Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> writes: > Note: My normal email provider let their SSL certificate expire, so I > can't send via them at the moment. It is possible Andrew Stuart might > get this email and not the list because I have to use another account > that the list might reject.
Resending this now that hopefully I have configured the mailing list to accept emails from this address. > Andrew Stuart <andrew.stu...@supercoders.com.au> writes: > >> Why does it matter that we need to keep the company name off the job >> ad? Everyone knows that’s just one of the limitations we recruiters >> need to deal with. > > This is kind of an ambiguous statement. I think Mike Dewhirst > interpreted as a complaint you cannot post to this list without dropping > the company name. Which isn't the case. > > I think you are saying that your own company policy prevents you from > posting the company name on the ad. Which is similar policy I think for > most recruiters. > > I understand you are will not be a position to change this, however I > just wanted to say that this gives recruiters a bad name with potential > candidates. It means the candidate cannot research the company before > applying. The position could in fact be the position the candidate wants > to leave. Given the company name, the candidate might know that this is > a really good or bad place to work. > > It also means that candidates end up applying for the same position > multiple times via different recruiters, which wastes everybodies > time. I have lost track of the number of my applications that get no > where for this reason. I suggested to one recruiter recently that maybe > I had already applied for this position, and he still refused to tell me > the company name. It wasn't until later he concluded it was the same > position that I had already applied to directly. > > Sure - I assume the candidate will eventually be told the company name - > but often not until after the candidate has spent the time to place a > formal application to the recruiter, had a formal onsite interview with > the recruiter, etc. > > Unfortunately, I suspect many recruiters are bad at prepresenting > candidates to prospect employers. > > I had a interview recently with a company (setup by a high price > recruiter) that started asking very specific and details questions about > work I haven't touched since June last year. I suspect the recruiter may > have oversold my skills, I wasn't prepared for this very specific line > of questioning, and the interviewer wasn't going to accept my response > that the details were a bit fuzzy after not looking at this code for > more then 6 months. > > In many cases I think the recruiters simply do not understand the > technology. I had one job description from a recruiter recently that was > so broad it could apply to any job in any field of work in any > industry. I asked for clarification, and got no response. > > As a result, it is much better for candidates to apply direct to the > company. This means that the recruiters try to hide the company name so > the candidates are forced to use them. I find I never have had any > success using applying through recruiters, I have much better luck > applying to the company directly. All my jobs I have had are due to > direct contacts. > > If recruiters actually offered some sort of value to the candidates, > then maybe candidates would actually want to use them even though the > know they could apply directly to the company. > -- > Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> -- Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> _______________________________________________ melbourne-pug mailing list melbourne-pug@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/melbourne-pug
