[LRUG] Expat thinking of coming home

[David Stephens]

I guess another question to ask is what actually is the "problem"? Is it
that you don't like recruiters sending to the Ruby chat list, or that we've
had a number of accidental reply-to-alls recently?

One quick fix would be to adjust the Mailman options so that the default is
to reply to the sender, and to reply to all actually requires one to push
"reply to all".

I personally don't mind seeing job specs come through the mailing list, but
it would be good if we had a way of separating them from general chat,
perhaps with a "[jobs]" prefix as some people have done before.

Like it or not, recruiters are always going to be around. Whilst we all may
think that we have amazing networks and can find a bunch of good CVs at the
drop of a hat, few of us actually have the time to do so whilst also
keeping our day jobs ticking over.

It's unrealistic to expect a jobs market to exist without them, as galling
as it is that they take a massive cut of salary/contract rate. Because
Tesco buy in products and sell them to us with a markup, are we all
suddenly going to stop using them and go straight to the source of the
products? Of course not.
On 17 Sep 2012 14:13, "Rosario Rascuna" <r.rascuna at gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought about this problem some time ago and created
> http://roundabout.io.
>
> However I wonder now if it's yet another website that we need. There
> are others like: http://workinstartups.com/ and
> http://www.coderstack.co.uk/, and none seems to be ridding us of this
> problem. What should a job listing implement to work for us?
>
> .r
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Louis Goff-Beardsley
> <louisror at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The vast majority of CVs they get don’t result in placments as their
> > business model is based on volume and speed. Agency recs have got very
> > strict KPIs such as 2.5 hours on the phone + 70 dial outs /day + x
> number of
> > CVs sent to decision makers. If they spend time faffing around with CVs
> they
> > will get it in the neck from their directors who came up during the first
> > dotcom bubble when IT recrutiment was a megaprofitable free-for-all.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: chat-bounces at lists.lrug.org [mailto:chat-bounces at lists.lrug.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Paul Robinson
> > Sent: 17 September 2012 12:10
> > To: London Ruby Users Group
> > Subject: Re: [LRUG] Expat thinking of coming home
> >
> > On 17 Sep 2012, at 10:11, Chris Mear <chrismear at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From my conversations with recruiters, the reason Word format is asked
> for
> > is because it's editable (as opposed to something less easily editable,
> such
> > as PDF). This is so they can remove your contact details and add their
> own
> > header, thus making sure any communication goes through them.
> >
> >
> > This is bang-on the reason why they want it in Word format - which raises
> > the question what value are they actually adding to a process where they
> > must enforce a man-in-the-middle attack to negotiations?
> >
> >
> >> So I'm sure plain text would be fine.
> >
> >
> >
> > Not quite. Some recruiters will consider such a format to be
> > "unprofessional" in its presentation to employers.
> >
> > So, rather than add value themselves by spending 5 minutes
> copying/pasting
> > it into Word, making it look nice and then submitting it, they require
> the
> > candidate does this first. Word Doc is the best format for them.
> >
> > They won't do it themselves, because they might handle many dozens of
> CVs a
> > day, and don't want to have to do this with all of them.
> >
> > Remember, they are commission-based, and there's only so much work they
> are
> > prepared to do to secure the right candidate and take 10%-20% of the
> first
> > year's salary on a £50k-£70k job. I mean, would you reformat a CV for
> > £14,000? I know that's too much work to ask me to do for that kind of
> money!
> > I'm sure there's other areas where the recruiter is really adding far
> more
> > value and where their time is best spent... </sarcasm>
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chat mailing list
> > Chat at lists.lrug.org
> > http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chat mailing list
> > Chat at lists.lrug.org
> > http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20120917/a2d98b29/attachment.html>