HR sent an email abruptly terminating my contract and our professional
relationship. This came shortly after I introduced two people to a
manager I had previously recruited for, with whom I’ve had no prior
issues. Their four-page letter cites contract technicalities
—specifically, that I had not received formal written requests from HR
to recruit for these roles. However, the business has historically
engaged my recruitment services and hired candidates without such
written authorization, which they are now retroactively relying on.
If a company doesn't want to work with me, I get it. However, the
timing, reasoning and abrupt nature of this is extremely fishy. Why
not provide feedback on the candidates and/or progress? Is it because
they recognise they are good and as such will no doubt have to pay a
recruitment fee if they start the process and instead believe that
they can do a FUGA letter. . . . It's an interesting one. Could they
have just progressed the candidates to pacify me? If they progressed
and just said, thanks James, but Joe Bloggs isn't quite right, but
thanks. Would I have been OK. . . . ? As I say, one of the
candidates was applicable for a job in Tokyo that is still being
advertised (since December 2024). Infact, that candidate would have
been suitable for a job in any of their country offices (and they have
advertised). . . . they could have created a position for that
candidate given their experience and applicable skills-we are not just
talking random Linux, IT skills, but also financial business skills
too as well as customer support and client services.
Given all of this and the fact that HR appeared to shout at me down
the phone and bring into the conversation my gender, skin color and
reference my company as a one man band I decided to push forward legal
proceedings. I might not necessarily care if someone wants to
reference any of that but I dont think that it was warranted during a
conversation with HR when I just wanted feedback on candidates. . . .
It all kinda sounds very fishy
On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 at 12:42, Ted Mittelstaedt <t...@portlandia-it.com> wrote:
>
> Have they specifically said they wanted to end the contract?
>
> If your contract specified that they had to give you feedback, and they don't
> like that term in the contract, yet they haven't just sent you notice of
> ending the contract, then they may be attempting to leverage you into new
> terms with the idea that you need them more than they need you.
>
> I've never seen a business relationship last that was inequitable in this
> manner. That is, that one of the parties had little appreciation of value
> for the other party.
>
> Normally, in a vendor/customer relationship, the product is valued by the
> customer, the customer's money is valued by the vendor. Thus it's an
> equitable relationship. If the customer's perceived product value falls then
> they will go to a different vendor. Sometimes the customer is right and the
> new vendor gives higher value sometimes they are wrong and they go back to
> the old vendor. But, the relationship is still based on perceived value.
>
> In your case it's not a simple vendor/customer relationship where one side
> just has money the other side just has product. In your case you both have
> product and in a way you both have money. People you refer mean money to
> them (assuming they are well run)
>
> What might be going on is - they like that you can get people they want - but
> this manager your having trouble with NEVER agreed with the prior CTO giving
> you feedback, or leaning on your advice - but - kept his mouth shut, assuming
> that one day, the CTO would exit and he would take over the position in which
> case he could do what he wanted.
>
> When I took over my role I definitely did not care for the way my predecessor
> had handled vendors. In my opinion the vendors had grown arrogant, to put it
> simply. Another way of saying it is the vendors had lost respect for my
> predecessor and was taking him for granted - and he either didn't see it, or
> he saw it and didn't want to do anything about it.
>
> One in particular - the telco vendor - had gotten sloppy, and was telling me
> to buy products that simply wouldn't have worked - they would have been a
> trainwreck. The only thing that saved my hide was my natural suspicions of
> people telling me about tech, and desire and demand to research the tech's
> complexities myself, in person. Something that my predecessor had never
> done, and the vendors weren’t used to it. Looking back I frankly do not
> understand why they didn't do the due diligence needed to make proper
> recommendations other than if they had come in with additional costs after
> the first agreement had been approved, my predecessor would have gone to bat
> defending them and they assumed I was in such awe of them I'd do the same.
> Ultimately, we parted ways and I found a replacement that is far better.
>
> I also had another vendor - Connection (formerly PC Connections) that was
> doing basically 100% of our software licensing and 100% of our hardware
> sales. I'm pretty avoidant of the all-eggs-in-one-basket scenario and
> gradually I brought CDW into the fold. Now, I have both those vendors
> supplying part of the software licensing and I've shifted a lot of the large
> hardware purchasing from Connection to CDW because their prices are better
> for some of the things I'm buying, and to Amazon for a lot of the small cheap
> stuff. I know Connection has noticed the drop off as they have asked me
> about it, my response was to assure them we weren’t dropping them. But, what
> can you do - there's really no easy way to tell a vendor "we are going to
> halve our yearly purchasing from you not because you’re a jerk, not because
> your prices are insane, but because it's good business to spread the money
> around to have some redundancy" I don't want them to get mad and then give
> me no discounts and the highest prices because then I will just end up with
> CDW only and be out of the frying pan into the fire. But I don't want to
> give them the whole ball of wax anymore. That relationship has settled down
> and they are happy enough with what they are getting from me, and now I have
> 2 vendors who both know that they aren't supplying 100% of my needs and that
> there's some other vendor I'm using - which helps to keep them motivated to
> undercut the shadow vendor out there. So I will get better pricing and
> better response.
>
> And I had a last vendor - our generator vendor - who was literally charging
> us for yearly servicing and then NOT actually doing such servicing. When I
> figured out that was going on the smartest thing would have been to coldly
> drop him with minimal contact, just send him a letter saying we were going
> elsewhere, period. But l naively decided that once I caught him I'd give him
> another chance - so I called him then sent him a long explicit email saying
> what my investigations had shown in the past, saying I wanted to reset the
> relationship, and my expectations for servicing the generator were, including
> the details (such as checking the oil level, and specifying the type of oil
> needed (Delo, if you are curious) and so forth. All very formal. His
> response was to attempt to blow me up - he complained to my boss about how
> mean I was, etc. No good deed goes unpunished I guess. Ultimately it did
> not work - we did end up dumping him especially when the facilities manager
> was called into investigate and ended up agreeing with me (and several timely
> blackouts where the generator ended up shutting down due to a coolant leak
> that would have not happened had the PM's been done, helped) But I still got
> burned because it took months to be proven out to be right and it delayed
> getting the generator to be reliable for a year. Sigh. I learned a good
> lesson from that - once a snake always a snake - a vendor who is basically
> defrauding you NEVER responds to any attempt to let them atone for past
> misdeeds. They don't WANT to do work and get paid. They want to get paid
> and do no work at all - and nothing you can do is going to stimulate them to
> actually start doing the work. Their end game is they will go out with a
> bang if they can because maybe the planets will align and they will burn you
> enough during their exit that they don't lose the contract after all.
>
> I'm explaining all of this as a way of telling you what could be possibly
> going on inside of the organization. Remember your contact with this org was
> via the CTO. Also remember that for sure, several years before the CTO
> exited the role - he KNEW he was planning to exit. When someone in a
> business starts planning in advance for their retirement - or quitting and
> going to a new employer - or some such - they quite often start getting very
> risk adverse. They don't want to rock the boat, they don't want anyone
> complaining. They are the Mr. Nice Guy to everyone. They don't want to get
> fired 6 months or a year before retirement or before their new dream job
> opens up elsewhere or whatever it is that they are looking forward to. And
> everyone under them senses this, and starts chomping at the bit for them to
> get the hell out of the position so they can have a shot at it.
>
> If this manager you are dealing with was formerly the underling of the CTO
> and perceived that you were focused 100% on the CTO and not paying any
> attention to anything he said that could be another issue. I call this the
> "rude to the wait staff" syndrome. If you are a woman and a man asks you out
> you watch how he treats the wait staff - who is subservient to him during the
> date - if he is a jerk to them, then he's GOING to be a jerk to you - you cut
> your losses and GTFO. I'm assuming you were always solicitous and kind to
> your CTO's underlings so this wouldn't apply.
>
> Now, the fact is, a good manager like the former CTO should have been
> mentoring his underlings and including them in the decision making process so
> vendors like yourself would establish relationships with them - but many
> managers don't understand mentoring at all. And if the CTO was planning an
> exit - he wouldn't be able to mentor anyway because anyone under him he would
> try to mentor would at the back of their mind be thinking "just let the
> windbag yak away, he's gonna be gone in a year"
>
> There's very few people I know who are able to remain vibrant, alive,
> stimulating, encouraging, advocating risk takers 6 months before a planned
> exit like quitting. You might even say the ones who can successfully pull it
> off are psycopaths. My guess is your CTO transmitted a ton of stuff some of
> which he maybe didn't want to, to the underlings who knew him the best, such
> as this manager. Now that he's out of the picture, this manager wants a
> complete reset of the relationship with you - but is afraid to broach it,
> both for fear of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, or the feeling
> that he isn't yet secure in his position, and that you might react in an
> unexpected way that could damage his position.
>
> I think you are overanalyzing this.
>
> Basically you are in a common situation as a vendor. The guard has changed -
> and no matter how much value you gave the customer - your going to have to
> start all over again with the new guard. The new guard isn't going to give
> an ounce of value to what you gave the old guard. They aren't asking what
> did you do for me yesterday they are asking what can you do for me today.
> They aren't loyal to you or the prior business relationship because they
> regard it as your relationship with the prior person who is now out the door
> - not your relationship with their organization.
>
> What I would do in your shoes is invite the new manager to lunch, and say
> something along the lines of "I'm getting the sense that you never really
> agreed with how your predecessor worked with me" or something along those
> lines. It's human nature for a new manager to diss their predecessor - so he
> might actually warm a bit to that kind of a question and you can then figure
> out what is really bothering him. Then all you need to do is figure out if
> you want to work in the parameters he wants you to work in.
>
> Ted
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PLUG <plug-boun...@lists.pdxlinux.org> On Behalf Of James Tobin
> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 2:09 AM
> To: Portland Linux/Unix Group <plug@lists.pdxlinux.org>
> Subject: Re: [PLUG] Ghosted?
>
> I'm actually the headhunter. If an employer chooses to terminate a contract
> with me, so be it. Although it's never happened before.
>
> However, in this particular case, the decision appears both abrupt and highly
> suspicious. My relationship with the former CTO stems from a prior working
> relationship at the company from which this new entity was spun out. I’ve
> been in recruitment and IT (including telecoms:
> IVRs, ASR, development/db etc and even domain names) since the late 1990s,
> working globally, and I’ve seen a wide range of situations. I was once asked
> to recruit a Meridian PBX engineer for a bank too (picking up on your
> previous email). Anyway, the former CTO valued my input—my opinions,
> suggestions, and broader consultative approach. In contrast, based on my
> experience with the manager that may now wield more power, it seems they may
> prefer working with recruiters who simply push resumes rather than offer
> strategic guidance or insights (not headhunters).
>
> What’s unusual here is that the employer is now attempting to weaponize
> specific contract terms—terms they have historically neither enforced nor
> followed—to justify their refusal to provide feedback on candidates I’ve
> introduced, even after those candidates met with a hiring manager I’ve
> previously recruited for. One such term states that my firm may only recruit
> for roles formally requested in writing.
> However, in multiple prior instances—including with this same manager—no
> written job descriptions or formal requests were ever provided, and yet the
> process proceeded without issue.
>
> My candidate-to-offer ratios speak for themselves—rarely do I need to
> introduce more than three candidates for a given role before one receives an
> offer. That level of precision doesn't happen by chance.
>
> My thoughts are that the candidates I introduced were highly relevant, and
> that HR (or the parent company or the company itself) may now be leaning
> toward an in-house recruitment strategy. There’s a possibility they’re
> hesitant to engage with my candidates out of concern that, if one—if not
> both—are seen as strong fits, it could lead to a placement fee.
>
> I am relying on the following clause from the contract:
>
> "Term: The Agreement shall be effective upon the Effective Date and shall
> continue until terminated by either party in writing. The expiry or earlier
> termination of this Agreement shall not affect or prejudice
> (a) the rights, obligations or liabilities of either party which have accrued
> prior to such expiry or termination; or (b) the operation of any provision of
> this Agreement which is expressed to survive, or which from its nature or
> context is intended to survive, such expiry or termination."
>
> This clause makes clear that the Agreement’s expiry or termination does not
> affect any rights or obligations that have accrued prior to termination.
> Given the employer’s historical conduct under this Agreement, they have
> accrued obligations—such as providing feedback or progressing candidates
> introduced before termination—that remain enforceable despite the contract’s
> end.
>
> Furthermore, under the principle of equitable estoppel, the employer should
> be prevented from denying these accrued obligations. Their prior conduct led
> me to reasonably rely on their cooperation and feedback, and it would be
> unjust for them to now refuse to fulfill these obligations after benefiting
> from the relationship.
>
>
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 at 18:41, Ted Mittelstaedt <t...@portlandia-it.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmmmmm.
> >
> > 4 pages back - unless it's 4 pages of lawyerese boilerplate that is just
> > copied and pasted - is unusual.
> >
> > There is a term in business for that type of response - we call it a
> > "F U Go Away" letter" Sometimes known in the vernacular as a F.O.A.D.
> > letter. ("and die" are the last 2 words)
> >
> > Most of the time, FUGA letters are a waste of time. Why? Because the
> > business had to pay someone at the business for their time to compose 4
> > pages of FUGA.
> >
> > One of the cardinal rules of business is - you don't expend effort severing
> > contacts with any business associate, unless there is a cost to maintaining
> > that contact that is greater than the cost to severing it.
> >
> > If I get a call from a salesperson selling something that I buy - but don't
> > need at that moment - I tell them "I buy those but sorry I not interested
> > at the moment" but I don't block them or expend any effort at all to block
> > them.
> >
> > If I get a call from a salesperson selling something that there's not a
> > snowball's chance in hell I'll ever buy for my employer - I tell them
> > "sorry but we simply never buy that stuff" but once more, I don't expend
> > any effort to block them.
> >
> > I assume if they are a successful entity that if they are the first type,
> > I'll end up in a tickler file if they are the second type, they value their
> > time and will not want to waste further time on me and thus cross me off
> > the list. If the first type maybe I'll get another call every 6 months or
> > so. Maybe one day in the future I WILL be buying and then they can send me
> > a quote or something.
> >
> > Recruiters are salespeople in case you didn't know - they sell access to
> > talent.
> >
> > Anyway, it's only if they start wasting their own time - such as with
> > excessive, repeated contacts if the first type or contacts at all with the
> > second type, that I would spend my time attempting to block them or telling
> > them never to call me again and so on. Because, at that time, I know they
> > are not successful, they have no value, their own time is worthless - which
> > is why they are willing to waste it on me. Because my time is valuable I
> > now have to weigh whether it's worth spending my time on effort to make
> > them quit wasting my time, or whether I can just continue saying "no" and
> > hanging up on them. In other words, which option is going to cost more of
> > my time.
> >
> > For the 10 minutes I might spend yelling FUGA at them to never call me
> > again or threatening to report them if they call again, I could probably
> > answer the phone say "no" and hang up around 20 times. If I discern they
> > are normal, I will assume they will give up after about 6-7 calls, if I
> > assume they have heads of solid bone then I'll have to spend the 10 minutes
> > screaming FUGA at them in hopes that this will get them to quit wasting my
> > time.
> >
> > Understand that screaming at them isn't an emotional reaction - it's a
> > logical choice. It's just business. And in business, time is money and
> > successful businesspeople understand this.
> >
> > This is a lesson that I had to learn, myself. The reality is, that an
> > emotional response to anything in business costs money - so you better make
> > sure that it's something worth spending money on. Screaming with joy "we
> > got the contract" and running around the office like a chicken with it's
> > head cut off is emotional but very worth the money and there's certainly no
> > risk. Politely giving a salesperson 5 minutes to pitch you for something
> > you don't need now but might need in the future - that's probably worth the
> > money although it's also a risk. FUGA on the other hand is almost never
> > worth the money or risk.
> >
> > Now, as for your question:
> >
> > I don't know how much time the recruitment firm has spent on this employer
> > but if the recruitment firm is following good business practices then they
> > haven't spent much time after getting a "no"
> >
> > Sending a 1 page letter to a "no" response doesn't take much time.
> > It's likely mostly a form letter anyway. And you can include the
> > usual thank you for your time deciding to say no, which some of the
> > more antique fossils in business seem to hold in high regard. (that
> > is, they are the my s don't stink types and you must slavishly thank
> > me for spending my 5 seconds telling you to get lost - sort of like
> > the "thank you sir may I have another" scene in Animal House)
> >
> > So doing that is in general good business. Even with the fossils who you
> > may end up having to deal with in the future some time.
> >
> > But a 4 page FUGA response is an indication that the employer - who has
> > already said no, apparently, is to use the expression - a piss-poor
> > businessperson. That is because they are willing to spend the $$$ on 30
> > minutes or more of their time writing a FUGA when their option was to spend
> > 1 minute responding with "sorry we can't help you"
> >
> > This is completely setting aside that the content of 4 pages that boils
> > down to one word - no - is almost certainly emotionally driven, and
> > therefore a rich goldmine for an employment lawyer to dig into. That's
> > where the risk part comes in. The second cardinal rule of business is you
> > never take risks where the reward isn't worth the effort to take the risk.
> > The reward for creating a usable electric light bulb was phenomenal so
> > Edison was willing to take a giant risk by throwing millions of todays
> > dollars at it with zero guarantee it would ever be anything other than a
> > laboratory curiosity. The reward for making a recruiter go away and stay
> > away with high risk FUGA letter - pretty low. Thus, a very very poor
> > business decision.
> >
> > The only reason any decent businessperson would possibly write a FUGA
> > letter is if the recruiter had already wasted a lot of their time
> > continuing to pester them and the employer felt spending that time writing
> > a FUGA letter was going to take less of their time than being continually
> > pestered.
> >
> > So, my advice to this hypothetical situation - hypothetical since you have
> > not supplied names of either the employer or recruiter - is that you have 1
> > of 2 things going on here.
> >
> > Either the recruiter is being an idiot and has pushed the employer to write
> > a FUGA letter - or the employer is a terrible businessperson who is likely
> > to go bankrupt because they are spending all their time writing FUGA
> > letters than actually, ya know, making money?
> >
> > Your choice. I would advise looking at the entire transaction to suss out
> > what actually happened. It might just be that the employer is fabulously
> > successful in which case I'd have to wonder about the recruiter - or the
> > employer is swinging from opportunity from opportunity like a monkey in a
> > tree barely staying above the crocodiles, in which case the candidate
> > certainly dodged a bullet.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PLUG <plug-boun...@lists.pdxlinux.org> On Behalf Of James Tobin
> > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:08 AM
> > To: Portland Linux/Unix Group <plug@lists.pdxlinux.org>
> > Subject: Re: [PLUG] Ghosted?
> >
> > How do you mean backwards Oregon? ;-)
> >
> > The recruitment firm has written a one-page letter to the employer but the
> > employer has sent a 4 page reply back. The employer's letter also states
> > that they have no obligation or reason to provide feedback, engage in
> > further communication, or follow up on the candidate(s) introduced. They
> > have gone so far as to write a four page letter defending their position in
> > response to the recruitment firms-one page letter. Does the employer's
> > stance not sound fishy to people? The recruitment firm did attempt to
> > speak with the HR person that cancelled the contract too. They refused to
> > comment on the suitability of the individuals introduced. Instead, they
> > remarked on the recruitment consultants' presumed skin color and gender,
> > and made a remark about the recruitment firm being a 'one-man band'. . .
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 at 15:53, Ted Mittelstaedt <t...@portlandia-it.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The main thing on the list is the potential liability. This is why
> > > rejection letters are extremely short and they never call on a rejection.
> > > You never know if your talking to a lawyer who is trying to build a case
> > > against you by developing a pattern on your rejections. This is why
> > > certain topics even inside of companies concerning hiring are completely
> > > taboo. The few times I've heard any manager even utter any of the
> > > "protected class" words EOO words, (race sex religion etc. etc.) they
> > > have been reprimanded and the thought of putting anything like that in an
> > > internal email is unbelievable. A manager who did that would certainly
> > > be close to being fired.
> > >
> > > The rest of the stuff isn't that important - there's plenty of managers
> > > and HR people out there who don't mind spending calories on rejects. If
> > > someone asked me point blank how they came off in the interview I'd tell
> > > them - and in fact, if you are in an interview and you sense that it's
> > > gone sideways or that it's not a fit, I encourage you to ask what do you
> > > think of me? I did that once and they told me point blank that my last
> > > paycheck stub (which I had bought, as insurance) was higher than what
> > > they were planning on offering. That was one of those positions
> > > advertised without a pay scale back in "the olden days". I think they
> > > got "schooled" that day. But that's what you get when you advertise a
> > > position without a pay range.
> > >
> > > And I'm also very skilled at answering the phone and giving the caller 5
> > > seconds no more to explain what they are calling about and if I decide
> > > it's not worth my time to listen to their pitch I politely say "not
> > > interested" and hang up. Even when they are in the middle of their "I
> > > appreciate it but there's one more thing you should consider"
> > > foot-in-the-door spiel. That's an executive skill any good manager has
> > > to develop. They aren't being abrupt, they just recognize there's no
> > > more value to the call so they end it to quit wasting their time and
> > > yours.
> > >
> > > As for tuning an LLM, they can turn the most glowing Resume/application
> > > in that's as tuned as possible to get it past all the filters if they
> > > want. I'd actually consider that a plus in a candidate that they figured
> > > out the rat's maze to defeat the robot overlord. (Although I personally
> > > would never use LLM to filter and I've explained why already that a good
> > > manager would not) But securing the interview is just the first step
> > > you still got to prove yourself in the interview. And there's no point
> > > in putting a huge amount of effort into securing interviews and none into
> > > the actual interview process. Unless your goal is to sort of collect
> > > interviews like medals.
> > >
> > > The automated tools make rejecting candidates take very little effort.
> > > The candidate applies online, puts their contact info in online, if they
> > > aren't greenflagged and forwarded for a screening interview (ie: a phone
> > > call from HR asking "are you a real person or not") the rejection comes
> > > back automatically - with no activity on a prospect after a few weeks the
> > > software just closes the file and issues the rejection automatically.
> > >
> > > "There is whole industry of asking job candidates to generate resumes for
> > > training or for sale - essentially for free, just by advertising a job
> > > opportunity."
> > >
> > > I assure you, nobody does this anymore.
> > >
> > > The number 1 reason is as follows:
> > >
> > > https://www.hrdive.com/news/pay-transparency-law-tracker-states-that
> > > -r equire-employers-to-post-pay-range-or-wage-range/622542/
> > >
> > > Notice that backwards Oregon is NOT on the list. I encourage you to
> > > write your representative on this issue.
> > >
> > > Back in the bad old days, when nobody advertised pay scales, the only way
> > > a company HR department could do research on market rate was by offering
> > > fake job opportunities. Then during the screening interview they would
> > > say "this job is offering a range of X-Y" and see if the candidate said
> > > OK. If they did, that was too high. The next candidate they screened
> > > they would lower the offer. And they would keep doing this until they
> > > started getting candidates saying "that's too low"
> > >
> > > But today, there's a whole list of states that require disclosed pay
> > > scales by law. And trust me, ANY employer in any of those states who
> > > lists a job and does NOT do that - they WILL get reported - by hundreds
> > > of job seekers. And the state employment divisions just LOVE fining
> > > employers for this kind of stuff.
> > >
> > > So, to do a market pay study nowadays is really easy you just look at the
> > > listings in those states and toss the border markers and you have your
> > > scale. And for the Fortune 500 they often are drawing upper staff who
> > > they WILL pay relocation for and they don't know where their candidates
> > > might be coming from and they simply don't want the hassle. A company
> > > like Walmart for example is in all 50 states if they advertise a manager
> > > position in Oregon for sure candidates in Washington State are going to
> > > see it and even if they could squeak by the law by not putting a pay
> > > scale in and claiming it was an Oregon advertisement - they will incur
> > > the ire of State of Washington's labor department who can easily make
> > > trouble for their Washington operations (hmm, it's been a while since
> > > we've inspected your Vancouver operations) So once enough states started
> > > passing these disclosure laws, the large corps caved in and started
> > > putting pay scales on ALL their positions - which of course put
> > > tremendous pressure on the small Mom and Pop operations to disclose THEIR
> > > pay scales since if your going to pay Indeed to list a job your wasting
> > > your money if nobody applies - and nobody will apply if you are the only
> > > employer in the list that isn't listing a pay range in your job posting.
> > >
> > > Your still going to see the occasional posting lacking a pay scale but
> > > only someone looking for their first job should be applying for those.
> > >
> > > This is one of the areas that young folks have a huge advantage over what
> > > us old codgers had to deal with.
> > >
> > > Ted
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: PLUG <plug-boun...@lists.pdxlinux.org> On Behalf Of
> > > ken...@tuta.com
> > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:40 AM
> > > To: Portland Linux/Unix Group <plug@lists.pdxlinux.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [PLUG] Ghosted?
> > >
> > > I think Tomas summed it up perfectly, while also addressing a few things
> > > about job searching that I was aware of(It's been a while since I had to
> > > hire).
> > > Thanks | おおきに / ありがとう | Kiitos | Merci | Gracias | Obrigada | Grazie
> > > |
> > > 谢谢 | Danke | Wado | спасибо,
> > > 賢進ジェンナ「Kenshin, Jenna」
> > >
> > > "You should be as alive as you can until you're totally dead!" -
> > > Dylan Moran
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2025年7月27日 13:22 差出人: tomas.kuchta.li...@gmail.com:
> > >
> > > > I can think of a few reasons:
> > > > * There is no value in spending any calories on rejected
> > > > candidates
> > > > * Potential liability
> > > > * Potential for extra arguments, hassle and follow up
> > > > * It is proprietary knowledge, many applications are generated and
> > > > almost all are screened by a LLM - so giving feedback would let
> > > > the generating LLM/human to tune for success.
> > > > * Work load - they maybe rejecting many candidates for a few
> > > > positions. Not necessarily because of a particular reason
> > > > * There is whole industry of asking job candidates to generate
> > > > resumes for training or for sale - essentially for free, just by
> > > > advertising a job opportunity.
> > > >
> > > > Applying/searching for a job is no fun, especially on saturated
> > > > labor market, that is for sure.
> > > >
> > > > -T
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 17:59 James Tobin <jamesbto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Why do you think that is?
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 21:55, <ken...@tuta.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Yes, but I also know that employers in the U.S. generally don't
> > > >> > want to
> > > >> admit why an applicant was refused or passed on.
> > > >> > Thanks | おおきに / ありがとう | Kiitos | Merci | Gracias | Obrigada |
> > > >> > Grazie |
> > > >> 谢谢 | Danke | Wado | спасибо,
> > > >> > 賢進ジェンナ「Kenshin, Jenna」
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "You should be as alive as you can until you're totally dead!"
> > > >> > - Dylan
> > > >> Moran
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 2025年7月25日 11:57 差出人: jamesbto...@gmail.com:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi, if you were represented by a recruiter (headhunter,
> > > >> > > recruitment consultant, agent, or whatever they prefer to
> > > >> > > call
> > > >> > > themselves) for a potential job with an employer, would you
> > > >> > > expect them to do everything possible to get feedback on your
> > > >> > > resume, skills, experience, overall application, and
> > > >> > > suitability directly from the employer after you'd been presented?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
