Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LinkedIn's Forthcoming Analytics Tool May Boost Job Poaching (techtarget.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the quality-of-data dept.

dcblogs writes: LinkedIn has developed a new analytics platform that should make it easier to poach job candidates. It will use its vast database of nearly 600 million profiles to help recruiters find pockets of talent, know the attrition rate and glean competitive data. The platform, due in September, was discussed at a recent HR conference. One attendee asked a LinkedIn official: "Does that set up an environment for poaching talent?" And then she immediately answered her own question. "I think the answer is yes. And so why would I sign off on that?" In response to the attendees' question, Eric Owski, the head of product for Talent Insights at LinkedIn, said there was nothing wrong with making this data available. The LinkedIn team concluded that "the world is becoming more transparent," and "very sophisticated teams at large companies were able to figure out a lot of the calculations that we're making available in this product," he said. "We think by packaging it up nicely, it levels the playing field," Owski said. "We feel like we're on safe ground."

6 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. Nobody owns me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I want to leave for a better job, it is my right. My employer does not own me, and these days, the employer has probably not paid for training or made any other investment in me.

    1. Re:Nobody owns me. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the employer has probably not paid for training or made any other investment in me.

      Years ago it was common for employers to invest in training because they could require the employee to agree to either continue to work for X years, or reimburse the company for the cost of the training if they quit early.

      Today, those agreements are illegal. So why should a company invest in you if they don't know if they can recoup the cost?

      The change in the law was to "protect employees". But the result was lower skills, lower productivity, lower pay, hurting employees, hurting companies, and hurting the country. Oops. Another example of unintended consequences.

    2. Re:Nobody owns me. by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Today, those agreements are illegal. So why should a company invest in you if they don't know if they can recoup the cost?"

      Because they think of the consequences of *not* training you?

      They can have a productive worker that *may* go, or a inefficient worker that *will* stay.

    3. Re:Nobody owns me. by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Years ago it was common for employers to invest in training because they could require the employee to agree to either continue to work for X years, or reimburse the company for the cost of the training if they quit early.

      I have had people complain to me that they had been sent on courses in which they had no interest and been asked to pay for them when they left.

      An employer should make valued employees want to stay by making working for them attractive. A good wage, pleasant environment, being sent on courses all help to make the employer attractive.

  2. Charming, as always... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's pretty shameless to use the term 'poaching'; when it specifically implies that the animal being hunted is the property of someone other than the hunter.

    Not that I'd ever suspect that HR sees us a prey animals who are owned by our feudal overlords or anything; that sort of negativity just isn't in keeping with company values.

  3. Don't link with recruiters by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If you have to use the platform and you're not actively seeking work, the best thing you can do is unlink from every single recruiter you've linked with in the past and refuse further invites. If they're linked they can spam you with impunity and can see more detail of your own links

    If a recruiter is that keen to make contact they can send an InMail. They only get a limited number of InMail credits in a month so it acts as a deterrent unless they have something of high relevance. Responding to the InMail returns the credit so I don't do that either unless the recruiter actually works for the hiring firm. Anything that devalues LinkedIn is a good thing as far as I am concerned.