Do employers already know who they're looking for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

How else would private companies find out which people are worth hiring? Aside from "old boy networks". I know I wrote it so that it sounds dystopian, but honestly these kind of background-checking firms could sell a fine product, the best workers for each task. Isn't that what the free markets do, optimize the output?

---

They already do this. Psych profiles are normal for Director level or above. Quite a few companies do an extensive background check on any canidate you make an offer to. Hell, i just went through this process when the headhunter contacted me to work at my new job... ironically because I had met them at a fraud conference and came highly recommended.

See? Corporations are people too, my friend, and the most well-adjust individuals act based on their own interests.

To put it more bluntly.... say you are tasked with hiring an employee. You are going to invest 250k in that employee the first year. Would you feel more comfortable hiring someone off the street who you've never worked with, or someone whom you know the work ethic of, someone who you know gets along with your employees, someone you know you can count on.

There are hiring managers who can spot the good worker -- and those 'recruiters' make a ton. For the rest of us, I'm going to hire those I can know I can trust (especially in the fraud world, you hire someone who's a fraudster and you opened yourself up to a world of hurt -- you've just given a fraudster the keys to the kingdom)

Exactly. Understanding is not necessary, only obedience...

Or well-guided initiative!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

How else would private companies find out which people are worth hiring? Aside from "old boy networks". I know I wrote it so that it sounds dystopian, but honestly these kind of background-checking firms could sell a fine product, the best workers for each task. Isn't that what the free markets do, optimize the output?

---

Which would certainly be an option, but not necessarily the only option. Background checks are fairly normal for many positions, (especially positions that involve working with vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, and the infirm), but rarely do they need to be as exhaustive as you seem to think. Furthermore, some of those background checks are not mandated by the free market, but instead mandated by the government.

I think it's interesting to presuppose that the free market would limit options, when experience has shown free market principles generally lead to an explosion of different, (though not necessarily universally appealing) options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Which would certainly be an option, but not necessarily the only option. Background checks are fairly normal for many positions, (especially positions that involve working with vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, and the infirm), but rarely do they need to be as exhaustive as you seem to think. Furthermore, some of those background checks are not mandated by the free market, but instead mandated by the government.

I think it's interesting to presuppose that the free market would limit options, when experience has shown free market principles generally lead to an explosion of different, (though not necessarily universally appealing) options.

---

Again, and I fully admit I did not explain this when I was posting earlier, this was my criticism towards GG's assault on Ogre's "old boy cronyism"; the free market could provide a clear alternative to such a network, but there are reasons why it isn't fully implemented right now. Nevertheless, in a totally free market, I don't see any reason why these kind of services would not be acclaimed for the valuable contributions they'd bring to generating the largest possible bottom lines. Of course innovative business could do the same processes themselves, at cost, but not every business can afford that. Now whether or not larger businesses are inherently better at socio-economic darwinism is a question outside the scope of this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Again, and I fully admit I did not explain this when I was posting earlier, this was my criticism towards GG's assault on Ogre's "old boy cronyism"; the free market could provide a clear alternative to such a network, but there are reasons why it isn't fully implemented right now. Nevertheless, in a totally free market, I don't see any reason why these kind of services would not be acclaimed for the valuable contributions they'd bring to generating the largest possible bottom lines. Of course innovative business could do the same processes themselves, at cost, but not every business can afford that. Now whether or not larger businesses are inherently better at socio-economic darwinism is a question outside the scope of this discussion.

---

That's what headhunters more or less do right now though. The only difference is that they do this for managerial positions. It doesn't actually make much economic sense to go through the same amount of trouble for a lower position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

That's what headhunters more or less do right now though. The only difference is that they do this for managerial positions. It doesn't actually make much economic sense to go through the same amount of trouble for a lower position.

---

This was the stipulation Ogre originally made, the Mickey Dee's bit just amused me personally.

You know how it is, the handshake is the window to the worker's soul. Honestly, half of this seems to be about appearances and beliefs. It's like buying and selling used cars :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Morale. If ALA is huge there, that should mean consistent standards and not needing "hard and long training" for outsiders, especially not management positions. I was thinking beyond your county or state, and fielding applicants from other states along with the internal promotion seekers.

---

I don't know if this deserves a :bulb: or a :rolleyes:

There are no standards that dictate what software we use, how our schedules work, what hours we remain open, how we share desk time, what we offer and how, who we form cooperatives with, what technology we work with and how.
I'm not even sure you understand what the ALA is, or what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

That's what headhunters more or less do right now though. The only difference is that they do this for managerial positions. It doesn't actually make much economic sense to go through the same amount of trouble for a lower position.

---

Actually, I've been headhunted before. But yes, I agree that companies use all of the legitimately available information about an employee to make hiring decisions. I don't see why they shouldn't.

I was going to add "specialist positions" as well, but I didn't want to confuse people. :o

This hiring mess is why I'm getting a Goa'ould implanted early next month. Ph34r.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I was going to add "specialist positions" as well, but I didn't want to confuse people. :o

---

You're special, short bus special.

I thought they just had to ride in the back of the bus?

Obama is a recruiter now. He's going to pass along the resume of one of his constiuents....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72185.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImAnOgre

Obama is a recruiter now. He's going to pass along the resume of one of his constiuents....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72185.html

---

What are the expected outcomes here and how will tWF react to them?

Well, for starters I'm going to send him my resume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImAnOgre

Well, for starters I'm going to send him my resume.

---

I'm confused, what would be the point of that in the context of the article? :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I'm confused, what would be the point of that in the context of the article? :bulb:

---

Look, in today's job market you can't limit yourself to only sending out resumes and letters to the predictable places.

*sends resume to Fuzzy*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImAnOgre

Sure it is. The free market allows me to hire whom I choose for whatever reason I choose to. That’s the definition of free market. Putting rules and regulations on said choices takes away from the free market.

---

We were talking about Public positions. At least initially, before it took a turn into all hiring. :confused:

The "Free Market" (as you represent it) would mean denying employment opportunities solely on gender, sexual identity, ethnic group, and religious affiliation. Based simply on the employer being 'uncomfortable' with those things, and nothing to do with abilities. That's quite anti-thetical to the notion that All Are Equal.

Ironically, the things you claim are part of your hiring "criteria" are the same things you'd readily criticize from unions: hiring from an "inside group" and giving them preferential treatment over other applicants.

Can you explain that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

How else would private companies find out which people are worth hiring?

---

Well, in the tech industry, if you're looking for a candidate "off the street," because you can't fill your position with someone you know, or someone who knows someone you trust, you post a "contract-to-hire" position. Typically, it'll be for 3-6 months of work, and the expectation is that if all goes well, the "contractor" will be offered [and accept] a full-time position. That's [more or less] how I landed my current job - some guys I know had a client who required a specific skillset I possess, so they put me in there as an hourly consultant. Their client realized that I am, in fact, hot shit and their kind of person to boot, so they extended me a job offer. And the guys I know made a nice little pile of money for making the introduction.

Seems to work well for everyone involved. The individual gets a chance to feel out their new employer and make sure they'll be happy, the employer gets the same opportunity, and there's usually a consulting company in the middle placing people into these jobs that gets a nice cut of the hourly fee during the contract, and a hiring fee if/when the guy they paced in a contract-to-hire role gets hired. And if it doesn't work out, no big deal - no real costs associated with training and hiring a new full time employee, and the individual contractor gets to put that contract work on their resume, and keep looking for something else.

I think they know roughly who they're looking for, and unless it's a show to not offend other employees, they don't have a particular person already in mind if they're taking the effort to advertise the position.