Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!yetti!geac!satan From: satan@geac.UUCP (The Big One Himself) Newsgroups: ont.jobs,ont.general Subject: Re: Yearly Question Message-ID: <1181@geac.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 20:36:49 EDT Article-I.D.: geac.1181 Posted: Wed Aug 19 20:36:49 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 07:34:08 EDT References: <1156@geac.UUCP> Reply-To: gerry@syntron.UUCP (G. Roderick Singleton) Distribution: ont Organization: Syntronics R & D, Toronto, Canada Lines: 111 Summary: no, nO, NO. Xref: mnetor ont.jobs:169 ont.general:231 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, to compromise -- (__|__) | | What's a soul anyway --- you hardly know its there! |