Slashdot Mirror
LinkedIn's Forthcoming Analytics Tool May Boost Job Poaching (techtarget.com)
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."
I already have a job earning $50,000 in IT in Silicon Valley. But I am open to being poached, if I can get more.
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.
But it's a job seeker's market. If you want to keep me, get good.
For solid employees, anyway. Poaching generally requires a company to make a better offer; this sounds like it'll let good employees know when they're underpaid and get them an offer closer to what they're worth.
Less of a good deal for employers, of course, and deadwood will continue to be paid what they're worth (or not) as well.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
At this stage of my career, I'm happy to have recruiters have better tools to know when to contact me and when NOT to. I'm pretty happy with my job, I love working from home. I also see the handwriting on the wall as my employer moves jobs overseas. So I'm aware that while I like my job now, I'll probably have to entertain offers before too long. Anything that better matches the offers to my skills and requirements is good, in my opinion.
A few years ago, I was significantly underpaid. It was advantageous for me to have potential employers offer what I'm worth, rather than making an offer based on my current salary at the time. Had they known my salary, my take-home probably wouldn't have doubled the last two times I switched jobs.
* Yes they always *ask* what your current salary is. You can answer "I'm looking for ...", because that's what they really.want to know - "how much will we have to pay you?"
PS to my footnote - whenever a third-party recruiter calls me, I always ask about the budget for the position very early in the conversation. The recruiter won't be offended, and it saves them time as well as saving me time and if it's not in the range I'm looking for. If it IS in the right range, I have a good starting point for negotiation.
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.
"The secrets are hidden behind fortified walls in cities across the United States, inside towering, windowless skyscrapers and fortress-like concrete structures that were built to withstand earthquakes and even nuclear attack. Thousands of people pass by the buildings each day and rarely give them a second glance, because their function is not publicly known. They are an integral part of one of the worldâ(TM)s largest telecommunications networks - and they are also linked to a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program.
Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. In each of these cities, The Intercept has identified an AT&T facility containing networking equipment that transports large quantities of internet traffic across the United States and the world. A body of evidence - including classified NSA documents, public records, and interviews with several former AT&T employees - indicates that the buildings are central to an NSA spying initiative that has for years monitored billions of emails, phone calls, and online chats passing across U.S. territory.
The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners and has lauded the company's "extreme willingness to help." It is a collaboration that dates back decades."
There was no NSA spying for eight years under Barry Obama. Strange, isn't it... maybe they should poach Stefan Halper. LOL
What's wrong with a job market with liquidity? Make as much information about resources available and let the market for those resources sort it out. Bad for HR, good for workers as far as I can tell.
Recruiters generally cannot recognise talent, not even when it bites them in the arse. So "finding pockets of talent"? Feh.
What recruiters do is try and "smell success", by getting in on the latest buzzwords and all that. People with the most of that are your "solid employees". This says nothing about minor, unimportant details like quality of the work done or even getting the work done at all. Deadbeat employees with a bit of a track record are generally very good at "smelling successful", not at actually being good employees.
So now recruiters have more data to "smell success" with. But that still says diddly squat about the quality of the work. Just that the recruiter "smelled success". Maybe this thing makes recruiting "more transparent", but it'll still be that same old smelly business.
As a career employee, this is a positive move. If I can be paid more for working elsewhere why should I stay? Sure there are some intangibles that will encourage me to stay but in a capitalist society, money talks loudest. I'd accept slightly lower pay for a great boss and co-workers in a flexible company but there is a limit.
Don't want me to be poached? Pay me what I'm worth to the company and pay it now.
I've never accepted a counter offer once I announced I was moving on, the offer should have been there before I looked elsewhere. Naive? Possibly.
That California law is fine and all, but personally I don't have much need for it.
External recruiters typically get 10% of the employee's first-year salary, so they don't want to low ball candidates. They want to get as many people hired as they can each month, at the highest salaries. They know what the salary range is, because that determines their commission, and have no reason to hide that information. Hiding it would reduce their success rate by spending time on candidates who won't take the position.
The vast majority of recruiters I hear from are external, so when I ask, they tell me the salary range before I ever talk to anyone from the company that is hiring.
This is use of personal data. Has linked in sought permission to use the data in this way and then share it with recruiters ?
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.
This is extremely messed up.
Workers should want to be poached. More importantly, they should sell themselves.
Eh, I think this kinda overestimates how nuanced recruiters are. I am skeptical that they will want to put in the extra effort to carefully match jobs to candidates through something sophisticated when they are not even using the full set of tools today. As far as I can tell the process usually seems to come down to 'oh, a high commission posting came up for a .Net developer, I'll spam everyone with 'net' in their profile!'.
Targeted advertising has been the 'hope' of people trying to sell to marketers for decades, but at the end of the day dumb spamming is so cheap and low effort that it still rules.
LinkedIn was great before they decided that all of my personal information was up for sale. When and if I want a job I know how to find it out. What I don't want is more email from head-hunters wanting to sell me the next great job.
If this analytics tool lives up to its promise, it would seem to offer more and better opportunities for ME the employee.
Employers have been slowly eroding benefits for decades, because it "costs too much." Many of them forget that when you reduce costs somewhere, there are unintended consequences.
This tool sounds like a good thing to me!
"Those are the king's stags, varlet!!"
we dont need you, we gave the job to an Indian.
Class Action Lawsuit? If I were an HR dept. and had the additional issue of dealing with poaches that came from LinkedIn, I'd be looking to coordinate with other companies in my industry to stop the practice. These days, due to the current economic madness, everyone is looking all the time. Adding additional pressure to move is deleterious to both the company in question and the person who may move to a job that is not what was promised. Regardless, LinkedIn's interest is in getting recruiters to sign on for $1,000's per month. They don't give a rat's ass about the consequences. This only bolsters their coffers. It doesn't do employees or companies any good.
*** Don't be dull.***
LinkedIn is a hellhole and this Twitter account proves it
Are You Sick and Tired of These 5 Things On LinkedIn? So Am I
The real estate agent tells you the asking price and the current going rates for the neighborhood up front.
Like a real estate agent would be wasting their time showing you houses you won't buy, a recruiter would be wasting their time and credibility messing around if they know the job isn't in your range, so they have no reason to mislead you. They'd be better off even referring you to a different recruiter to find you a job you'll want, because yes they get paid when you take the job.
Unlike a real estate agent, the recruiter isn't part of the salary negotiations after the interview. So they have no opportunity for "dragging the process out in the hope of getting you a higher amount" - they are done after the first couple of phone calls.
If you don't communicate about salary and benefit expectations, then sure they'll send you on any interviews they can - they would have no way of knowing that they are wasting their time and credibility.
That's my experience with recruiters. The conversation typically goes about like this:
Me: That sounds interesting. What is the budgeted salary range for this position?
Recruiter: $80-$90K
Me: That's probably not a good match for what I'm looking for, with 20 years of experience.
Them: What range are you looking for?
Me: Depending on location and other factors, somewhere above $130K
Them: May I call you in the future when I have an opening that's a better match?
Me: Sure, please do.
Not an employee problem. If HR was doing its job right and making sure that employees are treated like team members and reimbursed for their time at a proper level then employees would not leave. if an employee leaves for an increase in compensation to an unknown environment then they either were undervalued or only interested in the money. employers should learn from the former group and welcome the departure of the latter group. Thus, i don't even see how this is a problem for employers, unless the employers only goal is to consistently undervalue and under compensate their employees in order to increase the C-suite level compensation.
Me personally, i welcome the tool as hopefully it will drive employers to consider their compensation of the employees and not just in the pay region as culture, vacation and benefits are all excellent forms of compensation.
"Poaching" suggest illegal activity. Why is a competitive market for talent "poaching"'?
Product advertising is "poaching" customers and is considered fair marketplace competition. But a competitive market for employees is somehow not cricket? This suggests that workers are property...
I get dozens of calls weekly from cold-call recruiters who find my name on linkedin or indeed or whatever. Apparently they're incapable of reading anything else, since I get calls for:
-- positions requiring active clearance, when my CV clearly says I don't.
-- positions for SQL, network maintenance, embedded software, etc., for which I have nothing even close listed.
-- insurance sales positions
-- customer package pickup window positions (really)
For the record, I'm a physicist w/ optics and radar experience, plus data analysis/statistics. A clear match for the above. So I am highly skeptical that this new shiny tool will help.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
What exactly is the objection to providing people with better information?
Isn't it the people who decide what to do about that information?
Last time I checked part of the point of a 'free market' included the idea that you had better be paying your employees enough (including intangables) that they are not so miserable doing their jobs that they feel like they need a different one. If someone makes them a better offer, that is the employers fault and those who offer better salaries should expect the better employees. More to the point , it is better if people actually feel some loyalty and personal investment in there work, usually a result of being well treated and dealt with transparently.
It seems a win for employees, ( who are the majority), It is neither illegal or immoral, so exactly what is the objection?
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
That's funny. They DO need to have some credibility with the companies who hire them. Would you keep using a recruiter who routinely sends you junk candidates that aren't close to be a fit for the job?