sue@sol1.UUCP (sue) (02/18/85)
Okay, boys and girls.... You've had yours, now I get mine.
It seems there is a general lack of understanding out there with regard to
just what it is a recruiter (or in your favorite, slang... headhunter) does
and just how the work is accomplished. Follows, a brief explanation of some
of the most misunderstood elements.
Companies (clients) agree to work with me in order that they may receive only
qualified candidates for positions they have open. This process saves those
clients from having to separate the wheat from the chaf themselves - saving
them precious man-hour dollars. Apparently more dollars than what my fee
amounts to or they wouldn't come back time and again to further utilize the
service I offer them.
REVIEW: Clients pay my fees, not my candidates. My commodity is people, i.e.
(candidates). I am not "advertising" my commodity. I am posting jobs
for people who may be interested in those jobs which my clients have open.
It may be interesting to you who are so terribly inflamed, that the very
employers who are paying for your UUCP transfers are often the same parties
who are also paying my fee.
Seems to me that cleaning up the junk-mail you flamers generate would save
your employers more money than what it costs them to transfer my postings.
Many of you have mentioned you feel things would be just ducky if I were to
make public the names of the clients as well as a client contact person.
Yes, I suppose you WOULD like that! But you see, that defeats the intent of
the client ... to have me do their sifting for them. They don't WANT to hear
from you directly.
The alternative to my not posting my openings as I do is probably your not
hearing of them at all.
Following: a mixed-bag of support & "other" mail, interspersed with
some comments of my own with regard to it.
> My personal opinion: the presence of recruiting info on the net (which your
> company pays for) is analogous to the job ads in the back of the tech maga-
> zines that your company pays for. It's not the main reason you pay for the
> service, and you don't really lose that many people because of it. If net.
> jobs continues to exist, let it be open to any and all recruiting activities.
Jim (Mac) McParland / Cap Gemini DASD
on assignment to: AT&T Information Systems
> I agree with sue@sol1's viewpoint on this matter. It does
> seem to me that the original complaint has its foundation in sour
> grapes ... after all, how many psychologists get jobs in this
> fashion?
From a psych student,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|icalqa|purdue|uiucdcs|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Hope is the thing with feathers."
> ......................................... This means that the kind of
> person reading the net is changing-- less technical or computer oriented,
> and less knowledgable or interested in the ramifications of their postings.
> They don't know about uucp, or uucp costs and overheads, multipoint
> networks, software overheads, and the like. They know personnel, marketing,
> scheduling, or whatever.
RESPONSE: Know your subject matter.
I may not be as knowledgeable as some of you old-timers but am
not totally oblivious to technical, computer-oriented matters myself. Part
of what makes me a successful EDP recruiter is my background. Six lab hours
away from my degree, I was forced into educational limbo as a result of
personal economics. For the past six years I have programmed on an IBM
mainframe, an Apple II+ and for the past 2+ years, have worked on UNIX
systems (mostly as a user). I know four languages and am working on a
fifth, 'C'. I work in a people-oriented profession because I enjoy people
much more than long hours, sitting speechlessly before a terminal.
I know about UUCP, it's associated costs, multipoint networks,
software overheads, etc. I merely didn't feel it necessary to qualify
myself to all of you in this specific manner with grande bravado.
sol1!sue
>If you want complete freedom of the net, everyone else gets it, too...
RESPONSE: Seems righteous enough! sol1!sue
--
From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach
> Bridges run both ways. As long as you want the advantages of a free and unre-
> stricted network you have to also accept the limitations-- we all know these
> quite well-- innapropriate postings, endless duplications, useless banter,
> wild flaming, and other useful additions to our little group.
--
RESPONSE: This was of particular interest to me and you'll see other reference
to the subject later on as well. Many have claimed their employers pay UUCP
so that they can enhance their work-skills via the Net (and have flamed my use
of usenet on behalf of their employers w/regard to associated expenses). This
leaves one to wonder exactly what percentage of y'all use the Net soley for
the purpose your boss *thinks* you use it. How many of you are being paid
$$$/hr. by the boss-man while posting to flames (playing Rogue, etc.); not to
mention the phone bill the gracious man/entity endures to transfer those mental enimas. Sue
From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach
From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond)
> Why don't we create net.jobs.hh ?
Norman Diamond
RESPONSE: Now there's a *constructive* suggestion. I read .flames and
.followup for quite awhile with mild interest and without becoming actively
involved simply because the subject matter didn't stir me. Now, of course,
that's been different lately due to the draw of the matter. POINT: No one
made me read those postings... I did so because I was looking for something
that may have been of interest. My contention is that if you're not
interested in looking for a job, you probably won't be reading Net.jobs
*and* that if you are looking for a job, even casually, your chances of
finding a prospect are only increased via increased postings. If net.
jobs.hh is THE place to post, then I'll be happy to comply.
sol1!sue
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam)
Organization: Blue Mouse Trailer Resort, Hellmouth, CA
> It is very simple, really. If "The Solution" becomes a conduit for
> advertising to Usenet, I will no longer allow their articles to pass
> thru here. This applies to any other site wishing to post advertisements
> (as opposed to press announcements or individuals' commercial
> transactions).
> Other sites can act as they want in this matter. If they feel I am
> wrong they can cut of news to me; if I is right then the goal
> has been accomplished.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
From: ihnp4!lanl!unm-la!jay (Jay Plett)
> You may have noticed that your postings are generating a fair amount
> of negative response on the net. I agree.
> Please discontinue your use of the net for commercial advertising
> purposes.
> As system manager at this site, I am considering discarding all postings
> from your site.
-- Jay Plett
RESPONSE: Apparantly, Someone has died and left individuals such as your-
selves God. The Net in general has *already* made it clear, common concensus
that they will not tolerate individuals who cling to attitudes such as yours.
Would you both support book-burnings too? sol1!sue
> ............................................................. I'd hate to
> stop getting a group because someone three links back cut it off in his own
> disgust (yes, I know: "Go find another feed..."). I mean, I can see people
> deciding that there's too much dreck in net.sources and cutting it off
> completely....
-Dragon
UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon
RESPONSE: Hear, hear! sol1!sue
From: rmf@petfe.UUCP (Ralph M. Friedman)
[]
>> Your hysteria seems to be taking up more space than the postings that
>> you are ranting about.
> Ditto.
--
Jack Hagouel
..!ittvax!hagouel (203) 929-7341
RESPONSE: -posted to Net.jobs in general for the flamers to see, I quite
agree. sol1!sue
From: steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny)
> Aren't there many students that use the net? Headhunters
> might be helpful to them. I have met many headhunters in my career
> and some of them are creeps and some of them are nice. One called
> me periodically for a few years and when a friend graduated from
> college (who I recommended as a UNIX expert) the headhunter
> spend weeks getting him job interviews and such. That sure beats
> the hell out of going to "recuitment day" and going to the tables
> signing up for interviews. After all, headhunters talk money.
> When I first started programming professionally I had no
> idea what the going rate was.
--
scc!steiny
Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 ihnp4!pesnta -\
109 Torrey Pine Terr. fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ucbvax!twg -/
From: ritzenth@bgsuvax.UUCP (Phil Ritzenthaler)
> ENOUGH ALREADY ABOUT HEADHUNTERS ON NET.JOBS. If you have a discussion about
> this, there are other nets more appropriate.
> I am not saying that this discussion is not important, it is just that I look
> at this net for jobs, not discussions or flaming.
Thanks
P. J. Ritzenthaler
RESPONSE: Don't know about the rest of you :-) but that's all I was using
it for..... sol1!sue
From: jjk@burl.UUCP (jjk)
> I think the objection here is not about "commercial uses of net.jobs"
> so much as the posting of "blind" ads. The thing that makes the postings
> of headhunters annoying -- and distinguishable -- is that they do not
> name the companies for whom the jobs are publicized.
>
> If we allow AA Personnel (or whoever) to post such blind ads, we are
> giving them a commercial advantage over their competitors, who will
> rightly claim that if AA can do it, they should, too! I think it
> is best to not allow such blind ads at all, and thereby avoid the
> problem of where to draw the line for commericial uses of Usenet.
> --
> Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam
RESPONSE: Gordon... NO recruiter places ads which name the client
company! Reference my explanation early on in this posting.
sol1!sue
> HOW DOES A BLIND AD HURT ANYONE?? If one doesn't like blind ads
> then one does not need to express any interest. I would rather see blind
> ads for jobs in net.jobs than the large amount of flames and discussion
> that I've been seeing today. I know, this is a flame too, but i finally
> decided I had to say something.
_____________________________________________________
"One more red nightmare..."
John J. Kenney
(AT&T Technologies, Burlington, NC)
path: ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!jjk
RESPONSE: Thank you, John.
> From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
> I don't see what all the fuss is about. Net.jobs was created especially
> for "help wanted" and "job wanted" postings. These headhunters are
> using it for exactly that purpose. As long as it doesn't overflow into
> other groups like net.general, net.followup, and net.news, it shouldn't
> be bothering anybody.
> I am assuming that the headhunters are posting a relatively small volume
> of news to net.jobs. If the group starts showing up in the top 25
> newsgroups, or if these postings are somehow qualitatively different from
> some company posting a "help wanted" notice to net.jobs directly, and
> this difference causes a problem for the people who read net.jobs, then
> perhaps it's time to talk (or at least to ignore the postings.)
> Now can we go on with our lives?
Mark
RESPONSE: Let it suffice to say that I have been inundated with flames and
letters of support, the latter which I have found to be heart-warming.
If it weren't for the flames, then there wouldn't have needed to be any
support mail. You folks' traffic has outweighed my postings enormously.
sol1!sue
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
> Geeez--weren't any of you guys alive in the '60's? You play the same game
> you do with the people who barrage you with ads containing business-reply
> cards or envelopes: give a bogus answer. Let them waste time figuring out
> that they're getting a non-answer--THAT makes them pay for it.
> Don't abuse the technique--you don't need to flame someone just because you
> aren't interested--but when someone gets out of hand and/or won't pay
> attention to a reasoned request, zing them via e-mail.
> The advertising potential of the net is large--but so is the potential
> response to offensive advertising; it cuts both ways. If people respond
> when they're offended, the advertiser gets the idea quickly.
--
Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086
...Cerebus for dictator!
RESPONSE: Dick, it has been my experience that game-playin can also cut
both ways.
Re: bogus answers.... "you always hurt the one you love".
Did it ever occur to you that your petty bogus-trick could be damaging to
fellow netters who are seriously searching for a new place of employ since
sifting BS responses only denies purposeful time dedicated to helping those
netters who have responded in earnest? However, many of us (including myself)
*were* alive during the 60's and can quite readily tell a stinker from a
flower. sol!sue
Did you really expect me to be so insecure that I would simply take my ball,
kick the dirt and go home?
From: sgcpal@watdcsu.UUCP (Paul Arthur Layman -- EE)
> I thought net.jobs was for posting job openings etc. If you
> want to flame about the use of it by headhunters, move to the
> appropriate net. All this flaming wastes my time more than the
> headhunters.
Paul A. Layman
RESPONSE: none really needed... but would like to add that I did have
productive plans for this day. -good thing this is on my nickel, not
my Co's! How can I manage to complete the schema for my new dbase
at this pace? sol1!sue
From: jpm@bnl.UUCP (John McNamee)
> The only way we are ever going to be able to control net abusers is to create
> /usr/lib/news/blacklist, containing names of sites and/or users whose articles
> bad idea open to a great deal of abuse. So we are stuck with headhunters
> posting 1E6 articles to net.jobs and there is nothing we can do about it.
> --
John McNamee
..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm
jpm@Bnl.Arpa
RESPONSE: Right, John... a bad idea. Geez, am I also stuck with all the
hothead flamers too? Don't think so since I know I don't have to read or
respond to irrelevencies. sol1!sue
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
>> ***
>> Aren't there many students that use the net? Headhunters
>> might be helpful to them. I have met many headhunters in my career
>> and some of them are creeps and some of them are nice. One called
>> me periodically for a few years and when a friend graduated from
>> college (who I recommended as a UNIX expert) the headhunter
>> spend weeks getting him job interviews and such. That sure beats
>> the hell out of going to "recuitment day" and going to the tables
>> signing up for interviews. After all, headhunters talk money.
>> When I first started programming professionally I had no
>> idea what the going rate was.
>>
>> I think that as long as the commercial stuff does not get
>> out of hand (what is it now, 0.01% of the traffic?) it provides
>> a useful service.
> One wonders if the traffic debating whether head hunters belong in
> net.jobs doesn't exceed the head hunter traffic.
Charlie
RESPONSE: Yes, one does wonder. sol1!sue
> Excellent point Charlie!
> Besides is it really worth all the Hoo Hah, or do you all just *need* some-
> thing to FLAME about?
^^^^^
Ron@men1 (Ron Flax)
MTACCS Engineering Network
..!{seismo,umcp-cs}!{prometh,cal-unix}!men1!ron
RESPONSE: There *must've* been some inert need. sol1!sue
From: aps@decvax.UUCP (Armando P. Stettner)
> Hi gang.
> I just thought I would give my two cents worth here. It seems to
> me that the purpose of net.jobs (or at least that to which it has
> evolved) is to be simply a ``jobs'' forum: a news group where
> someone looking for a job can look and a news group where those with
> job openings can make those opening known. Head hunters make money
> by placing people in jobs. So, if a head hunter ``advertises'' on
> the net, they probably have openings to fill.
> The only thing I would be concerned about is abuse of the access to
> the net by head hunters (simply collecting names of people and
> broadcasting (or multicasting) those names everywhere, indiscriminately).
EXCUSE ME HERE, ARMANDO: I see the need to clarify...
Lack of discretion is not an issue. In order to succeed, a recruiter must
put that above all else; both with regard to clients and candidates.
A good reputation requires careful nurturing. Operating in the manner
you describe serves no purpose in my profession. sol1!sue
> Think of the advantages: instead of having to print out (doesn't
> everybody keep their resume on-line) and U.S. Snail mail a resume
> to a head hunter with a potentially good opening, you can just
> uucp it (mail) to them.
AND MANY DO.... this serves to expedite the search. I am equipped with a
letter-quality printer and obtain professional-looking results. sol1!sue
> And besides, you don't have to read head hunter postings if you
> don't want to. However, if you are looking for a job, sometimes,
> it is wise to check every lead you can.
aps.
That's all folks. You've had your say and I've had mine. I've adored :-)
the attention but really must return to my weekend duties. Future caustic
postings to my maildrop will probably end up in file 13.
...stage left. Susan Wulf sol1!suercd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (02/21/85)
> Okay, boys and girls.... You've had yours, now I get mine. I believe that sol1!sue went overboard with her response--though it's some- what understandable, given some of what was posted. However, I have to argue strongly against what she did to my response: > From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) > > Geeez--weren't any of you guys alive in the '60's? You play the same game > > you do with the people who barrage you with ads containing business-reply > > cards or envelopes: give a bogus answer. Let them waste time figuring out > > that they're getting a non-answer--THAT makes them pay for it. > > Don't abuse the technique--you don't need to flame someone just because you > > aren't interested--but when someone gets out of hand and/or won't pay > > attention to a reasoned request, zing them via e-mail. > > The advertising potential of the net is large--but so is the potential > > response to offensive advertising; it cuts both ways. If people respond > > when they're offended, the advertiser gets the idea quickly. > -- > Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 > ...Cerebus for dictator! > > RESPONSE: Dick, it has been my experience that game-playin can also cut > both ways. > Re: bogus answers.... "you always hurt the one you love". > Did it ever occur to you that your petty bogus-trick could be damaging to > fellow netters who are seriously searching for a new place of employ since > sifting BS responses only denies purposeful time dedicated to helping those > netters who have responded in earnest? However, many of us (including myself) > *were* alive during the 60's and can quite readily tell a stinker from a > flower. sol!sue You're not making the distinction very carefully. Please take a second look at what I said, particularly: "Don't abuse the technique--you don't need to flame someone just because you aren't interested." If you're against me just because I suggested a technique by which people who are extremely annoyed with you (which, incidentally, I'm not) can show their annoyance, that's your problem. > Did you really expect me to be so insecure that I would simply take my ball, > kick the dirt and go home? Be a little bit mature, would you? If everyone takes the advice I gave, and your mail runs 10:1 AGAINST what you're doing, you'd be a fool to stick around. However, if everyone takes the advice I gave (and not what you seem to have inferred), and your mail runs 10:1 IN FAVOR of what you're doing, you can reasonably continue in spite of some criticism. When I get "junk mail" (i.e., from a bulk mailing to a commercial mailing list), I look at what's offered. Some of it is sent to a large fraction of the known universe, in the hopes of making some money without any regard to how many people it annoys or how much trash it generates. I feel some teeny moral obligation to vex firms which do that--if someone's trying to sell me brass accessories for my yacht, or a dehumidifier, (or even a Republican president, for heaven's sake!:-), or who-knows-what stuff I'd never want in a million years, back goes the reply envelope with as much of their junk as I can fit in it. HOWEVER, a lot of mailing lists are selective, created from the lists of firms from which I've made purchases in the past. I can recognize the ones that are of interest to me. I may save the stuff or I may toss it, but I DON'T need to vex these folks. They have offered me a potentially useful service. What I tried (and apparently failed) to point out was that folks can use USENET in the same sort of way I treat Business Reply, except that it's much more effective--a protest is more likely to happen en masse and be noticed, where the Business Reply thing is generally a single voice in the wilderness. Let the readers have their say (by MAIL, folks) and see what the response may be. [I'm abstaining, BTW.] If the postings have a reasonable appeal to (and consideration for) USENET readers, OK. If they get out of hand somehow (not quite sure how) or start flooding the net with traffic, then there's a problem. In the anarchic nature of the net, there won't be any single person to solve it, so the netters will have to solve any problems by the cumulative effects of many protests. I have some sympathy for the headhunter's position, and I understand the need for confidentiality of the employer (who is, after all, also the headhunter's employer). I have had satisfactory results dealing with a headhunter in the past. Still, I expect that headhunters should give some consideration to the situation of computer professionals and should be sensitive to two issues: A headhunter is NOT free to the employee, by any stretch of the imagination. Don't pretend otherwise. First, employers only have so much money to spend on personnel. Money which goes elsewhere doesn't go to the employee. Headhunter fees based on first year's salary make it explicit that the employee is contributing a sum to the headhunter. IT MAY BE WORTH IT, but it's still there. Bad headhunters are plentiful. I get at least one call every week or two from HHs I've never heard of, often out-of-state. They want me to take a job that's in no way related to my interests or training. If I indicate a lack of interest for whatever reason, they ask me (in effect) if I might like to encourage some of my co- workers to quit and leave my company short-handed. They expect me to have the time (which costs my company > $1 / minute!) to talk as much as they want. I've had people try to hire me to re-fill a position I left three months previously. The latter paragraph of issues is NOT the way I perceive sol1!sue working. The ONLY reason I point this out--to her, to other headhunters, to netters seeking employment or not--is to give some indication of why a lot of us have a VERY short fuse on the antics of some headhunters. Overall, it would seem that the net is not particularly subject to the sort of disregard that headhunters can show in person or on the phone. I'd much rather 'n' thru net.jobs at my leisure than try to shake some bozo who's called me while I'm in the middle of working out the details of some difficult algorithm or design. When I start getting calls generated via the phone # in my signature, or when I start getting junk e-mail, I might reconsider... -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.
jay@unm-la.UUCP (02/23/85)
I won't burden the net with still more on this subject (the controversy
over whether commercial advertisements should be placed on the net).
However, I would be interested in some discussion on how others feel
about the posting of private communications without permission. Since
this site started receiving netnews, I've seen a few complaints about
individual incidents, but no general discussion about whether it's
considered reasonable "net etiquette".
My opinion is that it is not appropriate etiquette in any forum to
air private communications without the consent of the author.
--
Jay Plett
{{ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax, lanl}!unm-la!jaytim@conejo.UUCP (James T. Kehres) (02/24/85)
[]
It should also be pointed out that many firms are very sensative to the use of
their machines for profit by outside organizations. While the current use of
the net by companies for direct profit has been minimal, if the use goes up to
where it constitutes a significant percentage of the traffic, there will be
many sites that will probably be leaving the net (including the two that I
manage).
Tim Kehres Conejo Office Systems
San Jose, California
{amd,intelca,nsc,sun,pesnta,twg}!conejo!tim (408) 286-5170
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (02/24/85)
> However, I would be interested in some discussion on how others feel > about the posting of private communications without permission. Since > this site started receiving netnews, I've seen a few complaints about > individual incidents, but no general discussion about whether it's > considered reasonable "net etiquette". I believe that technically mail is the property of the recipient but I consider it very rude to have my mail posted without asking my permission. -- This is my opinion, I guess. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (The Phantom) (02/25/85)
In article <257@unm-la.UUCP> jay@unm-la.UUCP writes: >My opinion is that it is not appropriate etiquette in any forum to >air private communications without the consent of the author. I have to agree-- private mail should be considered that-- private. If I mail something to someone I expect it to be kept in confidence unless I allow its distribution-- this is common courtesy, and I try to do the same for others. We had a major problem with this a while back with a fair amount of private correspondence from unc that got posted, and it made the situation worse. I'd like to point out that the article this is a response of a response of, from the Solution site, most (if not all-- I'm not sure) of the included quotes were from postings, not private letters. chuq -- From behind the eight ball: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA We'll be recording at the Paradise Friday night. Live, on the Death label.
david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (02/26/85)
OPINION: It is not appropriate etiquette to air private communications without
the consent of the author unless the author's name is removed (and the quoted
communication does not contain other identifying information.
[Usual disclaimer] {N.F.Q.}jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (02/28/85)
> OPINION:It is not appropriate etiquette to air private communications without > the consent of the author unless the author's name is removed (and the quoted > communication does not contain other identifying information. OK, but if someone sends me obscene mail, and if I think it might accomplish something useful to post it (usually I wouldn't), I will. With all names and identifying information. Etiquette be d***ed. Send flames about the Gestapo to your local Stalinists, and vice versa. Jeff Winslow