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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
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.
You're special, short bus special.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
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
What are the expected outcomes here and how will tWF react to them?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 ImAnOgre
Look, in today's job market you can't limit yourself to only sending out resumes and letters to the predictable places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
*sends resume to Fuzzy*
We were talking about Public positions. At least initially, before it took a turn into all hiring. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
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.