yeah, kill him say I. He's not reading anything anyway or his box wouldn't be full.
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Undeliverable: Re: Job hunting etiquette question From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, September 7, 2008 10:50 am To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The recipient's mailbox is full and can't accept messages now. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please try resending this message later, or contact the recipient directly. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: emome.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] #550 5.2.2 STOREDRV.Deliver: mailbox full. The following information should help identify the cause: "MapiExceptionShutoffQuotaExceeded:16.18969:B2000000, 17.27161:0000000094000000000000000000000000000000, 255.23226:00000000, 255.27962:FE000000, 255.17082:DD040000, 0.26937:0E000000, 4.21921:DD040000, 255.27962:FA000000, 255.1494:86000000, 255.26426:FE000000, 4.7588:0F010480, 4.6564:0F010480, 4.4740:05000780, 4.6276:05000780, 4.5721:DD040000, 4.6489:DD040000, 4.2199:DD040000, 4.17097:DD040000, 4.8620:DD040000, 255.1750:0F010480, 0.26849:0F010480, 255.21817:DD040000, 0.26297:DD040000, 4.16585:DD040000, 0.32441:DD040000, 4.1706:DD040000, 0.24761:DD040000, 4.20665:DD040000, 0.25785:2F000000, 4.29881:DD040000". ## Original message headers: Received: from MAAPP03 (10.1.108.165) by EXHUB02.emome.net (10.1.108.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.240.5; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:50:01 +0800 X-hMailServer-ExternalAccount: wintwk Received: from msx-sms8-6.hinet.net (msx-sms8-6.hinet.net [168.95.7.86]) by ms59.hinet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA13850 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:34:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from msx-sg6-11.hinet.net (msx-sg6-11.hinet.net [168.95.5.116]) by msx-sms8-6.hinet.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m87HYQd3021582 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:34:26 +0800 (CST) Received: from sparkplug.kernel-panic.org (64-52-164-214.client.cypresscom.net [64.52.164.214]) by msx-sg6-11.hinet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA15742 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:34:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from sparkplug.kernel-panic.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sparkplug.kernel-panic.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A034397B61; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:34:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from mail.linuxgeek.net (mail.linuxgeek.net [68.15.17.93]) by sparkplug.kernel-panic.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF0697B57 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:34:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linuxgeek.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEB8400AB44; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.linuxgeek.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.linuxgeek.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06654-02; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.linuxgeek.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linuxgeek.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CA5400AB43; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 68.101.177.253 (SquirrelMail authenticated user lan) by webmail.linuxgeek.net with HTTP; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:34:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:34:10 -0700 From: Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Kooler Discussion - for offtopic threads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at linuxgeek.net Subject: Re: Job hunting etiquette question X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Kooler Discussion - for offtopic threads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Id: Kooler Discussion - for offtopic threads <kplug-kooler.kernel-panic.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-kooler>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Archive: <http://www.kernel-panic.org/pipermail/kplug-kooler> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Subscribe: <http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-kooler>, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Length: 8392 Status: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received-SPF: SoftFail (exhub02.emome.net: domain of transitioning [EMAIL PROTECTED] discourages use of 168.95.7.86 as permitted sender) -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer
--- Begin Message ---On Sat, September 6, 2008 10:56 pm, Bob La Quey wrote: NB: a lot of "his" in my answer. Do I have to, as a bleeding liberal, stipulate "his/hers" to avoid offending? Then it's stipulated. > > I find this exchange interesting. > > First I should put forth a disclaimer. I have never sought a "job" in the sense of full time conventional employment. I have hired only a few people and that was in informal circumstances. Most of my working life has been spent in relatively informal (read underground economy) consulting arrangements often with start ups of one sort or another. I am generally happier with the "Wild, wild West" than with the modern bureaucratic rule driven economy. Thus my standing as an informant or participant in this entire process is quite weak. > That which follows below from you shows this lack of experience. (And try not to be so snotty about the "bureaucratic rule driven economy" -- a lot of smart people worldwide have been working on this stuff, and it ain't perfect, but it works pretty well in getting food into the supermarkets.) I've always admired your independence, but it's left you a bit unsocialized ;-) > That said, I do wonder why does one provide a past employment history if not to provide exactly such an opportunity to check on that > history, which you are now finding objectionable? I really do not "get it." Is your future employer simply expected to take at face value any history that you provide them? > There are laws, rules, and experiential traditions that govern these exchanges. Frankly, there need to be. Qualifying myself, I've sat on both sides of the table ad a hirer (my own business), participant in hiring (interview team), and far too often as a supplicant. And I've done it under the laws of at least three different states and over the decades of change starting with the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements. 'Cause it used to be _really_ bad. > What happened to "Trust but verify?" What about "due diligence?" > Both are important for prospective employers and both deserve to be served. > I would think a sophisticated employer would recognize that a past employer might well have an "axe to grind" and take their opinions with a grain of salt. Just as I would be skeptical of the resume I would also be skeptical of the past employer. But my natural > inclination would be to gather as much information as possible. > They do. And professional placement agents (read "headhunters" hereinafter) keep their ears to the ground and often know which companies are having personnel problems and what the problem or problem person is on the inside. OTOH, far too many people believe the last thing whispered in their ear and have zero bull-shit-detection ability. Sorry, but it's true. Great damage can be done to someone. Just faint praise can shaft a guy a month late on his house payment. It gets pretty savage. > Are you telling me that this is in fact illegal? > Certain practices, absolutely ... and they should be. >> That's highly illegal. From what I know and have been practicing for the last 10 years at least, they can only confirm or deny that you were employed there. > > Again I find this interesting. How does one verify the truthfulness of a prospective employees resume? Is an employer left only with the option of after employment suing the employee for fraud if the resume is untruthful? > First, the HR of the hirer (and except for references, they are to only people who should be doing verification) can (and do) under law contact all listed employers and schools to verify employment/attendance-degrees over the listed dates. They CANNOT get salary, personnel file details, grades, and anything about final disposition except fired/left and graduated/withdrew/other. Maybe expelled can be revealed by a school ... I don't know. Then, when the listed references are contacted, which should only be done when the candidate is on the final short list, either HR or the hiring manager has questions they're not really allowed by law to ask: - what was his religion/politics? and others they are - how was he technically. Competent? Willing to learn new stuff? - was he a self-starter/leader? - was he actually your M$ "HammerPoint" admin for 7 years as he said? - how did he interact with his fellow employees (this is the old company's opportunity to say "he spent his break time goosing the girls and handing out Nazi/Jews For Jesus pamphlets")? > Say I work as a janitor for Homungous Computing Machines, Inc. for ten years. So I put on my resume > > Homungous Machines, Inc. > 1998 -~ 2008 > Systems Analyst > > You call HMI HR and they say, "Yep Joe worked here from 1998 to 2008." Duh? > > That is all that it is legal to do? > At some levels, yeah ... and that's the way it should be. The old company is and should be aware of the legal consequences that can follow if they poison the well for a person. >>> I'm pretty sure the former employer breached ethics by revealing the compensation. But is it illegal? And were any of the actions of the potential new employer unethical or illegal? I want to hear what the peanut >>> gallery has to say. >>> The potential employer has a right to check references and I guess he can >>> call anyone he wants and ask whatever he wants, right? I always thought >>> it >>> was a courtesy to ask first though. But then of course I'll only give people >>> who will provide positive references. > > I can certainly agree with courtesy. If a future employer is trying to establish rapport with the future employee then one way to do so would be to say to them, "We have had people apply who provided phony > resumes. Now I do not think you fall into that category but the only way I can tell is to call your previous employers. Do you object?" If the prospective employee says, "Yes" then I would be inclined to ask, "Why?' Is this unreasonable? > > Are employers required to take everything presented in a resume at face value and not to verify that presentation? Somehow this seems crazy to me. > No. But think: if a person lies about places and dates, you don't have to go any deeper. But if you get to the point where you want to talk to an old boss for the _quality_ of the person, bad things can happen. - the applicant may still be working for HCM and when the call comes, an angry boss can fire him or harass him/pass him over etc. - he's looking for a job -- the old job may be a nightmare of psychos willing to lie to destroy him: duh! And don't assume you can see through the psychos and never assume _everybody_ can see through the psychos! - finally, references listed are precious to the applicant. They're listed because they know him, will be honest about him, are willing or eager to recommend him. The applicant doesn't want them pestered or spammed -- they have jobs, too. Of _course_ there is a certain amount of deception in the dance. Like loan applications, few resumes are clear of shadings-to-lies. But the further down my road I've gotten, the less I've wanted to do that (on either loans or jobs). The job is more likely to work out based on the (gently shaped) truth. I used to use a wonderful guy I spent almost 7 years consulting with or close to in NYC, Pete. When I called him to say to expect a call, he'd laugh gruffly and ask "what was I this time, Lanster? Did I work for you or did you work for me?" I'd do the same for him. Now in truth, he was the best (except in tact), and I never felt a pang in recommending him. I think he felt the same about me. But I'd tell the hirer what he told me to. When I know my refs are being contacted, I send them emails first and tell them what I told the prospective employer about our history. This is NOT lying but is is response shaping. Anyway (I want to quit this email) this is a process fraught with opportunities to do damage to innocent people, and there _are_ laws and there _are_ customs and accepted practices. Relying on the "open market" to correct itself (and maybe suing companies is exactly that) or relying on everybody to just do the right thing is a sorry failure. But, hey, in business, that's why we have contract law ;-) -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-kooler
--- End Message ---
-- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
