Slashdot Mirror
Hounded By Recruiters, Coders Put Themselves Up For Auction
An anonymous reader writes "When Pete London posted a resume on LinkedIn in December 2009, the JavaScript specialist stumbled into a trap of sorts. Shortly after creating a profile he received a message from a recruiter at Google. Just days later, another from Mozilla. Facebook reached out the next month and over the course of the next two years, nearly every big name in tech – attempt to lure him to a new employer. He received 530 messages in all, or one every 40 hours ... the only problem? Pete London didn't exist."
how many of the jobs didn't exist as well?
or are 3-4 recruiters all going after the same job??
Not this shit again. "We can't find talent!"
Quite obviously employers have a very different definition of talent than people who actually have said talent and capabilities. It's either that or we are in an all-out war with employers at this point over wages and foreign worker importation/outsourcing - take your pick.
This seems to me to be yet another ploy to push for more H1B workers and to justify outsourcing. There's no two ways about it.
"Not enough qualified applicants" my ass. I happen to be aware of quite a few competent people who are out there looking for positions in "in-demand" fields. Guess what? They're getting stonewalled.
(Sorry, you're going to be hiring 5 green programmers for every 2 experienced, and 5 experienced for every expert - that's just the way it is. You can't only staff experts unless you're willing to pay expert rates. It's not good for anyone.)
If, in fact, they really think there is a lack of qualified people, here's their problem: there has been a breakdown of communication, and their formalized hiring processes, excessive HR, and outsourced employee sourcing (you know, headhunters) are at the root of the problem. Finding (and keeping) good employees is the single most important part of maintaining and growing a business. Why would you push that responsibility to someone else? What ends up happening is that headhunters (of all kinds) do end up finding qualified applicants who are looking for work - we just write them off as spam, telemarketers, or insincere requests without so much as a second notice because of how unprofessionally we're addressed. (Hint: having an Indian "initial contact" team for your HR is not a good idea; neither is using an automated system for requesting potentially qualified applicants to submit a resume via eg. LinkedIn - you're only going to get desperate people, not those who are capable.)
The culpability for this problem sits squarely on the employer.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Click-whoring; yes.
Plagiarism; no.
Just because they cut and paste a few sentences from a much larger copyrighted article, doesn't mean they are infringing on the copyright, despite what copyright pimps would like you to believe.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Copyright isn't the issue. Quoting from copyrighted content is fair use.
Plagiarism, on the other hand, is trying to pass off someone else's work as your own.
In this case, the summary says "an anonymous reader writes..." when the actual author is not anonymous and not the submitter of the story.
Heck, at the very least put "J.J. Colao writes for Forbes..." That would be honest, but this is just shitty journalism.
But of course - in a body shop you don't want experience, as your product is billable time, not results.
How does this rate "interesting". If it was plagiarism there wouldn't be a link to the actual story. You can't tell someone they are trying pass someone else's work off as their own when they provide the original work. Especially when it is just a couple lines on a news aggregator site to give the readers a clue what the article is about.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I've solved that problem by telling all recruiters that my minimum is $160k first thing. If I get it, great. If not, I'm happy where I am.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
When I was a software engineer (12+ years of experience), I had recruiters contacting me pretty much daily, with all sorts of wonderful breathless urgency, about how they were "so very interested" in my software skills and would love to chat about their crappy entry-level job or temp position. Annoying as hell, and the recruiters have only gotten more and more desperate as the software job market starts picking up.
Fortunately, I now get contacted about once a month (if that) by recruiters. How, you ask?
Simple. I did a little career move over to the technical marketing side, and changed my job title on LinkedIn to "Senior Product Manager". BAM! The recruiter contacts stopped pretty much overnight. Every once in a while, I get the occasional "I notice you were once an engineer, want to come back??" message which I politely decline, but no more annoying stream of desperation. I suppose if I ever become serious about changing companies, I could always put "Senior Software Engineer" back on LinkedIn and dive through the recruiter spam.
When you think about it, it's kind of revealing. It shows the mentality out there--people think the only thing software companies need is a steady supply of engineers. Apparently, software simply leaps from the engineers' fingertips, right into the customer's shopping cart, with no product definition, schedule, market requirements analysis, etc.
If you're making up a fake resume, you can say whatever you want to...whatever you know recruiters are looking for! Why is it so surprising that a custom-tailored--but false--resume would attract attention from recruiters? Real resumes usually carry some baggage, and other less-than-ideal unless you've had a flawless career. Fake ones can be perfect.