david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) (08/17/87)
As a result of some mail I have received and the fact that it has been about a year since I last asked this question, I thought I would once again ask the ontario net people how they feel about job postings from headhunters. Pro: I tend to think of this as a service I do for the net to let people know what jobs are available. I don't mind doing it. I don't mind talking to headhunters. What I don't want is for people to get upset or to think that I am involved in headhunting myself (no kickbacks) Over the past year, the volume in ont.jobs (both from headhunters and others) has been very low. I don't think the service is being abused. Con: Some folk on the net think that since the headhunter will get a hefty chunk of money for placing the person, we should charge them for access to the net (or make them get their own machine). I would not like to get involved in this - its too much hassle. Naturally, we could make the headhunters buy their own machines for posting these messages. This, I think, would mean more postings to the net; postings which contain more "hype" and less UNIX related terms. (I typically filter what the headhunters ask for to give people the meat of the offer, not all the bumph that goes with it) The Question: So folk, what do you think? Should we rule against head hunter postings in ont.jobs? Should we have a special title like HH: Subject? Should we force head hunters to contribute to /usr/group (or /usr/group/cdn)? Historically: When last I asked this question, response was low, but the majority of those who did respond felt that it wasn't being abused and that the job postings were of some benefit. -david- -- David Haynes [ mnetor, yetti, utgpu] ! geac ! david Geac Computers International Inc. Wise words in mouths of fools 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, do oft themselves belie. CANADA, L3R 1B3 +1 416 475 0525 x 3420
jim@forgen.UUCP (Jim Hood) (08/18/87)
In article <1156@geac.UUCP>, david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes: > > The Question: > > So folk, what do you think? Should we rule against head hunter postings > in ont.jobs? Should we have a special title like HH: Subject? Should we > force head hunters to contribute to /usr/group (or /usr/group/cdn)? I have no objections to head hunter postings as long as the volume is negligible. It MIGHT be useful to have them flagged as such...I dunno. The funding question is more tricky. While additional bucks could be put to good use, once they become a "paying customer" you may loose what control you do have while they have access only through your benevolence. __ Jim Hood lsuc!forgen!jim
decom@utcsri.UUCP (08/19/87)
Job postings should not be withheld from the net simply because someone will be paid when an applicant is finally chosen. The headhunter will be paid one way or another. We may as well be informed of the jobs. I think the notion of requiring headhunters to contribute to /usr/grp or any other organization is a bad one. No organization is "providing" the net. Putting "HH" in the keywords line would be fine. Jon.
satan@geac.UUCP (The Big One Himself) (08/20/87)
In article <1156@geac.UUCP> david@geac.UUCP (David Haynes) writes: > >As a result of some mail I have received and the fact that it >has been about a year since I last asked this question, I thought >I would once again ask the ontario net people how they feel about >job postings from headhunters. > Sorry I missed the original but I've only had news available for the last six months and I find "headhunter" postings objectionable. > >Pro: > >I tend to think of this as a service I do for the net to let people >know what jobs are available. I don't mind doing it. I don't mind >talking to headhunters. What I don't want is for people to get upset >or to think that I am involved in headhunting myself (no kickbacks) > Interaction with recruiting firms on any level other than a personal basis, reflects upon the poster. That is if you consistantly post then you become associated with the recruiting operation and have the appearance of involvement. >Over the past year, the volume in ont.jobs (both from headhunters and >others) has been very low. I don't think the service is being abused. > I think any posting for headhunters can be construed to be abuse. How so? Well, aside from compromising the poster recruiters make a substantial fee for every placement and they require many bodies to fill out their portfolios and how better to get the bodies needed but to have some king soul post their request for them. This, of course, relieves them of having to make an investment in our industry. >Con: > >Some folk on the net think that since the headhunter will get a hefty >chunk of money for placing the person, we should charge them for >access to the net (or make them get their own machine). I would not >like to get involved in this - its too much hassle. > Neat idea! They do get paid for placements so maybe a more practical solution would be to offer priviledges to those recruiting companies willing to contribute to... say /usr/grp/cdn. For money, services, et cetera the /usr/grp provides associate memberships which, among other things, includes a membership number. The number, in turn, could be used in the posting as a legitimizer. The net result of this influx of dollars could mean a Canadian version of UUNET. Now the poster is relieved of any hassle, he/she still has a choice on posting anything and the recruiter demonstrates through his membership that he is responsible and a contributing member of the community. > >Naturally, we could make the headhunters buy their own machines for >posting these messages. This, I think, would mean more postings to the >net; postings which contain more "hype" and less UNIX related terms. >(I typically filter what the headhunters ask for to give people the >meat of the offer, not all the bumph that goes with it) > I suspect this was meant to be facetious. Maybe some reputable recruiters, upon learning of the benefits of direct connection, would jump on the band wagon; HOWEVER, I do not believe that the majority would avail themselves of these facilities. Why? Because I have discovered over the years that these companies, being one or two man operations are too small and disappear in finite time. Also, it requires committment to hire someone (one from their pool of bodies?) to support the operation. When a recruiter makes this kind of commitment, I will be more than pleased to read and respond to the postings. I think, though that the membership/contribution idea would have more long term appeal to both us users and to the recruiters. > >The Question: > >So folk, what do you think? Should we rule against head hunter postings >in ont.jobs? Should we have a special title like HH: Subject? Should we >force head hunters to contribute to /usr/group (or /usr/group/cdn)? > >Historically: > >When last I asked this question, response was low, but the majority of >those who did respond felt that it wasn't being abused and that the >job postings were of some benefit. > >-david- > >-- >David Haynes [ mnetor, yetti, utgpu] ! geac ! david >Geac Computers International Inc. Wise words in mouths of fools >350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, do oft themselves belie. >CANADA, L3R 1B3 +1 416 475 0525 x 3420 I'm against postings of this type, in general. The whole thing smacks of parasitism and I dislike parasites. If we can convert what appears to be some parasites into contributing, symbiotic organsisms then I have no objection BUT as things stand now I consider the whole question to be one of abuse and must, emphatically, say NO! G. Roderick Singleton, <gerry@syntron.UUCP> to compromise -- (__|__) | | What's a soul anyway --- you hardly know its there! |
len@array.UUCP (Leonard Vanek) (08/21/87)
By all means continue to place postings for head hunters, David. The ratio of interesting jobs to junk is much higher in the network than it is in other media, such as newspapers. Let's not omit interesting positions just because a head hunter stands to benefit by their being filled. Len Vanek
daveb@geac.UUCP (Brown) (08/24/87)
I admit I am of two minds about postings from headhunters. I rather
distrust them, irrespective of any financial benefit they may be.
I would also like them to become good corporate citizens, and
suspect that only those prepared to invest time and effort into
connecting to the net would even consider the "ethics" of their
profession. So I would recommend that any posting passed to the net
via a head-hunter be vetted by the poster, to the extent that such is
possible (ie, the poster, presumably not being eligible for the job,
should know ask who it is with, etc), and mark the posting with
the fact that an "HH" has proposed it and his estimate of the reality
of the job offered.
--dave (I hate applying for non-existent jobs) collier-brown
--
David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb
Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its
350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind)
CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.