've raised above ranks of people that were much better technically than I was, but were afraid to stand up and give even a small presentation in front of a group of 10 people, or even their peers.
So, you may lament everything should be based on merit, but so far in my many years in the real world, that just isn't the case very often.
Network, meet and stay in touch with people, and you will have much better job opportunities open up for you when you need a job, or when you want to job hop for a better salary.
And if you ever want to become independent and contract...it is invaluable to have contacts out there that know you and like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounded like I had a cold when I typed that...
Re:oh boy! (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the thing. NETWORK the hell out of yourself while in school and especially when you are in the workforce.
Here's the thing. I started working in IT because I don't understand people, can't talk to them, find it hard to build relationships and rarely remember anybody's name.
Computers don't need that shit, they respond to simple well structured inputs.
Networking is all lovely for people with great communication skills. I've spent an entire career trying to gain those and although I can walk into a room full of Execs and convince them to back my ideas I still can't fucking network.
Some of us have to rely on merit and job interviews.
And if you ever want to become independent and contract...it is invaluable to have contacts out there that know you and like you.
..which is why I'm not a contractor. I guess I should be glad I at least recognise this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And as for "talent" wrt people skills what that really means is "good genes" just as with sports. F'rinstance, try teaching people skills to somebody with Aspergers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's nothing different about people skills.
As rot26 noted, some people have specific challenges when it comes to people skills. I'm one of them. Shit, it took me 40 years to find out why; it's not something that simple 'learning' can resolve.
Re:oh boy! (Score:5, Funny)
Recruiters would reject an application from Steve Jobs to work at Apple, because he didn't have 20 years of experience in the smart phone field.
To be fair, his performance has fallen off quite a bit since he died.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, his performance has fallen off quite a bit since he died.
How so? Apple stock has more than doubled since then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:oh boy! (Score:4, Interesting)
I once worked with a headhunter. When I talked with them, one of the things I made clear was that I did not know DB, had no experience with DB, and they should not send me on any interviews for DB work.
So they send me on an interview. Three minutes into the interview, I'm apologizing for wasting their time. The assholes sent me to a job interview for a DBA post.
Re:oh boy! (Score:5, Funny)
They just made a left join against the database skills table when they should've done an inner join.
Oops.
Re:oh boy! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
On a job for a UNIX admin position, I was asked the inner join and outer join question. I then was asked what one thing I'd pass on to a new DBA as a single piece of knowledge that would save time, torment, and agony in the future.
I said that DROP TABLE autocommits.
I got the job.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Entirely too many "headhunters" are eager to get a warm body into a gig so they can get billable hours or get their percentage of the annual salary as a commission/finders-fee for the job in question.
Then there's hiring managers willing to do the same thing to get *someone* in to help them out, regardless because even an ill-fitting posting will move the project along quicker than nobody being there in many cases.
Heh...I've seen both. I will work for the latter, in many cases. One comes to mind, that I wo
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I once worked with a headhunter. When I talked with them, one of the things I made clear was that I did not know DB, had no experience with DB, and they should not send me on any interviews for DB work.
So they send me on an interview. Three minutes into the interview, I'm apologizing for wasting their time. The assholes sent me to a job interview for a DBA post.
prima donna.
Re: (Score:3)
So, not wanting to waste their time, chance getting hired and then canned because he didn't know DB makes him a prima donna? If that's how you handle interviews, lying your ass off, you're exactly the guy I don't want on my team.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was a joke.
Re: (Score:3)
The assholes sent me to a job interview for a DBA post.
You went to an interview without even getting a job description? Excellent preparation on your part. I love sitting in on interviews with people who are that much interested in a position they're applying for - not!
Re:oh boy! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I've explicitly asked the recruitment agent once, "This reads like an infrastructure specialist role. I can't do that job." and been assured that it wasn't at all.
At interview I explicitly said to the interviewer, "I'm not an infrastructure specialist" to make sure, and was instantly (but politely) invited to leave the premises.
I did highlight (politely, while walking back to reception) that I'd had that conversation with the agent.
Re:oh boy! (Score:4, Insightful)
From my experience, the boneheads were almost exclusively in the HR agencies. And that's a light term for fucking-unbelievable-idiots. I have tons of incompetence-filled horror stories. Techies (anything from coders to any branch of engineering), IMHO, should only be recruited by their peers. Period.
Almost exclusively, yes...but not entirely. And we blacklist recruiting firms as well...at least I do. I have only 6 blacklist entries in the spam management settings for my personal domain, and 4 of them are to keep me from getting contacted by companies like KForce...companies whose recruiters' behavior is so egregious that I consider contact from them to be a threat to my career.
But then, on the other side, I've interviewed (as a hiring decision maker at my company) people who are so unfuckingbelievably full of shit that I documented it in detail and sent it back to the recruiting firm with an admonishment for not doing a better pre-screen. I would neither be surprised nor bothered if such people were then blacklisted by that recruiter. If a resume is a little bit exaggerated, that's expected. But don't go in for a crucial position with a ton of responsibility that requires a lot of technical expertise if you don't have the slightest goddamned idea how any of it works.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience the sort of 'passing the buck' and avoidance of responsibility is par for the course for Corporate America.[1]
[1] or should that be Corporate Amerika?
Re: (Score:2)
From my experience, the boneheads were almost exclusively in the HR agencies.
About a year ago, in my previous job, I was recruiting for some Linux Kernel/Drivers/Embedded C (with a bit of C++) people. I was dealing with some of these boneheads but I made sure I had a very good, strongly-worded chat with them to explain the types of candidates I was looking for, making it absolutely clear that I needed people who were proficient in C, not just C++.
The reply that took the biscuit was, "To be honest, you'd b
Re: (Score:2)
So your wife didn't charge, so that she could place her preferred candidate (you), to her personal benefit?
Yep, sounds like a typical headhunter to me.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scum (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Scum (Score:4, Interesting)
Your sound like the rare exception to the rule. I was recently on a job hunt and put my resume up on dice and monster. I immediately started getting phone calls from people who could barely speak english and wanted me to accept senoir level offers in the SF Bay area for $40/hour with no relocation package. After doing a bit of research, I quickly realized that $40/hour in SF Bay is absolute chump change. I have a wife and 2 kids and that basically leaves me a poverty level unless I want a 2 hour commute wach way. I'd get them up to something reasonable like $85.00/hour and they would mysteriously stop callinf me back. I'm assuming it's because they found a better chump..
Re: (Score:2)
Heh... You sound like you have the same attitude most of my preferred staffing agencies have. Most of them, sadly, don't have this attitude. (For example, I will deal with Oxford International, but they're last option for talking to on things... There's a reason for that, which includes excessively low-balling me on past jobs, offering me just any old gig that they think I might be able to fill, never mind that while I'm skilled in Windows development, I flatly DON'T want to do that if I can... And the
Not scum - just the wrong incentives (Score:3)
I run a recruiting company. And, I am genuinely sorry to hear such criticisms.
I hope you are better than most but with most recruiters unless you are a perfect on paper fit you will not get the time of day from them. I've dealt with a LOT of them over the years both as an employer and a job candidate. Recruiters ONLY want people with very deep and narrow domain expertise and (ex: 5 years experience accounts payable with a Fortune 500 manufacturing company) and make no effort whatsoever to figure out whether a person can actually do a job if they are the slightest bit non-tradition
Re: (Score:2)
I've found some recruiters to be very good. Others are just trying to find someone with a CCIE to handle a 3 month, no-hire gig in an Elbonian basement for $10/hour. Still others, one can tell are just quite shady. If I can make some type of connection with the person in the first minute or two, it usually works out. If I cannot get a point across or explain to the person that a Nexus 6000 is a different item than an IBM POWER 795, I just thank them for their time, ask them to find candidate that will f
Re: (Score:3)
For the most part these people do no know your ambitions in life so they will offer jobs that match keywords.
Their value is that they know of places who are hiring better then you may. There are a lot of jobs, and most of them are in small businesses, or business without much of a name with them. These companies will often contact recruiters who have a history of finding good people and see if they can find employment.
If the recruiter is giving you a job that you feel over skilled for or isn't part of you
Depends on the company (Score:3)
For the most part I agree, though generalizations are always dangerous. I'm not actively looking, but my resume gets me lots of attention. 90% of all the recruiters that call are from overseas with poor English. From those overseas, 90% are demanding my time to review a job in a State I don't live in (in fairness, half of the offers I receive from US recruiters are not in the same State either but they are not demanding for the most part). Worse, 99% are for jobs that I don't have on my resume but relat
Re: (Score:3)
I had a recruiter bitch me out on the phone because I wouldn't take a job that she sent me on an interview for. Why? The pay was $10K less than I said I would take, and they only offered me slightly above my current salary.
She (the recruiter) told me she would make sure I never got a good job again.
Oddly enough, two months later I got another job at the salary I requested.
Recruiters are my second least favorite people (Score:5, Interesting)
Fortunately, technology now allows you to bypass these people. LinkedIn allows you to directly apply to companies, without having to go through recruiters. Even small companies that normally wouldn't have online application process.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're a fan of child-rapers, CIA torturers, and Nancy Pelosi? Man, you are seriously passionate about recruiters.
Re:Recruiters are my second least favorite people (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure he's genuinely sorry to hear such criticisms....
Goal in life (Score:3)
...while insisting that their goal in life is to get you a job.,,,
The goal in life of a recruiter and recruiting agencies is to get the commission. No more, no less.
.
The candidate is nothing but a warm butt, and the job opening is nothing but a cold seat.
The recruiter''s goal is to put the warm butt into the cold seat, and get the commission for doing so.
Re: (Score:3)
Reductively, you could argue the same about hiring managers (their goal in life is to increase company profits) and candidates (their goal in life is to get paid so they can do whatever the hell else they actually want to do in life they enjoy).
In general, though, it seems like people -- at least the lucky ones -- end up gravitating toward doing something for their job that they feel some sort of calling for, and I've worked with enough recruiters who actually enjoyed and found fulfillment in what they saw
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:TL;DR "Recruiters" Suck. (Score:5, Interesting)
I work for a tech company that, for exactly this reason, tends to hire people who've never recruited before into its recruiting group -- that way, they're less likely to be broken (we also consider hiring managers responsible for recruiting, and recruiters don't have any technical conversations with candidates).
That said, I'm not all that opposed to blacklists, and I know that we use them ourselves. If you interview with us and make profoundly idiotic statements (I was once in a hiring loop where the candidate told the recruiter, an Asian-American woman, that he'd never hire an Asian woman because they're too diffident. After a moment's pause, he then amended to note that it wasn't that he was sexist -- he wouldn't hire an Asian-American man, either) I don't see a huge reason why we'd want to bring you in, ever again, for another position.
(Anti-poaching agreements, though, are just evil)
Re: (Score:2)
(Anti-poaching agreements, though, are just evil)
I disagree. It depends on the agreement. I would want one where the recruiter for my open positions can't recruit or recommend my staff for open positions they have at other firms. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to expect the recruiter not to have a colloquia say "I hear your in at X. I need someone who can do Y and they are noted for that. Help me find someone..." You are either working for me or for someone else. Plain and simple. If the firm does work for competitors other recruiters certainly
Re: (Score:3)
I have to admit that I still disagree with you.
I have about nine engineers working for me. I appreciate the work they do, and -- as someone who's a vastly less qualified engineer than they are -- deeply respect and admire their skills.
At my company, my job as a manager is defined to be all about attracting and retaining great engineers, and giving them context (and then they figure out what they're going to do with that context). So retaining them is, quite simply, my job.
That said, these engineers don't
Re: (Score:2)
I have to admit that I still disagree with you.
I have about nine engineers working for me. I appreciate the work they do, and -- as someone who's a vastly less qualified engineer than they are -- deeply respect and admire their skills.
At my company, my job as a manager is defined to be all about attracting and retaining great engineers, and giving them context (and then they figure out what they're going to do with that context). So retaining them is, quite simply, my job.
That said, these engineers don't _belong_ to me or my company. They're human beings, and if I want them to work for me I should be willing and able to compete for them every. single. day. And that means that I don't win by making it harder for them to know what's out there in the job market that's better than the job they've got here -- I win by making this job the bast damned job they could want.
Trying to keep recruiters away from my engineers as a way to have a lock on them feels oddly similar to Apple suing Samsung to not have their competing product on the market.
I think we are closer than our comments appear. To me, it's not that you are keeping recruiters away from them; it's simply that if someone is hired to fill a vacant slot for you their loyalty should be to you and not use their position to your detriment. I would expect a good recruiter to learn your staffing needs, what current skills you have on staff, etc. to find the best fit candidate. For that recruiter then to go after you staff seems to me to be a conflict of interest and it would be unethical for t
Re: (Score:2)
I think a blacklist is reasonable within a company. You don't want inept or obnoxious serial job applicants taking up the time of HR staff or hiring managers.
I agree though that a reasonable time limit should be imposed. 2 years may be enough, 5 feels too much.
Blacklists shared across companies though is just wrong. They may occur implicitly if multiple companies share a recruitment agency, who apply their own blacklist, but that wouldn't preclude a potential employee applying directly. Each company should
Bull (Score:5, Interesting)
Their job is not to screw up. That means they have to take the SAFE choices.
Companies dislike training. They would rather hire someone who already has all the named skills to do the job. So they go looking for that.
The problem is that those named skills? The reason they are named is that they have classes to teach you them.
What corporations usually really want and need are those qualities and un-named nebulous skill that can not be taught. They are not named because their are no classes, because they can't be taught in anything less than years. Or they are innate qualities - like intelligence and creativity - that people are born with.
As a direct result, recruiters go looking for the one thing they should NOT look for - the people that have the sills that can be taught. All the time ignoring the qualities and skills that can not be taught.
As for messing up an interview - that is just plain bad luck. You get sick, you have a bad day, etc.
Recruiters are a necessary part of a very flawed system. But they did not create the system, they merely try to make money satisfying the system.
Re:Bull (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Another thing employers (and recruiters) want is not just someone who can program in C# or configure Cisco kit or fix Windows but someone who has actually worked in the commercial world before and knows how it works and what is expected. They want someone who can come in and start work right away without needing to learn how things are done in the "real world"
Re: (Score:2)
Resume and cover letters are a great way to demonstrate your writing ability - or rather you ability to find a friend/pay someone else to demonstrate their writing ability.
Sometimes the reason you need to hire someone to do X is because your company does not have anyone that can
Dice could fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
Since we have DICE in this discussion, why don't you fix it? If DICE is our friend and helping us to get a job, you could very easily change the rules to make this more worker friendly. There are only really 2 job sites, Monster and DICE. Why doesn't DICE get together with Monster and agree on some changes.
#1. require salary info in the job posting. It's insulting and dishonest to allow employers to not even bother telling us what they're willing to pay until after the interview process.
#2. require employers to assert that they don't use blacklists and no poaching agreements or risk losing access to your services.
Alternatively, maybe we the workers should setup our own employment site that does protect us and then refuse to use sites like DICE and Monster. We have the power, it's our laziness that allows them to continue abusing us.
Re: (Score:3)
Disagree. I've had decent luck with LinkedIn, and with Stack Overflow Careers.
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree. I've had decent luck with LinkedIn, and with Stack Overflow Careers.
I don't have experience with Stacks job site. As such, I imagine it's a very niche service. Which is fine... but I'm talking about Major job sites that could change things. That's limit to DICE and Monster from what I can tell.
But Linkedin? That sites dead... very very dead. I've personally oversaw the domain get blacklisted at 3 different companies now. They killed themselves with spam. They were sending so much of it that site admins finally just gave up and banned them outright. You can't design your ser
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree. I deleted my linkedin account a year ago (a few months after folks started recommending me when they had no idea what my skill set was) due to the amount of spam, both email and by phone. Spam has gradually dropped to about one a week on average and no more phone calls.
[John]
Re: (Score:3)
Have you seen how little "market share" Dice gets? Indeed has swamped them by providing direct links to all the businesses fed up with going through Monster. Dice has never been a major player.
Re: (Score:3)
There are only really 2 job sites, Monster and DICE
Wrong.
Yes, you have Monstor, and DICE (seeker.dice.com); but you also have thingamajob.com (TekSystems and their related sister companies), careerbuilder.com, and many others; not to mention that nearly any big corporation (HP, Microsoft, etc) all have their own systems as well from which they typically draw first.
As a candidate, you have to hit all the sites that the kind of companies you want to be working for are looking at, or that their recruiters are looking through. Then work with the recruiter
Re: (Score:2)
DICE and Monster are nowhere near the top of the list for IT jobs in the UK, even if you don't just skip the job boards and track the career pages on the websites of companies you actually want to work for.
Re: (Score:2)
It's annoying, but that doesn't change the fundamental reality that salaries are a negotiation. Anything that's categorically true of negotiations, therefore applies. Whichever party reveals its true salary range first is at a negotiating disadvantage. In a loose labor market, that puts pressure on applicants to buckle and
2 types of recruiters and 2 types of candidates (Score:4, Insightful)
There are 2 types of candidates, those who need a job bad enough to work with any recruiter, and those that can get a job easily because they have "in demand" skills, they don't need (or want to deal with) the second type of recruiter.
Luckily, I'm the second type of candidate and I will never again deal with the second type of recruiter. I love captive recruiters, even if I don't particularly care to work for their company, and I will happily give them referrals if I can. But the independent recruiters are all scum, and I choose that characterization carefully, I've never met one that was not, though interestingly they all swear they are different than the others. I'm working on a form letter to send to the scum recruiters, but I'm too nice to actually send it, so I'll just continue to ignore them. Like telemarketers and spammers, I realize they need to make a living, they just aren't going to get any help from me.
Some are good - Most are not (Score:2)
But the independent recruiters are all scum, and I choose that characterization carefully, I've never met one that was not, though interestingly they all swear they are different than the others.
I can introduce you to several independent recruiters that are most definitely not scum. A few I've worked with for years on both sides of the recruiting process and I know a few personally. *Some* are pretty good folks. BUT you aren't entirely wrong either. Most recruiters I've met are little more than commission whores who won't give you the time of day unless you are the perfect fit for whatever job they are currently trying to fill.
I'm working on a form letter to send to the scum recruiters, but I'm too nice to actually send it, so I'll just continue to ignore them.
Probably a good idea. It costs nothing to be polite and ignore them
HR departments are the same (Score:2)
Some stupid chick reading a checklist and 998 times out of a hundred they don't even know that the hiring manager has already made a decision. Let's face reality, NO ONE is outside hiring below the director level anymore. NO ONE. For anything. Unless you're an H1B from Hindu Holstein Contracting, you are shit out luck.
Re: (Score:3)
The H1B problem is largely a West coast issue. Move out of that cesspool and you'll find greener pastures.
My experience with recruiters (Score:3)
is that they're lying soulless parasites who provide no real value for either party. I'm amazed that they exist.
If a company ... (Score:2)
When a company flys you to their HQ for an interview (on their nickel), that's a good sign. When they fly one of their senior people out to talk to you, that's better.
recruit based on potential (Score:2)
One example came from the language training I took. The training was for English speakers to learn French so they spent 30 minutes teaching us a few words, counting and the alphabet in Kurdish. WT
Full Disclosure (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You know that slashdot has that text about Dice owning slashdot on the bottom of every single page, right? They need to disclose, not beat everyone over the head with a hammer of disclosure.
My take... (Score:4, Informative)
Since 1979, I have been employed, able to move between jobs, in high demand and able to ignore recruiters. It wasn't until 2011 when I experienced my first layoff that I had to give recruiters serious consideration as the entire employment landscape had changed.
I have had to figure out how to work with recruiters - understand how they work and separate the chaff from the wheat.
Recruiters come in many different flavors. The younger tech worker will. more likely than not, deal with younger and less experienced recruiters. More experienced prospectives get handed off to the more established recruiters. And, since they get a commission based on things like the salary of the hire, to the victors go the spoils, right? The less experienced have to deal with more perspectives in order to earn enough for a bite to eat. It makes them hungry. And, it can make them rude.
One thing you should never do is piss them off. Yes, you can be blacklisted very quickly. Given how many corporations use recruiters and how frequently they change firms, that blacklist can follow you around and persist based on whether they record your transgression in their systems or not.
You need to stay on top of the recruiter (sounds promising given how many good looking ladies work in the field...good luck with that) and watch how they modify YOUR resume. They WILL rewrite your resume in their style and draw from what you submit to them. You HAVE the RIGHT to see what it is that they are submitted to their client on your behalf. Ask for it. Also, ask for a limited right to represent. More reputable firms will only hold you to a given position - not lock you out or blindly send your resume. But, get it in writing before you sign on so you can work with other recruiters for different positions and companies.
Make yourself accessible but not overly accessible. I use Google Voice to take recruiter calls. It lets me weed out those who I have an established relationship with (and, who I have given my cell number) and those cold calling me. The call transcripts the GV produces can be rather humourous as a by product - good for a laugh. I thought about publishing some of the funnier transcripts (Hi .my name is , I think I am a recruiter).
I ignore most emails from recruiters from those that exhibit too much familiarity, poor grammar, provide limited details, ask for too much information (no, I AM NOT going to give you my salary history for the past 30+ years, my SSN, or my first born) or don't respect simple things like my geographic location or skillset. Additionally, while I might not respond to every email, I do look at the more promising ones to see if two or more emails appear to represent the same position. In one situation, I had three recruiters from three different offshore firms trying to represent me for the same position with the State for a mobile architect. One would say the position was at $55/hr and 6 month duration and another would say it's $70/hr for 12 month CTH while another was saying it offered $85/hr for 12 months (no, CTH). Yes, the were for the EXACT same position (they cut and paste from the same feed). And, when I spoke with a firm in the State and asked if they knew about this position, I found out that the State was actually paying $110hr, it was 6 months (6 months left in the fiscal year), but expected the contract to be renewed for another year. So, it makes sense to shop around.
When you find a recruiter that seems like a good match, work with them. And, keep them on file. I still get calls from many of them hoping I am willing to leave my current employer - I will listen and consider even if it really isn't in the cards. They have gotten to know me. They are keepers. If they change firms, find out where they have gone. I have a short list of those I will seek out if my situation changes again.
As for job sites such as DICE and MONSTER. I have found DICE to be pretty good at sending job descriptions that better match what I might
Re: (Score:2)
An important point.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Good anecdote.
Trick is figuring out which ones are worth working with and those that are not. When you find one that's good, you keep them in your contact list.
Re: (Score:2)
More experienced prospectives get handed off to the more established recruiters.
That sort of thing really irritates me. It's like working with a car dealer who has no authority to do anything without going back to talk to his manager.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously CAN'T read, have tunnel vision, have an axe to grind, or simply are unable to comprehend when something is said tongue in cheek, twit.
As someone who has been working for 30+ years, I think I have a right to be selective in with whom I work and in what positions are appropriate for me and my family. I have learned how to work with recruiters - they work for me and I help them get paid. I EXPECT them to do their job and duty for both me and their corporate client. And, this has been my experi
Re: (Score:2)
If you are in school, use the employment resources they offer (i.e. co-ops) and strengthen your resume. If already working, optimize your resume. There are plenty of resources (free and paid) to help you do that. You want a modern CV.
I would also suggest using social media such as LinkedIn. Find others you know, professionally, link with them and then see if they are linked to a recruiter. Then, request to link with those you find interesting. Very few will reject you. Or, you can send them a message
If you aren't paying, you are the product (Score:2)
while insisting that their goal in life is to get you a job.
Their goal is to stay in business, which means their goal is to make whoever pays them happy while not making either the government or the talent pool as a whole unhappy with them.
If they are paid by the companies, then their goal includes NOT getting you a job that will make THEIR CLIENT un-happy. If you've made bone-headed mistakes in interviews this may include not getting you any job with any of their clients, unless maybe the client is looking for a job where your bone-headed mistakes are not relevant
90% of recruiters are in it for themselves only... (Score:3)
In my I.T. career, I've only met ONE memorable recruiter who honestly seemed to be concerned about matching the top candidates for the positions he knew of openings for. And in that case, he actually spent over an hour with me getting *detailed* information about my skills and strengths/weaknesses, before telling me that he honestly placed more software development people than anything else (I was seeking a network or systems admin job at the time.). He still kept my info on file though, in case the right opportunity came along. And to his credit, he contacted me LONG after I assumed he'd forgotten all about me and moved on, to let me know when something finally came his way.
Almost every other time? I'd say the recruiters I encountered fit one of two basic profiles. First were the "enthusiastic but clueless". Typically these would be the younger people you could tell were just starting out doing recruiting. They couldn't wait to get ahold of your "current resume" and to take you out to lunch to meet you face to face and chat. But after that? Crickets.... Months would go by without them so much as offering a single worthwhile opportunity. When they suddenly re-appeared, calling and leaving voice-mails, email, etc.? They had some job that 5 or 6 other recruiters were also trying to fill. You could find it listed all over the internet job search sites in most cases. Basically, it was clear they needed you more than you needed them.
The second type was the "just need warm bodies to meet my quota" type. These tended to be the slightly older and apparently more experienced recruiters who would send you opportunities that were clearly not even a good fit for your talents or skillset, but insisted you should go to the interviews anyway. After a while, I figured out a lot of these guys worked with H.R. for a few "pet companies" who liked to use them for one reason or another (probably because they low-balled your salary and saved the company some $'s or charged lower finder's fees). They didn't care about finding you the job you wanted, so much as just throwing your resume at their biggest customers every time some of the "key words" on it matched what the business said it needed for a new opening.
There are a few very good recruiters out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
The best signs I've seen that a recruiter is quality are:
They don't call during the workday
They don't spam you with every gig they have available that you match a keyword search for
They don't push back on when high salary requirements are communicated
Those would seem to be three pretty simple signs, but it's amazing how many recruiters fail those tests, ESPECIALLY the third sign, which is arguably the most important.
See, with open floor plans abound, calling me during the workday assures that I'm not going to get to talk to you (and everyone suspects the person stepping away from his desk all the time to take calls of looking for a new gig). The spray-and-pray recruiting method tells me that you don't give a crap about actually mapping people to jobs, you just want as many "sales" as possible.
Finally, any recruiter that pushes back on pay requirements is afraid of losing their entire commission by having what seems to be a good match go up in flames over the candidate going for top dollar -- after all, they don't have an incentive to get you the best possible salary they can (even though they'l all say that), but they have the incentive to get you to accept an offer as fast as possible to bring in a constant stream of commissions. Negotiations falling apart over, say, asking for $160,000/yr rather than settling for $150,000/yr means that if they're seeing a 5 percent commission on first year's salary, means they're risking $7,500 to push for your extra ten grand, which only gets them another $500 if successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, any recruiter that pushes back on pay requirements is afraid of losing their entire commission by having what seems to be a good match go up in flames over the candidate going for top dollar -- after all, they don't have an incentive to get you the best possible salary they can (even though they'l all say that), but they have the incentive to get you to accept an offer as fast as possible to bring in a constant stream of commissions. Negotiations falling apart over, say, asking for $160,000/yr rather than settling for $150,000/yr means that if they're seeing a 5 percent commission on first year's salary, means they're risking $7,500 to push for your extra ten grand, which only gets them another $500 if successful.
Good point.
Re: (Score:2)
after all, they don't have an incentive to get you the best possible salary they can (even though they'l all say that), but they have the incentive to get you to accept an offer as fast as possible to bring in a constant stream of commissions.
This is the important point, and one that it took me a while to figure out. You're not paying them (I hope to God you aren't paying them), so they don't really represent you. Sure, their commission might be better if they got you an extra $10K a year, but if they have to try 3 times as many companies, that's three times as much work for them. They could have instead spent that extra time getting two more commissions.
That doesn't mean they are bad people. You just have to understand their motivations while
I love recruiters, but they're basically useless. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
their goal isn't to "get you a job" (Score:2)
full disclosure: I haven't had a good experience with "recruiters"
It is misleading to say that they want to "get you a job." Best case - their purpose is to match the "best fit" candidate with the right opening, Remember that "best fit" doesn't equal most experienced/skilled - it means the optimum combination of experience/skills/salary/personality for that company
Worst case: you get idiots reading from checklists, sending out spam about "seeing your resume online"
"Is your interviewer qualified to interview you?" (Score:3)
A few weeks later I went to the bank headquarters in NYC for "a technical interview", and it was every disaster on this page. The interview time was a myth, as was the person I was expecting to see; instead an HR person who had been a fresh-out last year, and who had no idea what he was doing in his own area let alone IT, gave up on questions and gave me a "skills test" to fill out (presumably my soon-to-be Computer Science degree from a top engineering school didn't count).
So I went back to school, took out my trusty typewriter and the VP's business card, and wrote him a letter describing my experience (staying polite!), and making clear that while meeting with him had been pleasant, the mismanagement after things left his hands convinced me that there was absolutely no way that I would ever want to work for the bank. I heard nothing for a few weeks, then a brief note of apology.
A few weeks later, my parents called me to tell me to go find a copy of The New York Times for that day. In the business section was an 1/8th page ad for that same bank with two profiles, one with a speech bubble including a dozen or more tech buzzwords, the other with a thought bubble empty but for a question mark. The sub-heading of the ad was: "Is your interviewer qualified to interview you?" I guess that old VP still had some pull . . .
Re: I love working with recruiters.... (Score:2)
Don't know why that was posted as AC....
And no I'm not being sarcastic....
I have developed relationships with three over the years and met them for lunch or in their office.
1. I call up my recruiters and tell them all I'm looking for a job paying X and in what part of town.
2. I send them my resume.
3. They send me a list of job descriptions and I tell them which ones to send my resume to.
4. I go through a phone interview and see if I am interested in them and if they are interest in me.
5. I go to an in perso
Re: (Score:2)
Since recruiters are the gatekeepers and explorers of the job market, developing a good relationship with them is beneficial for you and they.
I've got a couple of recruiters that I stay in touch with,despite being in my current position for 87+ years. They appreciate my quick 'not available', no wasting time, and I appreciate their continued interest. So far they haven't hit me for anything interesting enough to move, but they also know my current salary requirements, and don't waste my time either.
If you
Re: (Score:2)
I once told a company I knew was heavily dependent on employees with security clearances that I wasn't going to apply for one. The job posting made no mention of them at all. I was assured that wasn't an issue (required by law) and I would still be interviewed. Then mysteriously, a few days later, the interview had to be canceled and I never heard back.
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like a load of B.S. to me, unless you have some proof to back it up?
I can tell you that in close to 30 years of working in I.T. -- I've never seen this sort of behavior by H.R. In fact, when it came to I.T. hiring -- the hiring managers were often pushing to find a qualified female or minority candidate, precisely BECAUSE they got nervous about having nothing but white males in the department.
I helped interview candidates at one of my previous I.T. jobs, and my boss was openly frustrated that w
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, the next big block of "Tech" workers to be outsourced??? Are you kidding me, 90% of the recruiters that call me right now are Indian and in India, I think they have all ready outsourced them.