This is more or less a newsletter for job seekers like myself. I try to find good job search strategies, bad job search strategies, pure BS and job related articles every week. So far I’ve never run short. Please pass this around. I’m not doing this for any reason other than the desire to help and communicate with other job seekers. If you have any good links or stories, especially stories please comment. If you want the story private, just put that in the comment and I will trash it and not let it post.
When you have 40 odd million people who feel abandoned and betrayed by government and business, there is a HUGE problem coming.
Stuff like this doesn’t help. It’s just denial, which is not a river in Egypt.
Definitely. Make the process easier for everybody. The problem is that too many people have a vested interest in stretching the process out and playing games.
How would companies hire if they were smarter.
After a lifetime of experience with the hiring method, smarter is not something that happens in recruiting.
The sharing economy would work better if there were some growth to share.
Of course the real exploiter is the government and it’s taxing and regulations that created the problems in the first place.
Networking takes work. And sending blind resumes is pointless.
It’s better to build relationships and find a commonality of interests, focusing your efforts. Still, keep you eyes open for opportunities.
Don’t be a turkey when you are networking.
Know where you want to go and stick to it so that people you are networking with know how they can help.
Jargon doesn’t make the pain go away.
No matter how much you try to paper over a layoff, it still stinks. They should have realized that the people let go are people too. admittedly this is the press release for investors. I hope that the internal memo did actually include the sort of language that human beings use.
Two pics from David Hunt:
“Trust is built by commitments kept” Prof. Pearson Hunt 1908-2002.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs applied to employment.
The problem with this is that is assumes that all the employees reactions are internal rather than a result of corporate behavior.
I’m including this article to show just how out of touch the people in charge are.
The NY Times is that paper that the rest of the media follows and this is what we will be hearing about the economy for the rest of the year. Don’t believe it.
The commenters in Linked in pretty much nailed it The consensus was: delusional:
Of course, this drivel emanates from the NY Times, but I still marvel at how anyone can talk about US employment without considering the concurrent US participation rate. FRED data shows the US participation rate has been falling since about 1998 when it was around 67.5%. It is presently at about 62.7% https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART If we add the long term ‘dropouts’ from the workforce since 2009 by factoring U3 with a base 2009 participation rate, U3 stands (as an average) somewhere between 10% and 11%. It would be even uglier if we factored it against its 1998 peak…which there is strong case for doing in the context of falling interest rates and currency policy. http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/02/what-happens-to-the-unemployment-rate-if-you-add-back-labor-force-dropouts/ So the much vaunted improvement in the unemployment rate is an ‘in your face’ political construct courtesy of the same administration that claims to be wedded to the scientific method in its objective interpretation of the causes of climate change. Where is the science in continuing to peddle unadjusted U3 as a measure of the success of efforts to improve real unemployment?
Following up with a link to Zero hedge:
Nothing has changed and the economy is still dysfunctional as the result of bad policy.
There’s a lot to be said for being able to cut the cord and leave work at work.
How do bad recruiters behave?
The only thing wrong with this is that Bob has the number of bad recruiters wrong. IN my experience you get 10% awesome, 10% good and 80% bad. The problem is that by incentivizing recruiters to lowball, the companies are being pennywise and pound foolish. If you want the best people you should be willing to “pay the two dollars.”
More recruiter stuff.
First liz Ryan stating again that you should not give your current salary to a recruiter.
Read the comments from the recruiters.
Now a response from a recruiter.
The thing is that she blows the whole thing open with these two paragraphs:
In order for you to receive an offer you’re happy with, I need to be able to be your advocate and push my client. I am not able to do this if I do not have all the information, both financially and otherwise. My client will likely have questions about your current salary and I will only be able to counter any of his potential objections if I myself know the full picture. And don’t forget, I usually get paid a percentage of your first year salary; I am therefore just as motivated as you are to get you the highest number possible!
The (harsh) truth of the matter is that if you do not trust your recruiter, you probably shouldn’t be working with them. Period.
Essentially she is saying that she works for the client, but that the candidate should trust her? Really? Look in the recruiting game you have to remember that the recruiter is thinking about the client’s, not the candidate’s best interest. As far as salary is concerned it’s in the long term best interest that the client say what they are willing to pay up front and NOT try to lowball the candidates. A good recruiter would tell the client that up front.
Still more from Liz.
The Job Stuff Series.
Job Stuff 18.
Job Stuff 17.
Job Stuff 16.
Job Stuff 15.
Job Stuff 14.
Job Stuff 13.
Job Stuff 12.
Job Stuff 11.
Job Stuff 10.
Job Stuff 9.
Job Stuff 8.
Job Stuff 5:
Job Stuff 4:
Job Stuff 3: