Employers Trolling for Current Employee Resumes?

powderhound asks: "Recently, my employer started looking for new employees and started to find the resumes of current employees on the job Web sites. I've heard that management was not pleased. In the old days, before Web job sites, you could job hunt with relative certainty that your current employer would not find out until you gave notice. Now, any employer wishing to check on their employee's desire to find a new job need only sign up on the job Web sites and start trolling. How do we, as employees looking to change jobs, protect ourselves from possible discovery, and even worse, retribution? What have you done to protect yourself? Do you think employers are trolling job sites for their own employees?"

Comments

I never take mine down

[theNetImp]

I don't allow mine to be visible unless I have contacted an employer through that site. I usually make first contact. Unless I am already unemployed.

Re:I never take mine down

[ottothecow]

Even if you do allow others to see it, it makes sense to simply never take it down (and always keep it up to date--so it is ready if you ever do need it). This way if your employer sees it, you can simply explain that your resume is always there (it will be there a week after you got your job and 3 years after you got your job) so it does not mean you are actively searching for a better opportunity. This could also serve to make them realize that they still have to compete with you on the labor market since your open resume could prompt a better offer even though you are not actively seeking it.

Of course, you can take all of that as a grain of salt because, while I do in fact have a resume, I'm just finishing my first year at the University of Chicago and nobody wants to give me a job anyway.

Re:I never take mine down

[apparently]

it makes sense to simply never take it down (and always keep it up to date

...
This way if your employer sees it, you can simply explain that your resume is always there

I don't think management would be stupid enough to fall for the "it's always there" excuse if you're actively keeping it updated.

Re:I never take mine down

[Phillup]

I don't think management would be stupid enough to fall for the "it's always there" excuse if you're actively keeping it updated.

Just point out to them that since you live in a 'right to work' state you need to do this. And, you'd be more than willing to remove it in exchange for a nice long term contract that provides *you* with the security *you* want.

Or, they can hire stupid people and see how that works out for them...

Re:I never take mine down

[hackstraw]

Just point out to them that since you live in a 'right to work' state you need to do this. And, you'd be more than willing to remove it in exchange for a nice long term contract that provides *you* with the security *you* want.

One of the best things I've read in a while. I'm in a dead end job, with little to do, underpaid in terms of my skills and abilities, overpaid in terms of what I need to do. I'm on "soft" money, and yes, I live in a 'right to work' state, and I deserve to work because I'm good and get the job done.

Until employers realize that employees are not pieces of equipment, but rather human beings... Well, humans will leave, robots will stay.

Re:I never take mine down

[bpalmer]

Mine is always there, and it's kept up to date. I've never made a secret of it. If I'm happy in a position I put my required salary much higher than my current salary (say 50% higher). I've never gotten a call for a dream job like that, but you never know... If I'm dissatified, then the required salary comes down closer to my real market value. I've never been challenged on it.

Perhaps a little obvious, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

... perhaps you could try, uh, not uploading your resume to these sites?

The Real Problem

[Medgur]

The real problem is that your employers didn't recognise their employee's discontent and ambition. Rather than opening a discussion to improve the quality of their employment they chose to become displeased. It's no wonder they're experiencing employee retention issues, they have an aggressive and hostile methodology in dealing with their employees.

Move on, move on.

Re:The Real Problem

[ivan256]

The real problem is actually that his management probably didn't consider that the people may just have their resumes out there to see what's going on... Testing the waters. It doesn't have to mean that they actually are actively seeking to leave. They got upset because they expect loyalty, so innocent explanations escaped them. It really would be best if managers realized that they were in a business relationship with their employees, and nothing more. Just keep that relationship mutually beneficial and you don't have to worry about your employees leaving.

Re:The Real Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I dated an HR director for a few years and it gave me a huge insight into what HR does in the modern corporation. HR's job is to basically protect the corporation from any employee liability. This typically means they file away every little thing they think might be useful if they ever need cause for termination, to contest your claims to unemployment, to contest any claims for workman's comp -- basically to cover their ass. You would be amazed at what is in your HR file. ;) Anything after that is just extra.

Now I'm not saying its like that EVERYwhere, but in most large corporations, and many small ones, HR is not your friend. This is really sad because years ago it was just the opposite. EA obviously has a poor HR department. ;)

Re:The Real Problem

[lpcustom]

Exactly my first thought when I saw this headline. If the employer would make a better work environment they wouldn't see their employee's resume on a job search site. Cause and effect.

Re:The Real Problem

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Just as employers can many times drop employees on a whim, depending on laws of course, employees can change employers as well. It is a two-way street, any manager expecting it to be a one-way street is fooling themselves. Still, I wonder if it is legal to fire someone just for having looked for alternate employment options. Maybe it is legal, but that would be one scary hostile workplace.

Re:The Real Problem

[hackwrench]

Look down, look down, upon your fellow man...

Re:The Real Problem

[umbrellasd]

It really would be best if managers realized that they were in a business relationship with their employees, and nothing more. Just keep that relationship mutually beneficial and you don't have to worry about your employees leaving.

I see things somewhat differently. What I see in the industry is a definite trend toward companies caring much less about their employees. Employees are "resources" to be "utilized" in a "cost-effective" manner. The hypocrisy is that when an employee does the natural thing and protects themself by treating their employer in a similar fashion, employers get angry.

What they really want is the most cost-effective relationship possible. And that just may be slavery. There are laws against outright slavery, but "economic" slavery is not outlawed by any means. Most world economies thrive and require it.

So spend, spend, spend little consumerbots!

Re:The Real Problem

[SeeMyNuts!]

"It is a two-way street, any manager expecting it to be a one-way street is fooling themselves."

It is a two-way street, but management has a big SUV that takes up both lanes.

I live in a rural area, and it has been known for the grapevine to "black list" certain people at potential employers, outside of official channels. When I lived in an urban area, it is common to find that most employers are equally crappy. It is very common for companies to want to pay practially nothing. Being a independent contractor could be great, but even that is highly volatile. The grass is always greener and all that.

"Still, I wonder if it is legal to fire someone just for having looked for alternate employment options."

IIRC, in some states it is legal, such as South Carolina ("will to work" or "right to work", I don't remember exactly).

Really rewarding and enjoyable workplaces are not particularly common. I worked briefly for one Fortune 500--but family run--company, and it was a great place to work (ample training, good benefits, etc.). Too bad it was in a part of the country I didn't want to live in.

Re:The Real Problem

[Corbets]

Well, that's hardly fair either. Another problem would be that the employee chose to go job hunting instead of opening a dialogue to improve the quality o his/her employment with their boss. It's no wonder the manager would want to fire him/her - if he/she is incapable expressing simple things like dissatisfaction with their current situation, then maybe he/she is not the sort of person that you want working for your company.

The street always goes both ways. Move on, move on.

Re:The Real Problem

[RomulusNR]

It really would be best if managers realized that they were in a business relationship with their employees, and nothing more.

Despite how impersonal and dysfunctional that would be, I would actually tolerate that amicably. The problem, of course, is that it tends to tip the hand in favor of the employee at inconvenient times, which employers don't want. Workers are expected to be infinitely local to their employers, while employers simply don't return that loyalty.

The tendency is not towards an equitable or balanced employer-employee relationship, which the phrase "business relationship" would tend to suggest. The tendency is towards top-down control and imbalance of that relationship. YMMV, and your company might not have gotten there -- yet, or maybe luckily never. But very few companies go from an anti-employee environment to an equitable one without some sort of revoltive event (unionizing, buyout, etc.)

I agree -- far, far too many companies have no interest or concern regarding employee morale. They either appeal to a very unconvincing "good of the company" mentality, or use fear of termination -- or sometimes neither, using absolutely nothing to encourage workers -- to maintain or aggravate the demoralized status quo.

Of course, what doesn't help is that employers and employees both know (or think) that employers can always get more obedient, cheaper labor, fairly easily; and both also know (or think) that generally, employees cannot get more accomodating, more lucrative employment without risk.

So the employer-employee relationship is simply not an amicable, equitable business relationship, but something much more silently adversarial, where employers fight for the cheapest, most productive labor, and employees struggle for the best benefits and pay.

Say what you will -- organization of labor is probably the only thing that can actually make that relationship at all like a business relationship.

Re:The Real Problem

[speculatrix]

I think you mean "at will" employment - basically, if you turn up for work, you deem to be accepting the terms of employment, and if you don't, it means you no longer want the job. Conversely, by letting you work or telling you not to, means whether you have a job to go to.

Disclaimer: I'm from the UK where permanent employees have a reasonable measure of protection and one-months notice period is common, and contractors usually have at least a week's notice. Such notice period is usually mutual and contractually binding. However, I have worked for Uk division of USA companies and been quite surprised by my overseas' colleagues' contracts!

Re:The Real Problem

[ultranova]

Another problem would be that the employee chose to go job hunting instead of opening a dialogue to improve the quality o his/her employment with their boss.

Better make sure that you have a new job ready before opening such a dialogue - after all, it suggests that things aren't perfect as is, and therefore, that the management might not be perfect. They may not react to such challenge for their ego in a rational manner. Or they might react very rationally, figure out that this employee is growing a spine, and quickly replace him with a new spineless one, easy to exploit for profit.

It's no wonder the manager would want to fire him/her - if he/she is incapable expressing simple things like dissatisfaction with their current situation, then maybe he/she is not the sort of person that you want working for your company.

But it's just the opposite. People who silently take anything are the dream employees of many corporations. They can be made to work overtime with no pay, they can be made to give up their vacations, they can be made to work to death - literally - and they never demand a pay rise. It's the people who stand up for themselves that are not going to die for shareholder value, so to get that value up, you need to fire them and replace them with the first type.

Twisted logic, and even more twisted values, but it's the kind of behavior capitalism rewards. Profits at any price, and obstacles are for terminating.

Re:The Real Problem

[xenocide2]

Sociopathic, is what it is. No other rational explaination for why everyone else's employee's resumes should be searchable and their's shouldn't.

Re:The Real Problem

[Bill Dog]

At my first job, which was with, at the time, the 2nd largest software company in the world, managers were not allowed to put anything, absolutely NOTHING, positive in the annual performance reviews. So for every employee there was a written record of nothing but negative comments. I figured at the time it was sparked by wrongful termination suits filed by ex-employees, and the company was just trying to prep for them. Still, it didn't exactly do wonders for morale.

Re:The Real Problem

[Eivind]

Better make sure that you have a new job ready before opening such a dialogue - after all, it suggests that things aren't perfect as is, and therefore, that the management might not be perfect. They may not react to such challenge for their ego in a rational manner. Or they might react very rationally, figure out that this employee is growing a spine, and quickly replace him with a new spineless one, easy to exploit for profit.

You are assuming that it's easier for the employer to find a similarily qualified employee than it is for the employee to find a new job. That may or may not be true, it depends a lot on your education, experience and where you work.

It also ignores the fact that *all* employees are less effective the first few months (depending on the job), there's training-issues. In general the employer pays for most of this training.

I started working for my current employer 3 months ago. Theres no doubt that the first 2 months I failed to pull my own weigth. (as do everyone, it's expected) This month will probably be the first one where I actually contribute more than I cost. If I where to quit tomorrow, that would be a much more bad deal for my employer than for me -- afterall *I* got paid for the 3 months.

Furthermore we've been actively looking for new programmers for months (Need to know sql, HTML, programming, bonus if you've got experience with dynamic websites, coldfusion, php or similar), in several countries (Norway, Sweden, Germany mainly) (If this sounds like you and you'd consider working in Stavanger, Norway, seriously, drop a mail to eivind@inbusiness.no). With only limited luck.

Guess what ? We're actually treated like human beings. We're actually involved in decisions that matter to us. We're actually trusted to make our own decisions on technical matters (i.e. a boss that knows his limist, what a concept!).

Re:The Real Problem

[ultranova]

You are assuming that it's easier for the employer to find a similarily qualified employee than it is for the employee to find a new job. That may or may not be true, it depends a lot on your education, experience and where you work.

No, I'm assuming that it makes more financial sense to hire a new employee than to give the current one a rise, or deal with whatever his problem is.

Or the employer could simply increase the workload of the remaining employees, not hire anyone, and give the savings to the management as bonuses for work well done.

It also ignores the fact that *all* employees are less effective the first few months (depending on the job), there's training-issues. In general the employer pays for most of this training.

No worries, just make the rest of the employees pick up the slack.

Furthermore we've been actively looking for new programmers for months (Need to know sql, HTML, programming, bonus if you've got experience with dynamic websites, coldfusion, php or similar), in several countries (Norway, Sweden, Germany mainly) (If this sounds like you and you'd consider working in Stavanger, Norway, seriously, drop a mail to eivind@inbusiness.no). With only limited luck.

I have no formal education in any of those things, but I thought myself HTML with W3C's website, PHP with PHP's website, SQL with PostrgreSQL's documentation and various programming languages - Python, Java, C - with their websites kind help (except C, which I learned from Nethack's source code).

Of course, as a result, my skills have huge holes - I've learned things as I've needed them, without knowing if something is the correct way of doing things. Still don't quite have a handle on C's string manipulation functions, despite doing experimentation on Linux kernel.

Guess what ? We're actually treated like human beings. We're actually involved in decisions that matter to us. We're actually trusted to make our own decisions on technical matters (i.e. a boss that knows his limist, what a concept!).

Then I congratulate you for having a good employer, but the basis of this discussion was having a not-so-good one.

Re:The Real Problem

[Kjella]

They got upset because they expect loyalty, so innocent explanations escaped them. It really would be best if managers realized that they were in a business relationship with their employees, and nothing more. Just keep that relationship mutually beneficial and you don't have to worry about your employees leaving.

The thing is, that's not how business works. Just like when it comes to sales, you want to sell for the most and produce for the cheapest, when it comes to employment you want to produce the most and pay the least. Just like Microsoft isn't giving away Windows licenses for 20$, employers aren't going to give you a free $10,000 raise just to mutually share the benefit (between producers and consumers, employers and employees respectively). Or at least to the degree they do, it's because it serves the business. They'll always be circling the lower edge of "What can we get away with paying?". The manager's job is to keep you in the company despite that, by any means to his disposal. It all boils down to this, that making you feel illoyal for leaving is a damn lot cheaper than paying you enough so you don't want to leave.

Re:The Real Problem

[apparently]

Still, I wonder if it is legal to fire someone just for having looked for alternate employment options

It's doubtful that an employer would cite this as the actual reason for termination, and instead would use a different, legally-viable excuse.

Re:The Real Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could move to somewhere that has more sensible employment legislation, like France.

Re:The Real Problem

[Reality Master 101]

What I see in the industry is a definite trend toward companies caring much less about their employees.

What I've never got -- even from my first job at age 13 -- is why people like you EXPECT employers to "care" about you? What, are they your surrogate parents or something? What *I* notice is a definite trend toward people being unwilling to take care of themselves, and so they are constantly looking for someone that will "care" for them (employers, the government, etc).

You have a simple contract with your employer. You give them work, and they give you money + benefits in exchange. When the relationship is no longer mutually benefitial (either by you or them), you both move on.

Grow up, take care of yourself, and stop looking for a new parent.

Re:The Real Problem

[tverbeek]

I wonder if it is legal to fire someone just for having looked for alternate employment options.

Unless you have a contract that states otherwise, it's completely legal. They can fire you for sticking your tongue out at someone. Or for driving the wrong kind of car to work. Or for performing in drag on weekends. "At will" employment means they can fire you for any reason that isn't explicitly prohibited by law. In most jurisdictions, this is limited to race, gender, religion, non-disqualifying handicap, age, and perhaps a handful of other characteristics.

The flip side of the coin is that you can quit "at will": because the boss stuck his tongue out at someone, drives the wrong kind of car, performs in drag on weekends, .... Whether this is true equity or not (i.e. giving equal power to both parties) is subject to debate, but that's how U.S. labor law treats it.

Re:The Real Problem

[animaal]

I don't expect an employer to be like a parent. However, the grandparent post did have a point. I have found that nearly all of my previous employers have said that they care about their employees, and their employees' happiness. Some genuinely did, and some really didn't. Those that did care probably felt that employee happiness helped their cause. However, if an employer claims to care, then yes, I expect their actions to match their words.

The contract with your employer is just that, a contract. If that's the extent of your connection to your employer, and if you're happy, then fair enough. But I've found that I was happiest where I also had a good working relationship with my employer; management saw me as an asset, and did their best to accommodate me. I enjoyed the position, and went out of my way to do what I could for the company.

Re:The Real Problem

[Glonoinha]

The following is almost on-topic in a discussion thread about employment.

I have no formal education in any of those things, but I thought myself HTML with W3C's website, PHP with PHP's website, SQL with PostrgreSQL's documentation and various programming languages - Python, Java, C - with their websites kind help (except C, which I learned from Nethack's source code).

Of course, as a result, my skills have huge holes - I've learned things as I've needed them, without knowing if something is the correct way of doing things. Still don't quite have a handle on C's string manipulation functions, despite doing experimentation on Linux kernel.

If you really want to be professionally employed as a software engineer, if it is something that you love to do - consider following up with formal education. You can already see the reasons, it appears, and you appear to have the aptitude.

The best example to leverage here would be Wilbur and Orville Wright - self taught plane builders. Everything they did they taught themselves, and they were the first ones to escape the chains of gravity in flight (with a heavier than air vehicle.) They learned enough to overcome every obstacle they encountered as they encountered them, but they lacked a complete and thorough understanding of all that entails aeronautical engineering - and lets face it, their airplane sucked ass. I mean it really sucked compared to what they would have built if they both had spent a few years getting degrees in aeronautical engineering.

That degree plan wasn't available for them, so in my opinion those guys are heros for what they did.
But a degree in software engineering is available for you. Coding is about a LOT of things, and simple language syntax is only the beginning. A thousand monkeys with typewriters can string together syntactically correct individual lines of code in Javascript, Java, and SQL (I know, that's how the last application I inherited was written, or so it appears) but maintainable and reliable corporate grade code is as much about code structure and design as it is the individual lines of code - possibly more so.

Anyways - good luck on becoming who you want to become. Consider pursuing a formal education. And don't ever say the word 'MebiByte'.

Re:The Real Problem

[Eivind]

No, I'm assuming that it makes more financial sense to hire a new employee than to give the current one a rise, or deal with whatever his problem is.

Which is frequently a bad assumption.

• If there's one person mouthing dissatisfaction, there's probably ten that are dissatisfied.
• Hiring a new emoployee, even assuming you could at moments notice get a similarily qualified person for similar conditions, means picking up the bill for training.
• Contrary to the believes of some managers, a high turnaround in the work-staff of a company has costs , other than those that show up in the profits for this month.
• Not dealing with reasonable dissatisfaction means you're not an attractive employer. Not being an attractive employer means you won't get the best employees. (there's people who have *unreasonable* expectations, that's a different matter.)

Or the employer could simply increase the workload of the remaining employees, not hire anyone, and give the savings to the management as bonuses for work well done.

Again, you're assuming that the work-market is such that the employer gets to do whatever the hell he wants to, and the employees will simply bend over and take it. I'm trying to tell you that's not a natural law. It's *NOT* like that for programmers in Scandinavia now for example. There are literally 3 times the number of jobs free that there are unemployed programmers. (nevermind skilled programmers) In such an environment treating your employees badly is a *very* unhealthy business-move. No worries, just make the rest of the employees pick up the slack.

You're assuming they will. Essentially you're saying, if you've got 100 workers, don't worry, just fire 99 of them, and the last one will pick up the slack, no problems.

Fact is, with less in numbers, less in skill and less motivated employees less will get done. If it matters to you that things get done, this is a concern. If it doesn't matter to you if things get done or not, you should just close the company.

I have no formal education in any of those things, but I thought myself HTML with W3C's website, PHP with PHP's website, SQL with PostrgreSQL's documentation and various programming languages - Python, Java, C - with their websites kind help (except C, which I learned from Nethack's source code).

Sounds interesting enough to me. I'm not in the *sligthest* kidding. Assuming you would consider a career in Stavanger, pass me a copy of your resume, or contact me in email.

Of course, as a result, my skills have huge holes - I've learned things as I've needed them, without knowing if something is the correct way of doing things. Still don't quite have a handle on C's string manipulation functions, despite doing experimentation on Linux kernel.

The holes I worry about are those that you're convinced aren't there. It's not a problem having limitations, everyone does, and if you're even aware about them and open about them it's even a bonus. I'm skeptical of people who have no answer when I ask what they're particularily bad at. Then I congratulate you for having a good employer, but the basis of this discussion was having a not-so-good one.

It doesn't depend only on your employer, but also on those surrounding him. If your employer is a dick, and so is every other employer, then the employee has a problem. He needs to relocate or acquire new skills to escape the trap. If your employer is a dick, but there are others that aren't, obviously you should jump ship. I guess what I'm saying is that not only is my employer not a dick. But also he couldn't get away with being one even if he wanted to. People would just walk away.

And it works between countries too. Guess which part of the german population are migrating to less dicky employers in Scandinavia, the more skilled, more motivated, more valuable employees or the unskilled, unmotivated ones ? Guess for which

Re:The Real Problem

[Eivind]

People who silently take anything are the dream employees of many corporations. They can be made to work overtime with no pay, they can be made to give up their vacations, they can be made to work to death - literally - and they never demand a pay rise.

But luckily not of all corporations, nor of all bosses.

Because the thing is, such employees will never ever tell you when your new idea absolutely fucking sucks. And sometimes, just sometimes, your employees do actually know something about the work they perform. Or if they don't, you hired the wrong ones anyway.

A collegue of mine got a raise, explicitly for the reason that he pointed out why an idea of the boss was the (in the words of the boss) absolutely amazingly stupidest idea of the year. And yes, the reason was announced publically, because, again in the words of the boss: When (not if!) I'm being stupid I bloody well want to hear about it from you rather than being told the hard way by the marketplace.

Re:The Real Problem

[Reality Master 101]

But I've found that I was happiest where I also had a good working relationship with my employer; management saw me as an asset, and did their best to accommodate me.

The key word there is "accommodate". Friends "care" about each other. Employers "accommodate" employees. It's not that your boss doesn't care if you live or die; he cares in the normal human sense, not in the sense of friends or family. A good employer fosters a good "working relationship" (to use your words), but that's still part of the "work in exchange for money" relationship.

In other words, I don't look for my employer to "allow" me to take time off when I need it because they "care" about me. I take personal time off when I need to, because it's what I insist on in a working relationship. It doesn't matter what their motivation is for accommodating my needs, and that's key. The original poster seemed to be whining that the motivation of his employers was "wrong", and I'm saying that motivation doesn't matter. All that matters is what you negotiate with your employer as far as your working relationship.

People may be happy when they get a employer that "gives" them a lot of accommodation, but I submit that people are happiest when they feel they have control over their part of the relationship, and aren't mentally depending on the good will of what they perceive as their "superior".

Re:The Real Problem

[u38cg]

Slave labour does not make for a healthy economy. Ask Stalin. It may seem like a good solution for an individual company, but if they all do it, who can buy their products? Woops. There goes your economy.

Re:The Real Problem

[ivan256]

Just like when it comes to sales, you want to sell for the most and produce for the cheapest, when it comes to employment you want to produce the most and pay the least.

People in hell want ice water.

Employers want to be able to treat their employees like any other commodity. It has even become acceptable to refer to them as 'Human Resources'. That means it's a two way street though. If your employees are commodities, then the price can go up when there is another buyer. You can't corner the market.

The 'bad' employers end up losing in the end, because their poor management and attitudes cost them in productivity. The 'evil' companies get what's coming to them, and will continue to as long as there are plenty of non-evil companies out there.

Re:The Real Problem

[CptNerd]

So the employer-employee relationship is simply not an amicable, equitable business relationship, but something much more silently adversarial, where employers fight for the cheapest, most productive labor, and employees struggle for the best benefits and pay.

Say what you will -- organization of labor is probably the only thing that can actually make that relationship at all like a business relationship.

Which is why I went the independent contractor route. I have nothing but business relationships with the companies I work for. Acquaintances with the people I work with, but loyalty lasts until the last invoice is paid, and significantly sooner if the last invoice is not paid...

Re:The Real Problem

[carpeweb]

A business relationship doesn't necessarily mean a relationship between equals. Economists have a word for this: assymetry. It crops up all the time. In fact, it's hard to imagine a real-world (non-econ-classroom example like Crusoe and Friday) example that doesn't have an asymmetry problem. When the problems are severe enough (or so the theory goes), we have regulations to help balance things (like anti-trust laws).

So, both company and employee have to go a long way beyond simply recognizing a "business relationship". Maybe the "stop whining" comments come from those who implicitly recognize and accept that the employee is inherently at a disadvantage in many respects. Maybe they come from those too naive to realize it? I can't tell.

The employee isn't inherently disadvantaged in all respects, as some of the comments also recognize. It's *sometimes* easier for an employee to find a new job with comparable pay, benefits, work environment, etc., than it is for his/her employer to replace him/her with someone comparable. Some of that depends on the employee and some on the employer.

For both employer and employee, the relationship is "sticky". In other words, it's often not as easy as economic theory (or many of the comments) would imply, that it's simply flipping the switch on an arms' length relationship -- for either side.

Smart employers will recognize that it's natural and not necessarily a bad thing for employees to continuously explore their options. Posting a resume doesn't necessarily mean an employee will leave at the first opportunity. At the same time, smart employers will try to make sure opportunities are available within the company, because those opportunities are much easier for the employee to pursue.

Dumb employers will probably do a lot of things that are even more stupid than trolling for their employees' resumes.

Smart employees will keep exploring opportunities but will take the time to learn whether they work for a smart employer or a dumb one and fashion an appropriate strategy before posting their resumes for everyone to see.

Re:The Real Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the US should give South Carolina to France (as a gift, you see...), and, then, make a reality TV show out of it!

Re:The Real Problem

[smellsofbikes]

A guy at my girlfriend's workplace quit, giving one day's notice. ("Tomorrow's my last day. Bye.") A bunch of the manager types were HIGHLY OFFENDED by such behavior, that he hadn't given them two weeks' notice. I was talking to one of them and said "I've never gotten two weeks' notice that I was getting fired, or laid off, and I know very few people that have." He didn't seem to see the two situations as being equivalent. It's a dated mindset, I guess, that employers have the power and employees are like machinery to be replaced. In fields where there's more demand than supply for talented technical people, market forces are alive and well.

Re:The Real Problem

[jonadab]

> any reason that isn't explicitly prohibited by law. In most jurisdictions, this
> is limited to race, gender, religion, non-disqualifying handicap, age, and perhaps
> a handful of other characteristics.

There are, in the US at least, a number of other specific things they dursn't fire you for, besides the discrimination-oriented ones. Refusing to falsify records, refusing to violate the law, attempting to unionize, taking time off for certain things as permitted under the FMLA, and so on and so forth.

And that's all just in terms of criminal law. There's also whatever the employee can sue you for under civil law, which is what really scares most employers.

Re:The Real Problem

[hackstraw]

I know, I know, mod me as a troll, but where I'm from HR is a job given to minority women for diversity in the workplace, stats, etc.

Re:The Real Problem

[porges]

I was talking to one of them and said "I've never gotten two weeks' notice that I was getting fired, or laid off, and I know very few people that have."

Neither have I, but...you/they probably got 2 weeks' severance, which should be all you care about. In theory, that's your notice; it's just that the employers mostly want you to go away as soon as they tell you that you're not pals any more. When you suddenly quit, though, the employer would like a little overlap so they can hand off your work to someone else (assuming we're talking about Slashdotty-like jobs here).

So it's not quite as asymmetric in that respect as you're painting it.

Re:The Real Problem

[canadian_right]

"What I see in the industry is a definite trend toward companies caring much less about their employees."

It is a trend that is especially strong in companies that do IT, and consulting has it worst of all. I worked for 13 years in a large firm in the internal IT department. Most of us do long term operational support, with a big upgrade done every 3 to 5 years in various systems. We were privatized 3 years ago and bought by a large firm with a strong background in IT consulting, but very little experience in operations. Their attidute towards employees is very simple: you are a replaceable cog.

They do not seem to care that the long term employees know the systems inside and out. They do not seem to have caught on that long term operations is not the same as a consulting gig. In the consulting world they expected employees to move up - or out. We have lots of people that have done the same job for 5 years or more at stretch. Some key people operating large legacy systems that are highly customized are very difficult to replace.

The new company, to get its foot in the door, agreed to a contract that loses money given our current level of salary and benefits. They now expect us to take a 25% cut, or leave.

This does not improve employee "engagement" or moral.

I was planning on working for another 17 years, collecting a pension, and living happily every after. The old employer wasn't perfect, but they never treated us with total contempt. Now I think I will stick it out until my kids get through university and move on to something else as fast as a can. If they actuall force the 25% cut on us, I'll leave sooner.

There are only 6 people in provice I leave that know anything about the large enterprise app I maintain, and it is so highly customized that it will take a new person one to two years to know enough about the system to make anything but trivial updates. Do I have a backup? Do I have a trainee? Of course not. Gives me job security, but it certainly isn't a best practise. I used to have 2 to 4 people working under me.

So, I would not worry about being loyal to most large firms, they certainly do not value you.

Re:The Real Problem

[Achromatic1978]

I don't expect to be 'cared' about. However, most employers make expectations of you over and above 'punch in at 9, out at 5'. I carry a work cell phone. A laptop. I'm expected to work overtime (on salary) "as and when required". I'm expected to take my leave entitlement at a time beneficial to them, above and beyond my preference.

The reason people expect 'loyalty' from employers too, and concessions to be made is because employers expect 'loyalty' and availability, etc., over and above the pay packet.

Whether you should, or not, is another debate, but doesn't invalidate this approach.

Re:The Real Problem

[Achromatic1978]

To a degree, yes. But it's also more indicative of the mindset. Sure, your severance is fine, and in many circumstances you do want that person out of there immediately. But it's the mindset of that same thing in, say, an example I experienced: Found a new job, wrote my letter of resignation, giving four weeks notice. End of the day, I was clearing my desk.

Re:The Real Problem

[smellsofbikes]

I work slightly more low-end jobs than you, I think: severance pay hasn't ever been discussed. At two of my previous jobs, every friday everyone dreaded coming in because about 1/2 the time there was a manager and two large security guards standing at the door, waiting to tell the people who'd gotten laid off that they couldn't come into the building (even to clean out their lockers.) That was your notice.

Re:The Real Problem

[umbrellasd]

This speaks well to what I was referring to in the original post. Maybe a shorter way to say what I was saying is companies these days are playing the short-term game more and more, but when an employee naturally adjusts there attitude to cope, the employer cries foul. At least in many cases that I have seen.

I've worked at several jobs where "You wouldn't want to be looking for a job right now, would you?" was the standard way of asking for work to be done. "Hey, we need you in here on Saturday for 8 hours. I know you're a 9-5er and you've probably logged 60 hours already this week, but...oh, yes we need you here on Sunday, too." That is straight out of Office Space, and there's a reason it is a funny movie. It's because that scenario is not uncommon.

Re:The Real Problem

[umbrellasd]

What I've never got -- even from my first job at age 13 -- is why people like you EXPECT employers to "care" about you?

I am not saying that I expect an employer to "care". Not at all. When a person is young and new to working in the industry, they might have such a fanciful notion that a company is a family of sorts and that there is similar benefit in investing in your coworkers. But then you realize most people come from dysfunctional families and the last thing they want is another one, so... :-)

In the real world, you see that employees are often commodities, and are treated in whatever way is expedient (cost-effective). A company is driven by money. And all too often it is driven by short-term money. I routinely see staffing choices made that effect 5+ year employees and they are made to balance a 3 month budget.

Now I do not at all say that employers have to care or that employees should expect them to care. What I was saying is that if you, as an employee, adjust to that, companies will usually cry foul.

"We need you in here on Saturday and Sunday this week and the next. You are a 9-5 employee and you're at 60 hours already, but that is how it is and no, we will not pay you overtime. You're salary and you're expected to make up for our mismanagement and refusal to listen to your feedback--err...you're expected to do your job."

"Ok, here's my feedback on that, sir. No."

"I'm sorry? Wait...I don't think you understand how this goes. We pay you."

"Oh...I get it."

"Great. See you Saturday."

"No, I get it. If you want me here 76 hours a week. You make me a new compensation offer and I will consider it, because you're right. You pay me."

"Hrm...I guess we need to have a surprise meeting with HR. Uh...I hope I didn't just say that out loud."

There are many reasons this conversation very rarely happens. Futility jumps out at me as a big one. I've had this conversation before. Most people are smarter than me. They won't even go there. They know if they demand equitable treatment, it will get them the label of "problem" in the HR file or it will get them a pink piece of paper. They know that there is a quieter worker ant that they can abuse for short-term gain, and long-term implications of losing veteran employees be damned.

I'll just finish by saying that I don't expect any other kind of treatment from a company. You get what you get in life. But I think this type of attitude is a bit...not good for a company's longterm interest. And I think it's pretty hypocritical for companies to so cavalierly use and dispose of employees and then be upset when an employee reciprocates. But you know...even that is all right, as long as they keep their hypocritical indignation to themselves.

Re:The Real Problem

[Reality Master 101]

"No, I get it. If you want me here 76 hours a week. You make me a new compensation offer and I will consider it, because you're right. You pay me."

But that's not how these things typically work. Salaried is salaried -- you agreed to a set amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of work, and typically a "reasonable" and "occasional" amount of overtime. If the overtime becomes excessive, or if they are unreasonable about balancing that out with some time-off when you need to go to the doctor, kid's are sick, etc, then you have the sit-down with them to see if you can work it out.

If you can't work it out, you don't make threats and get that "note in the file", you just find another job.

In other words, you're smart about it. You don't act like a prima donna, you just be aware that employment is a two-way street. Just like they have the right to fire you, you have the right to fire them.

Re:The Real Problem

[ssuchter]

Still, I wonder if it is legal to fire someone just for having looked for alternate employment options. Maybe it is legal, but that would be one scary hostile workplace.

I'm an engineering manager in California, which is an at-will employment state. In general, this means that you can get your employment terminated at any time for any reason, save a few protected things. (I.e. in general you can't get fired/not hired for race, religion, etc) However, you still have to be consistent in your approach. You can still get in legal trouble if you only fire some of the people who you find are looking for alternative employment but not others. I bet if you started consistently firing everyone who was looking for another job, you wouldn't have much a company before long!

Re:The Real Problem

[budgenator]

If I were you I'd make sure my "christmass card list" was up to date, you know keep in touch with the "old crew"; Doesn't sound like these asshats will last long in their new enterprise. Bringing the old bunch back together could be profitable for you a little bit down the road. Sometimes employees are replaceable cogs, sometimes they are valuable resources that are the result of care nurturing and investment, many from the preditory school of business don't know the difference and are surprised when former replaceable employess drive them out of the business that they paid millions to aquire.

Re:The Real Problem

[budgenator]

I'd advise anyone to think of their HR personnel as vampires, who's sole function is to suck the life out of every person in the company, while presenting to the world that they are your savior. If the company doesn't have some kind of checks and balances on the vampires your screwed, if they do your probably still screwed.

Re:The Real Problem

[SimHacker]

If you don't want your daughter to expect people to take care of her, buy her anything she wants, come to her rescue so she doesn't have to take care of her own problems, and give in to her every demand, then why are you raising her as a pink Disney princess? She's going to have some harsh reality to face when she gets out in the real world, pumped up full of the unrealistic expectations and bullshit that you're buying her at the Disney store. Or are you just raising her as a princess to look beautiful and act in a demure manner, in the hopes that some rich old fart marries her and gives her everything she needs, so she doesn't have to work?

-Don

Re:The Real Problem

[Reality Master 101]

If you don't want your daughter to expect people to take care of her, buy her anything she wants, come to her rescue so she doesn't have to take care of her own problems, and give in to her every demand, then why are you raising her as a pink Disney princess?

That's your bizarre assumption that I'm raising her as some spoiled slave owner who can't take care of herself.

You know, I've been trying to figure out exactly what your deal is with pink and princesses, and I think I've figured it out. You won't agree, but I'm pretty sure I'm right: You're a misogynist.

You have some frothing loathing of femininity. Look at your characterizations of princesses and the color pink. I bet you hate any sort of pastel color -- anything that might smack of being feminine. The whole princess thing is just a metaphor for "those kind of women". Any woman who is especially feminine must also be controlling, shallow, messed up in the head, and looking for someone to take care of her pathetic self.

Let me make a guess: you feel the same way about cheerleaders.

And it goes without saying that in your world, girls that pretend to be princesses and girls that like pink and girls that are cheerleaders are stupid, and utterly incapable of being scientists or doctors or name-your-significant-profession.

Re:The Real Problem

[Percusive_Maintenanc]

Speaking of Hostile and Aggressive...my manager's approach in dealing with people is nothing but solid intimidation. Someone wrote on the wall in the washroom (employee or random stranger we know not) and his solution was to remove the stall doors. Anal management is becoming an ever more popular methodology for management styles

no name?

[MikeFM]

Don't include your real name?

Re:no name?

[krunk4ever]

I was thinking about the same thing. The information that would need to change are the following:

Name
Phone
Email
Address

Some information is obviously changable. Provide a different email address (tons of free ones and you can probably find one that'll forward to your existing account).

Phone number isn't that hard either. You wouldn't want to give employers your cell phone # anyway, but there's plenty of free voicemail online service which also provide a number. http://www.ipkall.com/ is one that I use for VoIP and if I don't answer, it emails me a wav file of the message received. After you confirmed you want to speak them, you can then update them with your real cell phone # or home #.

Address is a bit hard, but if you're willing to shell out a few bucks a month, you can open a P.O. box at your local Post Office or even at your regular UPS Store.

The name is always the tricky one. I would say if you could, give them a nickname. or a few typos in your name might help.

Easy.

[ivan256]

Don't post your resume on a job site.

Most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web anyway. They post a listing and wait for the applicants to come to them. Also, the old way of finding a job is still the best. Use your network of contacts, or find a reputable headhunter (ask around. 1 headhunter in 100 isn't a schmuck, and somebody you know probably knows which one it is).

If your resume isn't out there in the public sense, you don't have to worry about your employer finding it. If posting your resume is all you're doing to find a job, you certainly don't have to worry about getting hired either.

Re:Easy.

[screevo]

I got my current job from a job website. A lot of people I know have gotten sweet gigs from Monster. I don't know why you would imply that job websites aren't useful.

Re:Easy.

[cervo]

Many recruiters both internal to big companies and external staffing companies DO search monster. A lot of them will just spam mail you with job offers in fields other than your own or to jobs in areas that you do not want to transfer to. Nevertheless, some of them will contact you and are in with the local companies. I found my first job through this method, and a really great recruiter is helping me now to find another. Furthermore several big companies have contacted me through their recruiters farming my resume from monster. I think that I am about to get a job from one of these companies as well, but only time will tell. Without putting my resume out there I would not have any of these opportunities.

Re:Easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I got one job off of a Monster.com listing. That was years ago, however. Recently, when I tried them again, I just got a ton of nonsense from head hunters searching on keywords and e-mailing anything that even remotely matches, where "remotely" makes Pluto's orbit look like an o-ring for my lawnmower.

Re:Easy.

[dacohen]

Intriguing thought... They post and wait for applicants to come in? Maybe the bad ones do. Recruiters make thier commision on getting applicants jobs. Any thing they can do to increase the flow of applicants will increase thier revenue. Furthermore, if you talk to a recruiter (at least a good executive recruiter) they have a large rolodex of names, and go back to thier candidates repeatedly, because getting someone a job gets them paid. Places like Hotjobs, Dice, TheLadders, Monster etc, all have extremely large numbers of recruiters around looking at databases everyday, trying to find candidates. And that reputable headhunter, guess what, he's not altruistic. He's trying to find you a job for the same reason all the other ones are. He wants to get paid. Also, hunting for jobs is hard enough, if you dont do everything you can, including putting your resume on sites like the ones above, then you are doing yourself a disservice.

Re:Easy.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web anyway. They post a listing and wait for the applicants to come to them.

I respectfully disagree. If you send your resume and application to a job posting, you are competing with the 100 other applicants that did the same. Whereas, if a recruiter finds your resume online and likes you enough to contact you, they are already sold enough to initiate the human level of contact.

I have always gotten much further in the interview process when it was initiated by the recruiter instead of the other way around.

And to that end, I almost always keep my resume online--I just only update it when I'm more actively looking. If an employer found that offensive, they should sign a contract with me that binds me for life. Until I get that, I'm going to more or less continue looking, or considering offers, perpetually.

Re:Easy.

[jhoger]

Even easier, if you've got the stones for it: be a man.

Think of employment as an economist does: it is a kind of marketplace in which you sell your labor. Any time you don't sell is your leisure time. Every day you go to work you are deciding to sell some of your labor to a particular employer.

On an ongoing basis you work, and on that basis you employer incurs a liability TO YOU. When they write out the check, they pay off that acrued liability. In fact, you are extending them credit terms of two weeks, basically. Oh, and they also usually incur a vacation liability to you. That is the extent of who owes who.

Employment is almost always at will. So beyond the acrued payroll and vacation time and possibly contractual obligations, nobody owes anybody anything really. You are free to go. They are free to let you go.

Your employer understands that there is a marketplace in which you can sell your services. Your resume on a web site is completely natural when you understand the economics of the situation. They may "not be happy" but who cares? If an employer would actually fire you for being in the job market there's a serious problem anyway. Are they afraid you're underpaid? Are they afraid you're unhappy? Frankly, any time would be a great time for them to fix that. The fact is that if a better offer comes along the rational choice is to go elsewhere, and they should know that.

Bottom line is, don't be a wuss. There are always other jobs.

In fact, I think everyone would be better off as contractors. Then the reality of the situation would be understood more clearly by both sides.

-- John.

Re:Easy.

[plover]

Most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web anyway.

Ummm...the HR person responsible for bringing me job applicants to interview seems to spend his life trolling monster.com. And I work for one of the largest private employers in my state.

The amazing thing is that he brings me very few "duds". Most of the people who make it this far really seem to be as sharp as their resumes claim, and I'd say I've given him a thumbs up on over 75% of them. Not that we've hired them all, but the ones we have gotten have been really good.

Re:Easy.

[antifoidulus]

Not sure how you feel about monster, but one benefit they do offer is that they can hide both your name and your current employers name(though the job description is still there if you want it of course) to all employers if you make your resume searchable. The employers who like your resume then can use monster to contact you and you can send the "unprotected" resume from there.

Re:Easy.

[livewire98801]

Its amazing how every time I update my resume, I get dozens of people that think I would make a great Insurance salesman, even though all of my experience is in tech support and one gig at RadioShack. I get offers from Monster and CareerBuilder, but none of them are useful to me. I'm not sure that making it hidden wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Re:Easy.

[Monkeys!!!]

If you act like a resource, don't be suprised when you are treated like on.

Re:Easy.

[FLEB]

Well... have you ever considered a rewarding career in insurance sales?

Re:Easy.

[aaarrrgggh]

Step one: find out what services your company uses.

It isn't that hard in many industries to determine who an anonymous resume is from- just listing your alma matter/year and experience can give away a lot of information.

I was amazed to have an hr person identify three people in my company that were actively looking for jobs. The resumes looked good- like they had relevant experience. There wasn't any stand-out information, but just from school, employment dates, and cities they knew exactly who it was!

The same often works for employers trying to hide their identities...

Re:Easy.

[Zadaz]

I'll see that. I worked as a contractor for so long that I generally got jobs on word of mouth. Since then I've proceeded to start my own companies, so I wouldn't know what the hell I'd put on a resume now. And unless there's a good reason, I hire contractors exclusively. We have less bullshit between us and we understand each other's goals.

From what I can tell of how people look for jobs, I can't believe anyone ever gets one!

It makes me sad to see how pathetic people are about looking for jobs. The only people who should be like this are people who have nothing to offer! (oh, wait...)

Take it from an employer: We want to hire you! Often as badly (or worse) than you want the job! If you come to us with this crappy "oh please hire me, I'm desperate and scared" attitude, 1) We won't want to hire you (unless we have an opening for sycophant) and 2) If we do hire you, we'll treat you just like you're expecting.

Here's a better approach: Treat the employer like you have something they want. They'll treat you with more respect.

If your employer would fire you for looking for another job, you are better off without them.

(And if an employer would fire someone just for looking, they are probably glad to be rid of you. I'd never treat someone who works for me like that. I'd ask them if they were unhappy, and if there was some way I could make it worth their while. Of course I also fire people if they're not worth my while.)

Re:Easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm...the HR person responsible for bringing me job applicants

It's interesting to me that people actually take the time to write out the interjection, 'Umm'.

I uh wonder uh if they uh think umm it's umm easier uh to um read?

Re:Easy.

[UnrefinedLayman]

I respectfully disagree. If you send your resume and application to a job posting, you are competing with the 100 other applicants that did the same. Whereas, if a recruiter finds your resume online and likes you enough to contact you, they are already sold enough to initiate the human level of contact.

Way to completely miss the point of what the parent said: most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web. While it's possible it's true that having a recruiter find your resume and contact you means they're really into you, that doesn't change the fact that the huge majority of jobs are acquired by applying for them, not being offered them.

Re:Easy.

[Bamafan77]

If you act like a resource, don't be suprised when you are treated like on.

Very pithy and catchy, but completely wrong. As an employee, you are by definition a *resource* whether you think that's a "degrading" term or not.

Re:Easy.

[Dahamma]

Way to completely miss the point of what the parent said: most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web. While it's possible it's true that having a recruiter find your resume and contact you means they're really into you, that doesn't change the fact that the huge majority of jobs are acquired by applying for them, not being offered them.

Way to miss his point - it's just not true! Of the last 10 people we have hired, only 1 was from a direct resume submittal to the company. About 2-3 were from the in house recruiter searching for resumes, and the rest were from headhunter submissions. And looking from the other perspective, the last time I was interviewing, blind submission of a resume to a job req got me all of ZERO responses, posting to a job board got me a couple, and networking (ie giving it to a friend/former coworker at the place I was interested) got me an interview at almost every single one.

A lot of the job posts for (engineering at least) positions at tech companies are just to satisfy immigration requirements, where an "attempt" (as feeble as it may be) must be made to fill the job with a current legal US resident before sponsoring an H-1B visa. While they may not mind getting qualified resumes submitted for that position, rarely does anything ever come of it...

Re:Easy.

[ivan256]

That recruiter you're talking about, and that headhunter you mentioned... They're the same person. Don't let what they put on their business card fool you.

Also, hunting for jobs is hard enough, if you dont do everything you can, including putting your resume on sites like the ones above, then you are doing yourself a disservice.

I'm sorry, I would agree if you were unemployed, but if putting your resume online puts you at risk of losing your job, then not only are you not doing yourself any disservice by not posting it, you'd have to be an utter fool to post it... Especially, as I said before, since there are other effective ways to find employment. If you don't have a job, by all means, do everything in your power. There is no downside, but...

Re:Easy.

[ivan256]

You never want to do business with a recruiter that finds you. You should find the recruiter, and you should do it based on recommendations. You want a recruiter that works for you, and you want the recruiter to understand that you have the upper hand in the relationship. A recruiter gets paid when you get a job, so the good recruiters understand it's in their best interests to find you something that fits, and perhaps even to do some salary negotiations for you. I've had a headhunter play two companies offers off each other for me to get me an extra $20,000 a year in salary... That's the kind of thing you should be looking for. If you've been working in industry for any reasonable amount of time, you know somebody that knows a good recruiter (or headhunter, or whatever you want to call them).

I'd say that responding to a recruiter that is soliciting you is just as bad as responding to spam, but it usually *is* responding to spam, so it would be redundant. It's not worth dealing with a recruter that makes money off your signed offer letter, but considers themselves an employee of the hiring company. You can get that job anyway every time, and their fee could be part of your salary.

Re:Easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a passive aggressive response.

Re:Easy.

[Ptraci]

Think of it as shorthand for "I beg to differ".

Re:Easy.

[scottv67]

Most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web anyway.

What sort of crack are you smoking?

I put my resume on Monster and Dice a couple of years ago and I immediately had recruiters calling me trying to place me in positions that they were filling. I received almost one phone call per day for different jobs around the U.S.

Employers and recruiters are looking on these websites for qualified people. Maybe they just aren't looking for you.

Re:Easy.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It isn't that hard in many industries to determine who an anonymous resume is from- just listing your alma matter/year and experience can give away a lot of information.

I guess I was right to leave graduation dates off of my BSCS. I'd like to fuzz out the employers a bit, but I'm unsure how to do that without sounding like I'm writing a work of fiction.

The same often works for employers trying to hide their identities...

Yeah, I remember trying to find other people who used my (ex) employer's 4gl website language (based on Java and two eJBs that talk via Corba), only to find that they were the only one. Good thing that they weren't demanding years experience in the stuff.

Re:Easy.

[ivan256]

How many of those recruiters were the employers?

Employers and recruiters are looking on these websites for qualified people. Maybe they just aren't looking for you.

More likely, you didn't read what I actually said. Of course you get one or more calls a day. It's not because you're special, it's because recruiters work like spammers. Phone calls are cheap, and it can't hurt to troll you for permission to submit your resume.

Those recruiters that call you look for job listings posted by employers, call you, and hook you up with the employer for a fee. If you had looked for postings instead of just posting your resume, you could have gotten many of those same contacts and you wouldn't have had the recruiter's fee taken out of your salary.

Recruiters most certainly *do* look at resume postings because they make mony off of you if you're foolish enough to respond to their e-mail. I, however, only mentioned employers. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but not many.

If you're going to use a recruiter, you're way better off finding one yourself instead of having one find you.

According to an Employment Advocate I know...

[Anonymous Coward]

...If you are thinking of "moving on", do not ask your current employer to match any offer made by anybody else: the reasoning being that even though they may consider you worth paying a little more to keep right now, they'll also consider you disloyal and a potential future problem. It's a fast track to being marginalised and finding your name at the top of the down-sizing list. Either take the new job, or silently stick with your existing postion.

Re:According to an Employment Advocate I know...

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought that you shouldn't do that either, but I have a friend who has just gone from strength to strength by doing the above repeatedly. He moves when a better position comes up, and has actually moved back to the company he just left when they approach him with a better offer.

He does brilliant work, and generally contracts (and he's pretty confident) so I guess there's a lucky exception to every rule :)

Re:According to an Employment Advocate I know...

[Bishop]

It depends on the industry, type of employment, and the person. In general do not bother with counter offers as per GP. It will probably backfire 99% of the time. However there are people who are so good that they can demand higher pay greater job flexibility. Some industries and locations are also more accomodateing. At one point big tech companies expected high value employees to take a "sebatical" and work one or two years with a competitor. There are also a number of jobs where people are hired based on the person, not the skills. People as actors, some senior management, certain professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers, architechs), and some coporate sales. Not a lot of people fit into that category. Most programmers would not fit into that category, but someone such as Linus Torvalds would.

Re:Web?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes.
no.

Mindset

[miyako]

I should preface this comment with the fact that I'm only 22, and barely in the "real world" myself- so remember that although I may have no idea of what I'm talking about from experience, I think what I'm going to infer does make sense- and perhaps someone who has seen more of the world can validate or invalidate my ideas. That said, here goes:
Before the advent of sites such as Monster.com, etc. job hunting was a fairly active pursuit. It involved looking at potentially interested companies- sending in your resume to them, etc. Now days, job "hunting" can be much more benign. The fact is that it's quite reasonable to be perfectly content with ones job, and not actively seeking a new employer, but still to have your resume online 'incase something better comes along'. In fact, I would be that many of the people who's resumes were posted on Monster.com had posted them there before they got their current position.
It seems that the optimal solution is really to just get Managers/HR drones to realize this and to not associate running across someones resume online with the idea that they are actively searching for new employment.
If HR still doesn't like it (especially if where you work is an 'At Will' employment place), then I would politely inform them that- if they are worried about you leaving then they should consider negotiating a contract for your exclusive employement, and if you are able to find mutually acceptable terms, then you will remove your resume.

Re:Mindset

[mikesd81]

If HR still doesn't like it (especially if where you work is an 'At Will' employment place), then I would politely inform them that- if they are worried about you leaving then they should consider negotiating a contract for your exclusive employement, and if you are able to find mutually acceptable terms, then you will remove your resume.

If you're gonna negotiate like that, you better make sure that you mind your p's and q's. Don't take long lunches, don't come in late, DO stay longer to get projects done, bust your ass, make sure you can prove you're a valuable asset. It's never good, IMO, to give an employer an ultamatem, unless you're on your way out or you have done a good enough job to win.

Re:Mindset

[miyako]

I'm not sure I would consider the situation an ultimatum exactly. It's more like:
As an employee, you are selling your time, knowledge and skills to the company to do some job in exchange for a salary or hourly wadge, plus usually some benefits. The way it works at most jobs is, at any time for pretty much any reason, your employer can say "well, we dont need you any more, clear out your desk and go home. We'll put your last check in the mail."
In fact, the basis of "at will" employement is that either party is able to terminate the agreement for employement at any time.
In such a situation, it is not equitable for the employer to have the power to end that employment agreement at any time without the employee having the same opportunity. As having another job is largely a factor in being able to reasonably terminate your current employment agreement, an employer asking an employee to not have their resume available for other interested parties is functionally equivilent to them removing your ability to terminate your at will employment at any time, while they retain that right.
What I am suggesting is that, if your employer wishes you to terminate that right, then for the arrangement to remain equitable, you should have mutual assurance that, if they effectively ask you to end the right to terminate your employment at will, then they themselves should give up that right. The employer may then decide that you are valuable enough that they wish to enter into such an agreement, or they may not decide that. The point is that there remains a balance of power in the employment agreement.
As for being a valuable asset to the company, I would say that if you do not feel that you are a valuable asset to the company, then you should be considering another job anyway. Self actualization is an important part of overall happyness, and for many people that invovles a feeling of usefullness, value, and accomplishment at work.
In the end, you might still end up in a position where an employer just gets rid of you and hires someone else, but in the long run I think that people that take such a stance are likely to find themselves in more satisfying positions with more respectful companies. If everyone takes such a stance, it might even be a small stride in helping to level out the vastly out-of-balance relationship between businesses and employees that currently exists. All that it takes, really, is to have the right mindset. Remember that as a worker you are not a drone or a cog in a machine, but a talented individual who is selling their talents to help the orginization acheive it's goals.

Re:Mindset

[Brandybuck]

For being a youngling of only twenty two years, you're pretty bright. I wouldn't give HR an ultimatum, though, because once you're hired they're irrelevant. An HR department that other departments who to hire and fire, is an HR company that's grossly overstepping its bounds.

HR once told my boss that they were concerned about a certain telecommuting employee. They didn't like telecommuting, and were concerned that she wasn't really working. Since she happened to be THE most productive employee in engineering, he told HR to bugger off and CC'd the VP in the email. :-)

Re:Mindset

[Glonoinha]

Here's the difference :

If you bail the most likely thing that will happen is that the other employees are punished a little in the form of additional work, the project may be a little later than usual (and the project manager will be happy to finally have a concrete scape-goat to blame the impending lateness on anyways), and the company may be inconvenienced a bit. The downside to the company is approximately nil, because the company generally has built in allowances in the form of ability to slide schedules or throw money at the problem. Companies do not have unlimited resources, but they have enough spare resources to cover your departure.

On the other hand, if the company suddenly discards you, you may be fucked. Expect (on the far side) it to take one month of searching for every $10,000 worth of salary you command - in yesterday's economy (and possibly today's also) it isn't unreasonable to spend 9 months unemployed looking for a job that pays $90,000. And anybody making $90k a year probably has a burn rate of $5k a month, with fixed expenses (things they can't adjust the monthly cost of - mortgage, car payment, insurance, existing credit card debt) of easily $3,500 a month, and you can cut your soft spending (food, entertainment, alcohol, etc) maybe in half. The first two months you don't change your burn rate because you 'know' you will get another good job, and after you burn through the first $10,000 of your savings you make some drastic changes and get it down to $4,200 a month. Two months later you have burned through a total of $20,000 of your savings and are starting to panic. Companies like to hire guys that are still working somewhere, and you have been unemployed for four months. Why is he unemployed - maybe he isn't worth hiring for our company of other people haven't hired him for four months. Push that out to six months and you have burned through $30,000 of your savings and the same thing still applies, but now the hiring company is looking at a guy that hasn't touched a computer (professionally) in half a year. If you don't have that $30k (or more) laying around then you run out of money and lose your house, car, credit rating - and yes, hiring HR teams pull credit reports - and then you are truly fucked. Hit the one year mark and you are working at Home Depot, the potential for ever being employed as a software engineer is gone.

See the difference?

Re:Mindset

[Ptraci]

Two things you can do to mitigate that. Always keep at least six months expenses in some fairly liquid form of savings, and work on open source projects while you're unemployed.

I only wish there were some open source alternative for my job. I'm an electronic tech with over twenty years of experience. I've seen most of the jobs of that type go to China in the last few years, and they're not coming back. I'm also getting to the point where I have to worry about whether the company I work for might decide that their older, higher paid and possibly less healthy workers might just not be worth keeping. They are constantly pushing me to pass along all the knowledge I've accumulated over the time I've been there, and I've always been perfectly willing to train people because I've always been happier when those around me are at least competent, but lately I'm getting a bit paranoid as I've seen such turnover in management that I don't trust that they even know how much I can do for them. You bet I'm putting as much as I can into savings and actively but discreetly looking elsewhere.

Re:Mindset

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Always keep at least six months expenses in some fairly liquid form of savings, and work on open source projects while you're unemployed.

Funny thing: ING Direct pays 4.15% on regular savings. I'm using them to build my e-fund (and smooth out car insurance and other once or twice yearly bills).

Solution

[catwh0re]

A feasible solution is to not add your current employer to your resume.

Then if you're current employer comes across your resume, you can dismiss it with "it's from when I was looking before this job". The obvious flaw is that if you've been in your job for a great number of years, then it's not a very solid story (or an adequet resume for that matter.)

Alternatively keep your resume on an external website, (which can always be current), it allows you to monitor and traffic who visits your resume, as well as say, block the IP range of your current employer/their chosen recruitment company.

Re:Solution

[LurkerXXX]

If they are bothering to go to your external website rather than just looking on Monster.com, etc, then they almost certainly did a Google search for your name... your website is right there in the google cache.

Re:Solution

[forkazoo]

If they are bothering to go to your external website rather than just looking on Monster.com, etc, then they almost certainly did a Google search for your name... your website is right there in the google cache.

That's fine -- make it so that the page says, "I'm no longer looking. If you found this as a result of a search on google or something, looking for a resume, their information is out of date. Hopefully, it will refresh eventually."

Doesn't help at all if the HR department checks from home though!

Re:Solution

[nugneant]

"Hopefully, it will refresh eventually."

== "Hopefully, I'll get fired from this job soon"?

On Posting Resumes to a Website

[sesshomaru]

There are unscrupulous employment agencies out there that will do the following:

1. Collect resumes posted to the Web on common job sites.

2. Submit them to employers with their contact information replacing yours.

3. Not tell you about it unless they get a bite.

4. Contact you about the job if they do get a bite, but not tell you any of the above.

Personally, I don't like the idea of any old person having access to my resume. It's too much information to give out anonymously. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a "passive" way to get a job. You have to go through the work of contacting people, by mail or Email yourself, rather that tossing your resume out there and hoping for a bite. This isn't the 90's after all, the job market sucks. (Sigh... I remember companies giving away Palms just for accepting an interview. Oh well, I made out pretty well myself, until the crash...)

Re:On Posting Resumes to a Website

[forrie]

Ugh! I feel your pain.

I've been getting contacts from people who barely speak english about positions that really don't match my profile, in places I would not work (far away).

One of them, consult-ics.com, contacted me about a contract with Verizon, and insisted I must provide my SSN before my resume could be submitted.

And let's not forget the spidering that grabs these addresses - I have a special address for my resume that is getting spammed, that address only exists on monster.com.

Go figure.

Re:On Posting Resumes to a Website

[Anonymous Coward]

In my state, Washington, it's illegal for any recruiter to submit a candidate's resume without the applicant's prior approval.

Free Market.

[Anonymous Coward]

"How do we, as employees looking to change jobs, protect ourselves from possible discovery, and even worse, retribution?"

Free market. You can sell yourself with the same degree of freedom that he shops for employees.

Offer to curtail your freedom, if he curtails his. Bet he'll not bite.

Re:Free Market.

[Shazow]

You can sell yourself with the same degree of freedom that he shops for employees.

Offer to curtail your freedom, if he curtails his. Bet he'll not bite.

Difference is most people can only handle one full time job. While employers can handle many full time employees. They're studs like that. :P

What I'd probably do is keep my resume and such on my own portfolio-style website, which will be around regardless whether I'm employed or unemployed. It's more passive that way.

- shazow

Re:Free Market.

[hackwrench]

Yeah, the corporation has a much bigger gun pointed at your head than you do at it's.

Re:Free Market.

[Brandybuck]

They may have more "control" over your employement than you do, but if you're smart you'll make yourself valuable to them so they won't go shopping for an employee elsewhere. It's not a gun, it's mutual association.

You are the seller in this situation, so it behooves you to make your employment valuable to them. You need to stand out from the generic corporate pukes around you. As long as you're just another employee, you can be replaced by just another employee. If they don't know you are valuable, you need to let them know. This is going to take people skills on your part. Don't list just what you did on your status reports, list how you helped the company. Talk to your boss about what you do. Talk to his boss as well.

Re:Free Market.

[livewire98801]

Quote from somewhere - "Do not make yourself irreplaceable, for you cannot be promoted if you do."

they should assume I'm looking at other jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

after all, I have to look out for myself, so I will always be looking.

Employers are willing to fire you at any minute so they shouldn't expect any loyalty from you.

Re:they should assume I'm looking at other jobs

[Ian Action]

Uh, why was this modded troll?

Re:they should assume I'm looking at other jobs

[Brandybuck]

because slashdot moderators are on crack

Use privacy options

[ghee22]

Careerbuilder, Dice.com, Monster.com all have privacy options. One I use goes is similar to this: "keep my resume searchable but hide my name, phone number, email address, and my current employer's name"

So how do future employers contact you? They use the contact job seeker option on the website, such as Dice.com, and Dice would then forward the email to you. It is then up to you unveil your identity when replying back to the employer.

What you can do to further your privacy is use a new email address that doesn't have your name in it to inquire more about the job opportunity.

Good luck!

Re:Use privacy options

[forrie]

Ah, but the problem with the monster.com-reponder is that unscrupulous idiots (a/k/a "Employers") abuse this process by sending "work from home!" emails and other crap, to which Monster does not respond (they get paid to allow this).

In fact, I think I have a few slightly saracstic responses from them about this - one of them, suggesting if I don't like it, I can cancel my account. [insert colorful metaphor about what I think of them here]

The end result, for me, is that I refuse email from Monster's letters process, with an error message asking them to direct messages through their ISP - that way, I can block and/or complain about spam.

It's a catch 22.

I guess the alternative is to sign up for another email account and have those messages routed there - but that really doesn't address the problems involved.

Easy

[Konster]

The easy way to defuse the situation before it ever starts is to post the resumes of your company's leadership...then leak a little blurb to the local rag from a payphone...with any luck scandal will engulf your workplace allowing you to do whatever you want.

Trolling?

[cammoblammo]

Umm, isn't the word 'trawling?'

Then again, I'd love to mod my employer down...

Re:Trolling?

[Anonymous Coward]

no

Re:Trolling?

[styrotech]

Nope, trolling works

http://bennettmarine.com/rigging_trolling.html

Although in reality it was the employee trolling for bites on their resume - they just caught a big nasty fish they weren't intending to.

Re:Trolling?

[cammoblammo]

Fair enough. That seems to be a more localised usage of the word then. Or at least, not commonly used in my locality!

Even worse, it seems that the term as applied to so many, erm, provocative posts on /. actually derives from the fishing term. dictd does it again!

Re:Trolling?

[deadweight]

Trolling = fishing by dragging one or more baits with the boat moving slow ahead. Trawling = fishing by dragging a net. Trolling is also a slang for trying to get a job/date/whatever doing something passive like posting a resume and seeing if anyone bites.

Semi-relevent story

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Well, it's not entirely related to this story, but I figured I'd share a little experience I had. In Feb of 2004, I was laid off. I was in the middle of creating some artwork that I was posting on a web-forum for others to watch the progress on. So, the goal of that piece became to make it ready to throw on my demo reel so I could seek work. I even named a couple of places I was gunning for. Unfortunately, it didn't look as though I was going to finish that piece as soon as I would have like, so I left the thread there and moved on to other stuff.

One year and 3 days later, happily employed, I found a little time one night to resume that piece. Once satisified, I posted the image. Unfortunately, I had forgotten to set my alarm that night. I overslept the next day. When I finally arrived at work, my boss was real happy to see me. You see, this forum I was posting artwork to was the exact same forum that he discovered me with. He read these February posts about gunning for a job at these two other places and became concerned. That, coupled with my lateness to work, gave his imagination a lot to work with. By the time I got there,though, he had discovered the YEAR of the post, and a good laugh was had by all.

There's no real moral to this story unless you seek it. It's just my own little anecdotal evidence that one should be careful about what he or she says on the net. This may seem like common sense, but it is funny how these little things can nip you in the rear. In my case, it was totally accidental.

This probably isn't all that relevent to the story. It might have been a more useful post in another story recently about somebody getting in trouble at work over something found in a search engine. No offense taken if this is considered off-topic, but yeah, employeers can see you on the net. Behave.

Re:Semi-relevent story

[voice_of_all_reason]

I like stories :)

Re:Semi-relevent story

[Brandybuck]

I once received a phone call from a headhunter at work while my boss was in my cube. I had no interest in leaving the company at the time, so I hung up on him. I said something like, "geez I wish these headhunters would stop calling."

Boss: "That was a call from a headhunter?"

Me: "Yeah."

I ended up with a hefty $5k raise as a retention incentive. w00t!

Re:Web?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Tell that to the Information Superhighway.

employment and owning people

[drDugan]

this "problem" is more a result of the mentality of what employment really means. employer / employee relationships are another example of a relationship typically structured as dominance and heirarchy -- which (across society) are breaking down because of increased ease in mass communication. when enough people figure out what's going on - they don't want to play this game.

Re:employment and owning people

[morryveer]

In other words, companies believe they own your ass.

Re:employment and owning people

[bzipitidoo]

Seems a lot of places want you to put yourself in dire financial straits so you can't afford to leave. Some even come right out and say so. Most are a little more subtle.

At one job after I'd been there a year, my boss called me into his office to tell me that he'd observed I hadn't bought a new car. He said that was bad, because if I wasn't making car payments, I could leave them anytime. I know a real estate agent who got the same line from her boss. She should "motivate" herself by buying an expensive new car so she'd have to work her ass off to pay for it. Plus, the shiny new car would impress customers. All the agents were pushed to do that. Made for a cutthroat real estate agency. At another job, a coworker told me he was a "better" employee than I was because he HAD to have the job. Unlike myself, he had a baby and a huge home mortgage. He made sure management knew that too. And middle management would set the example by doing it to themselves, as well. One manager would start pissing contests about who had most crushing credit card debts. And they praised themselves for helping the economy with their spending. They were perturbed and jealous that to all appearances I was behaving in a financially responsible manner. Told me I was being un-American for not spending. Scary when the servants praise indentured servitude.

Re:employment and owning people

[ultranova]

They were perturbed and jealous that to all appearances I was behaving in a financially responsible manner. Told me I was being un-American for not spending. Scary when the servants praise indentured servitude.

Not really, it is a perfectly normal psychological defense mechanism to pretend that everything's fine even when it isn't. Especially when the society is sending constant signals telling you that working to death is expected, and that money is more important than people.

Such people are simply following capitalistic ideology to its logical conclusion: you are worth what you spend.

Re:employment and owning people

[drooling-dog]

Yep. You've fallen into this trap if you find yourself being socially deferential to your employer on your off-time. Do you expect your plumber to kiss your ass when you pass him on the street? Then your employer shouldn't expect you to kiss his there, either.

I'm always wary of companies that tout their culture as resembling a "family". What that really means is that you, as an employee, are now a child again, and your bosses are Mommy and Daddy. A lot of people - presumably uncomfortable with their own adulthood - are actually looking for just that.

unionise

[scum-e-bag]

form a union

Re:unionise

[Brandybuck]

Then the company doesn't own you, the union does. All a union does is make you a generic commodity employee. You end up less employable, and thus you become dependent upon the union. You're just traded boiling for frying, you're ass gets burned either way.

Re:unionise

[BrookHarty]

Saying unions are bad is rather uninformed, and trollish.

Unions where really needed 30+ years ago due to work conditions, people where dieing. Now that we have safety issues that are under government control, safety can normally be a non-union concept.

Whats left is working hours, benefits (medical), and pay.

I would love to see laws governing working hours, people die at hospitals due to overworked doctors and lack of nursing. How many hours should someone work a week, 60, 80? Or maybe only 30. When people have more free time it increases economic trade and a better quality of life.

Now America has no national medical system, and companies cant sustain the insane profit margins without cutting medical or retirement benefits to its employees. This is the sad part, you can give up pay for benefits, but this should only be used for emergencies, not to help the share holders profit every other year.

If companies can pay less they will, walmart is the perfect example. Walmart skirts benefits with low hours, and normally pay the lowest wages allowed. The only reason we have a middle class in America is due to unions, most unions are construction/trade based, the backbone of most societies.

America is highly anti-labor friendly they have busted unions with the help of local governments.

Now I'm talking about unions for masses, not high end professional engineering contractors. There will always be a market to pay high wages for the highly skilled, well, unless it can be offshored.

Re:unionise

[Eivind]

Money ain't everything. I wonder when the general American will understand that.

I live and work as a programmer in Norway. In general the pay for high-paying jobs is lower than US, low-paying jobs are paid better, so the net effect is that there's less of a difference between flipping burgers and say programming.

With a 3-4 year university education, you'll start out as a programmer making something like $65K/year, which I understand is fairly moderate by US standards. And ontop of that you'll probably pay more taxes than you would in the US (probably in the 25-30% range on an income like that, assuming you're single or your partner works too)

But here's the thing;

• That university-education was free.
• Access to the top-education is determined solely by your results. (i.e you get no credit for having a rich father, nor do you have any disadvantage if you come from a home consisting of a single unemployed mother)
• About 1/3rd the living-costs during your studies was paid by the state. The other 2/3rds was given as an interest-free loan that you pay back after you start working (if you become unemployed the loan stays interest-free until you land a job)
• There's universal healthcare for everyone staying legally in Norway for more than a year.
• Employers have a different (as in better) attitude, the safety nets make people less scared of losing their jobs, which makes them accept less crap, which conditions the employers to not attempt the crap in the first place.

There's more benefits, more than I can count. To me there's no way in hell I'd give that all up in exchange for say $10K more in pay.

I've lived in germany, which is more US-like in these respects, and the work-life there is not in any way shape and form comparable to the one here. I could name 10 different things that employers of friends of me in Germany got away with that here would not even result in a "No.", it'd result in laugther. Followed by resigning the following day unless the braindead boss withdrew the proposal. (the more clueful bosses would understand this and not even consider offering such a proposal)

Oh yeah, there's 4 times more unionised workers in Norway than in Germany. Accident ? You decide. (and if you're a programmer knowing sql, html, dynamic webpages and perhaps even one or more of coldfusion, php, zope or similar web-languages drop me a line at eivind@inbusiness.no and try it out for yourself, we're hiring.)

Re:unionise

[__aabwba5127]

I work for Telus, a phone company/ISP/tv provider etc. and ever since we've been unionized work conditions have been going downhill. I sure hope I'm the exception that confirms the rule...

I think the word you are looking for is

[/dev/trash]

trawling.

Re:I think the word you are looking for is

[Anonymous Coward]

Trawling would probably be a better word to use since just looking through sites doesn't involve any "bait", but that trolling is still reasonably appropriate and I'm sure it is what they meant to say.

What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if your employer knows you are looking for a new job? Maybe it will open a dialog with them as to why you are unhappy. I had my resume on one of the big "job" sites and was contacted by them about a position and took a job with them. Several years later I used their site (and my boss knew my resume was active) and found a very good new job. They couldn't fire me just because my resume was on their site. Actually, when they found out my resume was on the site it did indeed open up a very good dialog with my boss and he tried to make my job more interesting and better my situation. I ended up leaving anyway, but there was never of issue of them getting back at me.

Been there, done that - ish...

[dJCL]

I had been looking for a new job at my last employer for about 6 months before I left(every employee knew, except the owner, and it was because of his personality that I wanted to leave).

One of the huge tech firms in Ottawa was having a career fair(Cognos) and I decided to wander over to see if they needed any techs. While waiting in line I got interviewed by the local paper(the Citizen) and my quote was included in the article along with my name. Of course this gets back to my boss about 2 weeks later, via one of his clients who recognized my name(never found out who, don't really care).

Boss could not do anything, it was on my time(weekend) and my personal business. It pissed him off, but if he did _anything_ it would have put him in a very bad situation. Firing me would have been without cause, I was already in the lowest job in the company, (with coresponding pay) and I basically could not be touched for it.

As in this case, maybe your boss should be wondering why so many of their employees are looking to get out.

Now, I have a new job, and a 25% increase in pay. I really love the part where I hit my yearly review at my old job and they gave me 0% pay raise! When I left that company they had to hire three people to replace me.

I'll stop ranting now, enjoy!

Re:Been there, done that - ish...

[ceejayoz]

As in this case, maybe your boss should be wondering why so many of their employees are looking to get out.

Precisely.

I can see how an employer would be offended at an employee idly looking at other potential jobs if we had, say, the old Japanese job-for-life system... but when an employer can toss you out on your ear with little notice, why shouldn't the reverse be true?

Re:Been there, done that - ish...

[ADRA]

haha. Similar story for me in parts. I was doing IT work for a company and constantly got ragged on for not being professional and not being able to live up to their high standards so instead of taking it, I changed jobs to a programmer. To make things short, they hired three guys to 'replace' me one after the next, the network's in shambles, and the fall-guy just got canned.

Lesson to the Managers out there: Just because we're not always 'professional' many of us can get the job done. The new guy made substantially more than I did and performed exceedingly below. I don't even have to exagerate. It was a fact =)

Re:Been there, done that - ish...

[zoomba]

I had a sort of similar experience to you.

I was working as helpdesk/sysadmin/security/all-around-IT-guy for a Univ dept while attending school. I pulled 30-40hrs/wk despite being in classes and such. When I graduated, I asked to be made full-time. I was their first IT person ever that would service MacOS, Windows and *NIX. I often went well above and beyond my original charter (answer emails and fix problems) by building an automated helpdesk system, built a new computer lab, often worked with profs to build out better lab configs etc... They declined however, saying they didn't actually need anyone full-time, they couldn't justify the budget.

Since I left 2 years ago, they've gone through about 6 or 7 part-time techs, often hiring in pairs to cover the hours and the tasks I accomplished on my own.

It's a tough balance to strike. You have to be good at what you do, but not too good or else your employer will just expect that as your base-line performance and not reward you accordingly.

Re:Been there, done that - ish...

[hackstraw]

As in this case, maybe your boss should be wondering why so many of their employees are looking to get out.

Some people are like that. I don't know how they end up being bosses more than a year.

I work with one guy who is not technically my boss, but he is above me with respect of some of my duties at work.

I like the guy personally, and I eat lunch with him, play with his kid, I've been to his house, etc.

The guy is a absolutely horrible boss, and does not see it even when the two people working under him (me and another) have said that they don't want to work under him and why.

They guy is more of a manager, not a technical type. Hasn't written a line of code in X years, has people do the attention to detail work, etc. He continually tries to "help" with technical matters that he has 0 experience with and we have between 10 and 20 years of "hands on" experience, and we are good at what we do. I have told him that nobody knows what their role is on a project, nor knows what to do. All he has to do is say, "Get the job done" and we could do it. But he keeps trying to help, and interjects completely wrong information in email discussions, and basically hinders progress. None of the three people working on this project are working on it, and I'm waiting for him to notice.

He blunt out said after I told him that we did not know what to do or what our roles were (three times) that he could not provide things like a budget or a time schedule. WTF?

He will not be managing me or the other guy for much longer, and this project may completely fail despite the fact that its cool, and we want to work on it because its cool. The project is his idea, but I guess he has other ideas in his head or something.

post it here :-)

[r00t]

Needed:

You think that binary executable files are human readable, at least with some help from a hex editor. You think binary net protocols (like X11,IAX2,SMB...) are human readable. You like to break things. You live in the USA.

Re:post it here :-)

[Opportunist]

Is that last part negotiable? :)

contacting references

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps off-topic, but I think related enough that this is an opportune time to seek feedback...

I recently accepted a job offer from a well-known company, and the hiring process included the normal listing of references and them being called.

However, since I accepted the job, all of my references have been contacted by my recruiter, asking if they would also care to apply for work there.

A number of my references are naturally not in the same field as I, but are management or some other unrelated professional field, so their ability to serve a function for this outfit is pretty remote. And it's embarrassing for me to have essentially signed up folks for spam, who were doing me a favor.

Is that kind of contact out of bounds?

Re:contacting references

[techno-vampire]

However, since I accepted the job, all of my references have been contacted by my recruiter, asking if they would also care to apply for work there.

If that ever happened to my references, I'd be ROTFLMAO. One of them is a well-known computer columnist...

Stupid question

[UbuntuDupe]

I thought a lot of job sites would allow you to hide your name from your profile so they wouldn't see it even if they found your resume. Of course, that would mean hiding your phone # (or them calling without a name), but they can still contact you. Now, an employer could still put two and two together, but they likelihood would be a lot smaller.

parachutes help if you accept a counter offer

[Anonymous Coward]

this can be remedied by adding a parachute to your
contract as they match your pay

Re:parachutes help if you accept a counter offer

[Achromatic1978]

You are kidding, right? How many non-executive positions have such?

Employers will laugh so hard they'll spray coffee all over the desk when you, Joe Web Developer, suggest that you require a golden parachute to be added to your remuneration.

right to work

[stoolpigeon]

a 'right to work' state, is simply one that cannot have closed shops. in some states, if a workplace has a union then an employee must join that union to hold their job. in a right to work state, you can work for an employer and choose not to join the union. to my knowledge it has nothing to do with grounds for termination.
 
i do know that in AZ, which is a right to work state (but like i said i don't think the issues are connected) an employer can terminate someone for pretty much any reason (outside discrimination or something else illegal) but they have to pay part of the persons unemployment unless they can prove that person was fired for some good reason.

Re:right to work

[d3matt]

I can tell you for sure that in TX, you can fire someone without any reason. Quite a few people got fired on Monday for leaving work to protest.

Re:right to work

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with employees protesting, it's the whole leaving work without asking for time off that bothers me.

Mod parent back up, mods are on crack!

[shaitand]

How is this redudant, it is directly to the point and nobody else said it first. I would have posted the same thing if it hadn't been here. You can always explain to employers when contacted why you did what you did.

After all, almost every employer will respect it if you don't want your current employer contacted and it is understood why you wouldn't want that.

Re:Mod parent back up, mods are on crack!

[ottothecow]

The problem is when they look at the resume and they say "hey, this person says they are currently working for us but we have no record of them in the system" and they they contact you and discover who you really are (since your contact info probobly matches the info your company has on you).

Re:Mod parent back up, mods are on crack!

[EnronHaliburton2004]

You can always explain to employers when contacted why you did what you did.

Most employeers would probably find this sketchy and a little unbelievable. "What is he trying to hide?"

Have some balls. Most of us are "at will" employees, which means we can quit our job at any time for any reason; and our employeer can fire us at any time, for many different reasons.

You have a right to look for a job-- you have an OBLIGATION to look for ways to make your own life better. *they* have a right to consider laying you off, hiring a replacement or outsourcing your job to save the company money. This is the business life in the 21st century-- don't take it personally. Just make sure you treat them as they treat you. It's fair.

Don't let your employeer determine your rights. If they are upset, tough shit. They are probably in a position to fix the problems which lead to your job search.

If you're reprimanded, start looking for a job even harder and quit. Try to remain professional, but don't give them anything more.

This is unprofessional, but for extra fun, quit while it's most inconvenient for them (like a few weeks before the next software release).

Re:Mod parent back up, mods are on crack!

[shaitand]

ok so we have gone from employers searching for existing employees on job sites to see if they are looking elsewhere to employers happening to stumble upon an existing employees resume?

Re:Mod parent back up, mods are on crack!

[shaitand]

"Don't let your employeer determine your rights. If they are upset, tough shit. They are probably in a position to fix the problems which lead to your job search."

That works during a dotcom boom but right now techs are a dime a dozen. It doesn't matter if you have 20 years experience and all of it is with the exact toolset they want you to work with on nearly identical problems. It doesn't matter if you have all the right buzzwords on your resume. It doesn't matter if with that experience you have a perfect work ethic, take a salary, and work 120 hrs a week. There are 12 more people with the same credentials that have resumes on file already. That is IT right now. The employers have all the cards and they know it.

Why do you think your average IT pro with 6-7yrs experience is working for under 40k/year with crap benefits if any? That's why everybody is looking for another job in the first place!

Re:Mod parent back up, mods are on crack!

[EnronHaliburton2004]

I guess it depends on where you are. The average IT pro with 6-7 years experience around here (SF Bay Area) easily makes 75K

I lived through the dotcom bust (As you can tell, I'm pretty bitter ;), and was an unemployeed "IT Pro" for a year, and I even took one of those crap 50K jobs.

I don't see the same situation today, at all. Things will never be as good as they were around 1997-2000, but they have vastly improved over 2001-2003. *many* people are leaving their old "Pay sucks but it survived the crash" jobs for a better job.

Re:Mod parent back up, mods are on crack!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That works during a dotcom boom but right now techs are a dime a dozen.

Tell that to my boss (old or new). Where I am, they pay well and have a hard time recruiting anyone experienced.

It doesn't matter if with that experience you have a perfect work ethic, take a salary, and work 120 hrs a week. There are 12 more people with the same credentials that have resumes on file already.

Good for you, because you'll be dead in a year. My company has those 12 people on file as well, so I can't refer them and get a bonus, so headhunters won't touch us.

Why do you think your average IT pro with 6-7yrs experience is working for under 40k/year with crap benefits if any?

I must not be average - I make 2-3 times that.

Re:Mod parent back up, mods are on crack!

[MikeFM]

I like my current job and I'm very good at it but I don't get paid especially well. Past jobs I've had recently were bad pay, no benefits, no respect, and shitty work conditions. That's with more than a decade of experience and the ability to move across job titles easily and a talent for finding the right people to outsource to so that they are affordable and do a great job.

At my current job I'm practically building a new company for them from scratch on a tiny budget and am close to being a profitable business after only a about three months on this project. At least this company respects me and creates a nice job atmosphere. That's a serious improvement over most tech companies I've worked for in the past few (post dot bomb) years. Within a year I know I'll be making more money since this job is offering me a decent amount of profit sharing on what I create. Still, I can barely afford to live for now and this job pays a lot better than other jobs I've had.

I could care less...

[__aaclcg7560]

I have my resume posted on all the major job search sites and on my personal website. If the company I'm working for wants to make hay about my resume being available online, I'll tell them what I told the last guy: I'll find a better job, make more money, and be happy at your expense because you let a productive employee walk out the door. I'm not even hiding the fact that I'm laying down the legal groundwork to start a part-time consulting business that I'll take full-time in five years. Your career is your responsibility. If you let your job hold you back, you have no one to blame but yourself.

My boss

[Brandybuck]

My boss usually asks me where I'm sending my resume and if they have any management positions open...

Re:My boss

[Anonymous Coward]

I got rid of my last boss (whom I hated) by posting his resume and recommending him to recruiters. He got a nice fat offer to go elsewhere and I got a promotion.

If your job is decent...

[Xtifr]

...assure your present employers that you will allow them to match any offers you might get from anyone else. That way they don't have to lose you unless they actually can't afford you. If they don't understand why you might be looking to improve your position--you don't want to be working there, and you should step up your job search!

Of course, if you hate your job, and wouldn't stay there even if they matched other offers, then you've got a problem. But again, you should step up your job search.

And if you're actually afraid of retribution just because you've got your resume out there...it's time to devote every spare waking moment to your job search!

Screw 'em

[Keen Anthony]

There is one truly universal rule governing employment in the United States, the "at-will" doctrine. Just as your employer is free to fire you at anytime minus a contractual obligation, you are free to quit your employment at anytime minus a contractual obligation. There are only a few laws at Federal level protecting you against wrongful termination or harassment with the purpose of forcing you to quit, and those few laws are related mostly to whistle-blowing and discrimination based on race, gender, and disability. At state level, most state laws merely echo Federal laws, but with additional punishments. Depending on your jurisdiction and the level of the retaliation, you could have a wrongful termination lawsuit if you are forced out.

But seriously, that's not what's truly important. If you're pretty sure your employer will retaliate against you for having a wandering eye; then you need to start sending that resume out to even more places because chances are, your work environment is not very good, and you're likely not very happy where you are.

Of course, you might understandably not want to injure your employer, but in certain circumstances, I wouldn't even bother concealing the fact that I am looking for new employment, such as if my employer:

- runs the company like a private kingdom, and you'll need to marry into the royal family in order to get a promotion...

- buys high-priced luxury toys for himself, then screams at your entire division for turning down the thermostat or allegedly stealing sugar packets and coffee...

- has created an uncertain work environment where all your goals are short-term and involve just getting to the end of the day without getting fired or laid off...

Finding new work is a lot easier than reviving that part of you that has died inside after putting up with a mentally tortuous workplace.

Re:Screw 'em

[John Hasler]

> Just as your employer is free to fire you at anytime minus a
> contractual obligation, you are free to quit your employment at
> anytime minus a contractual obligation.

In the US you are always free to quit your employment at any time regardless of what your contract says. Requiring you to work against your will would be involuntary servitude, which is forbidden by the Constitution.

Re:Screw 'em

[Lehk228]

they cannot force you to work, however they can tell tell other employers that you failed to fulfill your contract and can sue you for breach of contract.

Re:Screw 'em

[Keen Anthony]

That's odd. I swore I replied to the parent; but in any case, a breach of contract can effectively place you in limbo, preventing you from being able to take a job elsewhere. I believe Microsoft tried this recently with an employee that left to go to Google.

There are forms of employment of which you cannot quit under any circumstances, military service is the best example. Note, you cannot quit the military until the government says you can, and in certain circumstances, you can be forced to stay in the service even after you have formally retired. Also, even after retiring, you can be called back into service regardless of whether you've started a new life and career.

I brought up the at-will doctrine because the freedom to look for work is intrinsic to the right to quit your job. If you can't do the former, doing the later is next to impossible. Of course, this is just legal philosophy.

Re:Screw 'em

[Lehk228]

the microsoft thing was some sort of noncompete agreement IIRC.

Military service is different, it is the ONLY job you can be forced to stay in against your will.

Make up your mind

[SmallFurryCreature]

After all the deal goes both ways. Would you be happy if you find out that your manager behind you back has been advertising your job on monsterboard?

No? Then why should your employer be pleased that you are looking to replace him?

Do onto other as you wish to be done onto yourselve. Or something like that.

For whatever this may mean you and your employer have a relationship. You both expect certain things of each other. The employer expects you to turn up each day and that he can plan his business counting on the fact that you are there. You on the other hand count on the fact that your employer will keep paying you the agreed salary so you can plan your live around a steady income.

If you don't think you own your employer some loyalty then you shouldn't expect any back and ofcourse vice versa.

Now either of you may decice that it is time to end it. That is fine. The decent thing is to make it clear. Again, do to others as you want to be done onto. If you don't want to find your desk packed up when you arrive for work in the morning then you can't say "Oh I quit with the months notice and I got a month worth of vacation time that I am going to use now and today is a half day."

First you should decide if it is over or if with some adjustments you are willing to continue (again this goes for both parties). If not then you should be clear and open about it. Let the amount of time of notice that you give reflect how badly it has gone wrong. If you feel totally screwed over then by all means, 1 month notice. But if it just a feeling of wanting something else give the other sometime. You don't want to be fired on the spot and your employer don't want to loose you on the spot.

But IF you decide to leave do it. Then you shouldn't be afraid they find out because you already made up your mind.

But if your just testing the water with your resume on monsterboard then that offcourse gets a negative reaction. Again how would you react if you find that your employer has your job listed there just to test the waters?

What is good for the gander is good for the goose.

Re:Make up your mind

[FLEB]

That's all well and good on an idealistic level, but in the real world, it's usually much easier for the company to survive until a new person is brought in than it is for the employee to survive until they can find a new job. Granted, you might be one of those who has their finances well-squared away and has 4 or 6 months of "emergency money" on hand, or you might be someone at the top of their game, with employability at a whim, but don't forget that people, on average, are average, and many people rely on a steady income.

Re:Make up your mind

[Merle Darling]

After all the deal goes both ways. Would you be happy if you find out that your manager behind you back has been advertising your job on monsterboard?

No? Then why should your employer be pleased that you are looking to replace him?

Maybe because when he replaces you, you lose your job. He's screwing with your ability to pay your bills, feed your family, etc.

When you look for a new job your current manager doesn't wind up unemployed as a result. If you can do better it's your duty to do so.

Re:Make up your mind

[Godeke]

While I agree with your principle, in larger companies the organization is always running your job in the papers. Not because they want to replace *you* specifically, but because you are one of a group of (to human resources mind) exchangeable cogs. Yet, is is this type of organization that tends to get uptight when the employees show some gumption and check the waters out. The rule seems to be that it is OK for corporations to "look for ways to cut costs" but not OK for employees to look for safety nets when the axe falls due to outsourcing or "rightsizing".

I would love to live in your world though.

well...

[Anonymous Coward]

You really have to be careful. I've been in the situation where I was looking for a job in the same industry and the employer I was looking at called the president if my then current employer (before I accepted the position) and gave them the "heads up." Obviously this is very disconcerting. The bottom line is this: If you are looking, be sure you are serious that you are leaving your current job!

Today's word is "Trawling"

[nagora]

"Trolling" is Internet slang for trying to prompt a reaction using a (probably insincere) controversial stance. "Trawling" means to carefully go through something, often with a net, looking for some hidden resource or information.

If your boss wants to troll job websites then let him/her; s/he will eventually get banned and then you can post your CV without trouble.

TWW

Re:Today's word is "Trawling"

[Anonymous Coward]

Trawling is probably the better term here but your explanations are a little off.

Trawling and trolling are both fishing terms. Trawling involves dragging a net through the water to catch fish. Trolling involves dragging baited lines through the water to catch fish.

Both terms are used by analogy outside of fishing. "Trolling" applies where some bait is used, e.g. your example of trolling for responses in an internet discussion or for purposes of this article, if the employer was posting enticing offers to "catch" the employees looking for other jobs. "Trawling" applies where you are sifting for your objective without using bait.

In this case, the employer was probably merely sifting through the resumes without doing anything to attract emplyees to him, so "trawling" is more appropriate than "trolling", but to miss the origin of both terms in fishing is to miss the shading of meaning between the two terms.

Re:Today's word is "Trawling"

[nagora]

You are quite right; I was unaware of "trolling"'s use in fishing. Although, according to my dictionary, the term comes from an old German word meaning to go wandering or walking about (presumably to look for something).

TWW

Re:Today's word is "Trawling"

[Anonymous Coward]

Although, according to my dictionary, the term comes from an old German word meaning to go wandering or walking about (presumably to look for something).

Okay, I didn't know that :) However, I would tend to suspect that the derivation is because the bait "wanders" through the water rather than due to the original term applying to someone looking for something.

Re:Today's word is "Trawling"

[nagora]

rather than due to the original term applying to someone looking for something

Well, a lot can happen to a word in 800 years...

TWW

Re:Today's word is "Trawling"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Although, according to my dictionary, the term comes from an old German word meaning to go wandering or walking about (presumably to look for something).

Well it still is: Trolls are looking for attention.

My last experience.

[WgT2]

Mind you, this is somewhat specialized in that I live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex and my specialization is in Linux)

My last job hunting experience entailed finishing a contract position, changing my resume on a job website to visible, and then getting lots of great offers: I didn't initiate contact any of them with the excetion of one (but that was at the end of last year).

My point is this: while you cannot readily change your job skills, lots of employers do not want to be bothered with being contacted with people they 'think' they are qualified for the job. Instead, they would rather find your resume and contact you.

For you to take advantage of this method would mean you being unemployed and it would mean your job skills would need to be in demand for your down time to be short.

If that's not a viable option, then you might just have to do it the old fashioned way: put on a suit, dust off your resume, and hit the pavement with your resume.

I was an HR Recruiter. WAS.

[NevarMore]

Last semester I interned at a computer consulting firm as a human resources recruiting assistant. The job was far from what I wanted to do, but I was in a specialzed political program and they felt that getting the CS major away from the keyboard would be more in line with that. I did learn a lot that I would not have learned if I were in a software development role, but I am certainly NOT an HR person. Bear with me, this is all very important for job seekers and does tie into the topic.

Anyway heres how it goes when a company doesn't do all/any of its own HR. They have a list, sometimes exclusive other times not, of HR/Consulting firms that they send job requests to. Those requests specify the length of the contract, the salary range, a brief (VERY) job description, and desired skills. It then became my bosses job to hand me that piece of paper from which I had to parse out a monster (we ONLY used monster for some reason) search string and start calling people.

First off we had an implied policy that we didn't bother with confidential resumes. Send an email and then leave it. Our response rate from those was exceedingly low, single-digit percentages.

We did have an easier time than many consulting contracting firms because nearly all of our contracts were temp-to-perm and my employer had farily good benefits. The way that works is a new hire was an employee of ours for 3 to 6 months, recieving pay and benefits from us while working for our client. At the end of that term, if the client was happy the client could then hire that employee on as thier own without paying us a finders fee. My employer got a (significant) cut, our clients got good people, and good people got full time, permanent jobs.

That sounds all well and good but human resources is not some place I can work and feel good about it. I had to look at a resume, review the stated skills in comparision to the desired skills, look at the employment history and see if/how those skills were actually used, and if that matched then I made a call (resumes with phone numbers get priority, because we can get you right away) and talked to the candidate to see if they were really interested.

Now I get to take a job description that was less than a paragraph with some notes/comments from my boss and tell (NEVER sell) the candidate about the position. Then if they were interested I had to ask questions and see if this person really had what we wanted for the job. It was hard because my boss (and by implication our clients) had very specific requriements, there was no room for 'I think this guy would be good' I had to take the vagaries of resumes and HR talk and salary requirements and quantify them. My coworkers (Hi Jeff, Julie, Lee, and Steve!) were great people and could handle that. It is very difficult.

Now coming back to the point, when we saw a resume of on of our people. We DID NOT CARE. If anything it was a good guide, as I'm reading the first few parts of the resume "Oh wow this guy would be perfect....because he is already doing (job) for (client).". I usually printed those out and used them as examples to compare to other resumes.

If you are looking for something better and not serious about going to a new job, you are wasting my time and yours. If you are "seeing whats out there" then you are a liability, it looks bad for us when an employee quits in the middle of a contract, it wastes my time, it wastes our clients time, and it shows an apalling lack of responsibility on your part. We were not hiring short-term contractors who were looking for adventure and new jobs every 3 months, we were looking for reliable, competent, full-time, well paid, permanent employees. If you want to see whats out there tell us when we call, we'll tell you what is out there, but we have other shit to do. Don't sit there chatting us up.

If you honestly are looking for a new job then I offer you the following advice. If you have an itemized list of skills, programming languages, apps etc. on your resume you need to be able to te

Re:I was an HR Recruiter. WAS.

[alfs boner]

You know that covert "jacking off" gesture that people make, when some loser is rambling on and on about uninteresting shit? Yeah... I just wanted to chime in and let you know that your story was not interesting at all.

Jesus, 500 paragraphs about a summer job...

Re:I was an HR Recruiter. WAS.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you won't listen to me then why should I listen to you? "This is a 6 month contract that will become a //permanent// position..." "OH I'm not interested in contract work, only full-time...", I still have the 5 minute spiel explaining what contract->perm means. It bloody well means you get a permananent job you asshat.

To be fair, employees look at those "contract->perm" jobs with extreme skepticism. How do I know the employer isn't after a 6-month contract and is posting it at "contract->perm" so that they don't have to pay the full rate for a normal contract position?

If the person is unemployed, they were likely laid off and are viewing employers with a hefty grain of salt. If the person is employed, why would they risk switching to a "contract->perm" position?

Re:I was an HR Recruiter. WAS.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a 6 month contract that will become a //permanent// position..." "OH I'm not interested in contract work, only full-time...", I still have the 5 minute spiel explaining what contract->perm means. It bloody well means you get a permananent job you asshat.

Nice try, but I do not take CONTRACT positons, ever. "temp to perm" means "temp." I have a family to feed, mortgage, etc. If you have a permanent job, then open a permanent position, with a clearly defined probation period. Your 5 minute spiel would have been a waste of your time and mine, had we spoken during your tenure as an HR guy.

Re:I was an HR Recruiter. WAS.

[Skapare]

If that "contract-to-perm" job is really going to become a permanent job for sure, then there is no reason to make it work that way for the employee. I've never taken one of those kinds of jobs. But a few friends have, and in most cases they got screwed one way or another. The two cases where they didn't were also the cases where they decided they didn't want the job and moved on (basically, there were issues there that explained the employer's desire to hire anyone that came along). It was the best they could do to hang in there for the contract term and then just decline the "perm offer". Anyway, I will not take one of those. If the employer wants loyalty from their people, they need to show a willingness to grant that as well. They should either hire direct, or pay the fee to the recruiter if they don't want to do it themselves. I don't play games when considering a new job, and I don't take jobs from employers that play games. That doesn't mean I don't take contract positions; I do (and have, twice). It means at the end of the contract period, we either renew the contract, or I'm gone. And if it was through a third party (e.g. the one that writes the checks and sends me the 1099), then it stays that way, or I'm gone.

They sure do, but we do it to them as well.

[Shivetya]

I have been privy to a few discussions about "problem" employees. A few times it was mentioned that they found the employee's resume online. My question has always been, if we are allowed to post job listings then why are we not allowing our employees to do similar?

One thing a lot of us do is chase down the employment offerings our company posts. See, its a game because the postings are hidden by going through consulting and contracting firms. By close examination of the needs and general area given we can all pretty much determine which job postings are ours.

As for getting fired for posting an online resume? We haven't done so nor has it been threatened. What is not allowed is surfing the job sites while at work and we actually have had people do that. None were fired for that reason but it never ceases to amaze me how such highly skilled people can be so dense as to not know we monitor all internet traffic.

It really comes down to your employer. How do you think your boss and his boss would react to your posting? If your like me and have a good boss then it probably is safe. Now if your boss or anyone in the chain is hostile towards you or others, or has made it known that they don't "appreciate" employees posting resumes then take that as a hint. Use job placement (read consulting/contracting) companies. Not only will you find a job faster but it is far safer when your trying to leave an unpleasant situation. From the recent hires we have had I can say without a doubt that their posting of their resumes did not get them a job, what got them a job was scouring the job postings and sending their resumes to the firms doing the hiring. A few never even looked online, they simply used placement companies and similar to get to us.

Always know the situation before opening the door.

Re:They sure do, but we do it to them as well.

[techno-vampire]

I have been privy to a few discussions about "problem" employees. A few times it was mentioned that they found the employee's resume online. My question has always been, if we are allowed to post job listings then why are we not allowing our employees to do similar?

If I were in such a discussion, and somebody mentioned finding the subject's resume on line, my response would be, "Well, we might not have a problem much longer."

Quid pro quo

[Opportunist]

Hire and fire is a two edged blade. What kind of loyality do you expect from a worker who sees his peers come and go?

It's a matter of give and take. Yes, my resume is up there. Actually, no, I'm not looking for a job. But if someone comes along, pays more, offers more benefits and a more interesting job... How about my job here when someone applies with a better qualification who demands less? Would you fire me?

This is exactly what happened to me when I got my current job. I was working for a large German corporation with a turnover time of about 3 MONTHS in the team. You can imagine how productive we were when the average person stays for 3 MONTHS. I had my resume up on a job recruitment site. My current boss saw it, invited me for an interview, offered more pay, better conditions and a more interesting job. Off I went.

Yes, my resume is still up there. But to get me out of my current job, you'd have to offer a damn lot. More money alone won't buy me. You have to offer at the very least a very interesting job, a good working atmosphere, more or less free timing, 25 days of paid vacation, good healthcare plan, retirement plan and a few other social goodies and so on. 'cause that's what I got now.

And my current employer knows that.

Bottom line: You can expect your employees to treat you like you treat them. If their resume on a job hunting page seems intimidating to you, you're doing something wrong. Not your employee.

Experience from the other side of the pond...

[Anonymous Coward]

After 10 years work experience in London, mostly within the financial sector, I have learnt (sometimes the hard way) several lessons about this and other recruitment issues.

1. It is common for agencies here to ask lots of questions, usually on the premise of "getting to understand your experience and background". This is used to lower your guard, then they will subtly ask about specific details, such as the manager's name, department name, size of team, if they are recruiting/cutting back. Basically, pumping you for information, so they can then sell one of their other candidates into your old position.

Lesson: discuss in broad terms, but never give names of colleagues, managers, teams. The HR department of your new company will contact your old company for a reference, not the agency; the agency just wants a new contact to sell to, which is a guaranteed way to annoy your old boss/colleagues.

2. If you post a CV anywhere on the internet, or even send via email, remove any information that can help to identify you without your consent. Examples beyond the obvious "Personal Details" section include company names, as it is not that hard for people to relate a person, with a specific job title to a specific company at a known time. Add a generic phone number (pay as you go mobile) and generic email account, so they can contact you, and you then decide if you wish to proceed.

Lesson:

3. Reputation is all important. As the career progresses, you will start to get referrals, from past colleagues for example. The financial sector is a decidedly close area at the best of times, and it is very easy to find someone who knows someone who can provide off the record, informal references.

Lesson: Always leave with a professional exit, and make sure if you want to continue working in that same sector, or even IT, that you maintain a good reputation.

4. The bigger the company, the more useless the HR dept. All the companies I have worked at have huge, global HR departments, and are frankly as useless as a chocolate teapot. If you want to bypass the usual agency route for recruitment, but don't want your personal details to end up lost in some filing cabinet or generic jobs email account such as 'jobs@huge_global_corp.com' then you need to have some inside help.

Lesson: Use your contacts, find someone you know either directly, or indirectly who can put your name/CV forward to the recruiting manager.

Re:Experience from the other side of the pond...

[hyperstation]

good advice, but the term "chocolate teapot" fell of the boat sometime on the way over here. wtf does that mean?

Re:Experience from the other side of the pond...

[Anonymous Coward]

A "chocolate teapot" refers to something that is less than useful - think about it for a moment, a teapot, full of piping hot tea, if made from chocolate would simply melt into a squidgy mess.

If they want me to drive a new car

[anomaly]

if a "shiny new car would impress customers" and that was important to the business, then the company can lease a shiny new car for me and write it off as a business expense. I'll keep driving my clunker, thanks. :)

I'm not getting upside down financially for anyone.

Weed-out bad recruiters

[drewzhrodague]

Yes, there are lots of bad recruiters out there. I got so upset with the incompetence and wasted time from bad recruiters, that I started a website to track who's good, and who's bad. Recruiter-Rater lets you find and rate technical recruiters -- before you send your resume. Think of it as a public access recruiter database, without any marketing information. Users are free to post recruiters, post comments, and of course, rate them.

Behave

[Anonymous Coward]

"Behave."

I am, I'm not the one trying to control an aspect of someone else's life. I'm just trying to live mine. If I'm trying to find better options for me, is that a crime? A boss who is trying to strangle their employees into staying with them needs to behave, not me. I really don't understand what you were trying to say with that "behave" at the end.

Re:Behave

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

" I really don't understand what you were trying to say with that "behave" at the end."

Simple: I'm talking to you, not your boss. You control your own actions, therefore you have it within your ability to stay out of trouble.

Here's one from the other side...

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of years ago I was working for a small privately owned company developing software. I was getting concerend as my job was moving more and more towards maintenance of the old products and any new development was going to outside contractors. I watch the job boards anyway just to keep current with what employers are looking but I got even more interested in after the climate at work changed.

To make a long story short, I saw the listing they posted on dice.com for my job. It was a blind ad but the job description was not hard to recognize and the e-mail address they had for reply was a former employee of the company that had moved into technical recruiting. Three months later, they waited until 5:00 on a Friday and sprung their little "surprise" on me.

It was worth losing a job to see the looks on their faces when I told them I had been expecting it, that I had already said my goodbyes to other employees and that I several prospects for a new job already.

Simple.. stop using job sites.

[sudog]

Duh. When was the last time your company hired someone off the internet over someone, similarly qualified, who dropped off their resume in person?

good for the goose

[chrish]

Given the "loyalty" that companies give to their employees, why shouldn't we post our resumes, or leave them up all the time? If they want to keep us, they need to give us incentive to stay (good work environment, interesting work, etc.).

Better method: Deliberate typo in name

[SomethingOrOther]

I deliberatly [1] spell my name / address slightly differently.
I won't show up if anyone googles for the real me, yet dosn't get anyone suspicious if I use a deliberate fasle name.

An added advantage is you get to see were employers/agencys share your details / mailing lists etc as when company X post something to you, you know they must have got your name from company Y as it contains the misspeling you gave solely to company Y.

[1] Yes I know it's spelt wrong, Im dyslexic and cant be arsed running ispell OK.

Re:Better method: Deliberate typo in name

[LunaticTippy]

[1] Yes I know it's spelt wrong, Im dyslexic and cant be arsed running ispell OK.

How did you come up with the idea to have typos in your resume anyway?

Re:don't include your current job

[mdfst13]

"this person says they are currently working for us but we have no record of them in the system"

It's quite possible to make your current job secret. For example, Monster actively supports this. Not to say that identifying current employees from resumes is impossible. Presumably your current resume info is the same as when you were hired... However, it's not name or current job that trigger this.

[OT] Job app/resume wants SSN

[horatio]

I'm interested to know how folks here have handled job applications which require your SSN (or the posting requires your SSN on your resume) and then want you to email these materials to them. Until now, I have said in my cover letter "I'm unable to provide my SSN over email for security reasons" and in most cases attempted to contact the employer by phone. But I'm not sure this is enough. I assume the HR people who get the applications see the lack of an SSN and toss it in the trash. How does one best communicate with the *non-technical* HR dept that I will not email my SSN and why, without getting my app tossed? Or is that simply unavoidable?

(Assume that you want the job, and that refusing your SSN entirely is not an option, please. Some (esp gov't) jobs do in fact require it for background checks, security clearance, etc - and an incomplete application is the fastest way to not get an interview.)

Re:[OT] Job app/resume wants SSN

[Second_Derivative]

"Due to the rising incidence of internet identity theft..." or something along those lines could well work.

Thankfully in the UK we don't have an official primary key for every citizen, yet (although the National Insurance Number is close). Mr Blair's government is trying their damndest to do something about that though, see the National ID card debate (ie everyone says we don't want it and the government eventually managed to force it through anyway).

Re:[OT] Job app/resume wants SSN

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one best communicate with the *non-technical* HR dept that I will not email my SSN and why, without getting my app tossed? Or is that simply unavoidable?

[Omitted to prevent identity theft - please call me at your convenience for this information]

Even the most draconian HR drone will see this as a good thing: you are concerned about privacy and liability (that's the entire function of HR! they will identify!), plus you're inviting a phone call. You're demonstrating your professional discretion and soliciting a personal contact all in one move.

Then the employers should take a hint!

[josepha48]

If your employees are out searching for another job, then they are not happy with where they are. If the employer really cared about the employee, then they would be trying to figure out why the employee wanted to leave, and not punish them or fire them. If you find more than one of your employees out looking, then there is definately something wrong with the company.

I'm looking. Why? Because noone gets fired where I work and half these people should have been fired. But then again, the company does not pay, so they get people who spend most of their day surfing the web or complaining why they can't do their job instead of finding solutions.

I don't post a resume ... I look for jobs posted

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

This way, I'm not bothered by spammers, currrent employers, or those jerks who cruise Monster.com trying to lure talent ot their own agency.

Jobs Rule!!!

[trickspud]

I've been a whore/consultant for many years under many placement agencies. What I've learned is that frequently you're going to get screwed whether you like it or not. Accept the facts, and bend over. Who cares what mgmt or any employee feels? It's all about earning $$$ for the shareholders/wealthy. So post your resumé with wild abandon. It's helped me get gigs through consulting/staffing firms. Then put in your time for a paycheck. Rinse and repeat.

How to get that asshole fired...

[clambake]

Likewise, this technique can be used to post OTHER people's resumes, people who you don't like, and perhaps get them the firing they so richly deserve...

Re:How to get that asshole fired...

[Anonymous Coward]

SSSSSHhhhhhh!!!!

Re:How to get that asshole fired...

[__aabwba5127]

I just got an offer from an employer on monster offering me a better job for a more renowned employer simply by putting my CV up. The only reason I turned down the job was because it was in a region in which I didn't want to work. I wouldn't have had the option to simply apply for the job because it wasn't posted. Employers don't always post job openings, they often look for potential candidates or subcontract that to a HR agency.

your HR file ... have a look

[pbhj]

Under the freedom of information act (IIRC) you have the right here in the UK to view your personnel file, for a small administration fee ... so have a look (I'll bet they hide half of it! How would you know?).

Very Simple ...

[matthewcraig]

Don't ever NOT have your resume posted. Keep it up-to-date, as a matter of policy. If there is any time your boss asks you about it, then just tell him the truth: you keep your resume updated on the Internet. That doesn't necessarily mean you are shopping around for a new job, and it doesn't necessarily mean you are not shopping, either. Your employer is most certainly shopping around the job market to find an additional body for your job role, or even keep their eyes open in case they have to replace you. That's just good business sense! There's no reason you shouldn't take the same prudent steps to make sure the company of "You Incorportated" stays in business and making the maximum profit for it's investors.

Re:Very Simple ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been the most relevant advice in this whole discussion. I used to eat lunch everyday with the head recruiter at my company. He said he would occasionally do searches for the company name and see what came up. He, of course, was not a manager of actual working groups and really didn't care although, he did find it interesting to see some familiar names. He did take notice of the date when the resumes were last updated. That seems to be the biggest tell.

The best defense is what this is replying to: CONSTANTLY KEEP YOUR RESUME UP-TO-DATE!!!

Even going on the occaisonal interview is a good idea to keep your chops sharp.

Re:temp to perm...

[Tangurena]

This is a 6 month contract that will become a //permanent// position.

I've heard that line a lot. I've never had that temp become perm, nor have I ever worked at a place where the "promised" temp to perm becomes reality.

Old School Way

[zogger]

Way back before teh intarweb, I was working in a factory and really *needed* a raise, I just couldn't cut my bills with what I was getting. I liked my job OK, just needed around another half a buck an hour or so (which was significant then). I found a job listing in the paper at a rival factory, similar job to what I was doing. I left the news paper classifieds opened to that page on my workbench and took a long lunch hour, like an hour and a half. I never applied for the other job,just went and ate lunch, but when I got back the foreman was waiting for me and I got took to the office, where I got my raise. I had already made a request previously and gotten shut down.

Yep, a calculated risk, could have gotten fired, etc. At that point, I didn't care, either way I was not getting enough loot, plain and simple, it was either get the raise or go seriously looking around anyway, so I thought I would try silly melodrama and it worked.

Today,though, I don't think I would do that, I would make dang sure I had another job before borking the current one, the job climate is not the same today and all the cost of living factors are so much higher (relative AND bar knapkin figures adjusted for inflation).

So, what is wrong with using a code name on job applications, at least the web facing ones? You could at least have the first level of anonymity that way for your resume.

No gun, eh?

[hackwrench]

Well, then I guess we can abolish all courts of contract law then.

Re:No gun, eh?

[Brandybuck]

Huh? What does our comment have to do with mine?

Re:No gun, eh?

[hackwrench]

The court is a big gun. If we were all friends we could sort everything out without resorting to extra efforts. The gun is the first of these. But then society got tired of people shooting each other so they agreed that instead of guns, they'd have courts with the authority to act and use the force that a gun otherwise provided. There are two types of "mutual associations". One is that of friends. The other is one of holding a gun to the others head to make sure that the other side will agree to do what it is vital for this side to have them do. Sure we've vested the power of the gun in other agents, but the power of the gun is all it amounts to.

That job just keeps getting worse...

[NevarMore]

I was told that we very rarely had a client drop a contract->perm employee. Now I wonder if I was being lied to.

Thanks for letting me know that the contract->perm thing isn't all roses. I'm graduating as soon as I get back to the US and starting my own career. I'm going to have to watch out for the downside to contract->perm.

An even better one

[javasail]

I've got an even better issue related to this. Not only was my resume out there, but my employer found a way to get into by gmail account and read my discussions between possible employers. As a result, I got fired. Bottom line, you should only work for good, ethical people. If you don't they will find a way to get you.

Re:An even better one

[woolio]

my employer found a way to get into by gmail account and read my discussions between possible employers.

I believe this violates many federal laws (in the US).

Re:An even better one

[hyperstation]

too bad that capitalism != good, ethical people

that's why i'd rather work for a non-profit

Re:An even better one

[BillAtHRST]

Pray tell -- how did your employer "get into" your gmail account? Did they simply monitor your use of the account from your workplace? Or did they use monitoring to get hold of your user/password information and use that to log in to your account? Can you prove it?

Re:An even better one

[javasail]

Here's the text of a blog entry I'm writing about it...

While I was out of the building one of the owners of the company and one of my superiors, Cliff Albright, went to my desk and unlocked the computer, as he had administrative rights on the company network. In a minimized browser window on the computer's desktop, my personal Gmail account was accessable.

Mr. Albright opened the window and read through a series of emails that had been exchanged between myself and the three above mentioned parties, accidentially marking a message from a Seattle-based company as "unread." When I returned from my lunch break, my computer had been reset. When I asked Mr. Albright if he had been using my computer, he responded that our accounting system had been hung on a process forcing him to reset my computer.

The following day, April 28, Mr. Albright and the Company's other other, Jeff Vojta, telephoned the above-referenced industry insider, who also represented one of the Company's suppliers, and asked him if he had been helping me locate new employment. He denied the accusation and the call ceased. Later in the day Mr. Vojta again called him and told him that he knew that he had introduced me to two specific employers and the conversation transpired from that point.

I was not made aware of the situation until I called the industry insider the following Monday, May 1, to discuss a business-related matter. That evening I purchased my own personal computer and transferred all of my personal records to it. Further, I transferred a portable copy of my personal web browser with my own bookmarks to a USB Flash Drive to use while at work.

The following morning I confronted Mr. Vojta about the situation and he did not deny that Mr. Albright had read my personal email. Further, I explained that I did not intend to leave the company, but had simply been "testing the waters." At approximately 2:30pm I was asked to a meeting with Mr. Vojta. He explained that his trust in me had been violated and he thought that I should leave the company. During that time, Mr. Albright was collecting my personal belongings from my desk. In essence, I had been fired.

I was forced to leave several personal belongings behind including the USB flash drive that was attached to the company's laptop. Housed on the drive was my personal web browser, a portable version of Mozilla Firefox which held all of my personal bookmarks. Accessing the browser and all its saved passwords, Mr. Albright again accessed my personal Gmail account until I changed the password. He also accessed my personal "weblog" that was hosted by typepad.com, again, until I changed the password.

Wow

[woolio]

25 days of vacation??? Wow.

Do you actually get to use them?? In a time other than the middle of winter?

Nevermind the resume

[phorm]

I'm sure my current employer or past employers could probably somewhat easily correlate my slashdot account with me, so I'm rather sure there are others for whom the connection could be made.Personally, for those posting personal views or opinions of their boss(es), I'd be more careful of what I write on slashdot than on a resume.

After all, having your boss ask you about "slashdot" and a certain comment involving "cranial-rectal inversion" is probably not a good way to start the day.

There is a site for this type of thing

[BcNexus]

The site is http://www.quietagent.com.i/ found it because they had a rejected Superbowl ad and it's funny. Anyway, the site seems to be a great solution to the questions in the OP.
According to their site:

“It's like having a head-hunter who knows exactly what you want, looks at every job for you and keeps your identity a secret.”

• We ask you key questions, you don't search or apply for jobs
• You set the minimum job, career and pay you will consider
• We allow only the 'non-private' parts of your data to be seen
• You get sent job invitations from interested employers
• You accept if you're interested, or decline and stay private

Or better yet...

[phamlen]

Or, better yet, use your boss's name!

Thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope that in bending my NDA I was able to help someone looking for an employee or someone looking for an employer to tune up thier job description or thier resume.

I'm neither at the moment, but I live in a "right to work" state, which counter-intuitively does not mean that I have a right to work, but means that my employer can fire me tomorrow for no reason at all. And yes, your advice was quite helpful. Thanks for taking the time to make this post, especially if it was at any personal risk to yourself (re: NDA).

Salary

[umbrellasd]

I think it's not a very good long-term view to only call an employer on overstepping the bounds of a salaried contract by quitting, but that is not really my point. My point is that when you don't act like a prima donna and you do quietly walk away, many employer' cry foul, as if you have done them some wrong. But you have not. You say you should have a sit-down to clarify what you consider to be a violation of your agreed upon employment terms. That is exactly the statement you quoted, though I didn't gussy it up in corporate politiness, but I also say that many employer's will consider such a conversation threating no matter how polite you are. Plenty of manager's are so consumed with the fear of not meeting performance requirements, that they overstep the reasonable bounds of an employment agreement and then they whine when you call them on it.

Perhaps you are one of them. Otherwise I wonder why this particular thread discomforts you to such an extent that you throw around terms like prima donna and say that a clear statement about the inappropriateness of asking for 2x the paid for hours is a threat.