A little while ago I posted a blog on Recruitingblogs.com about hobbies and whether or not they should be on your CV (I re-posted it here; it's the very first post on this blog). There was some discussion that followed, with, generally, a good-natured back and forth. I thought some people made some good counterpoints, and I was certainly willing to re-visit my opinion.
One guy, though, decided that a respectful debate between colleagues (it is a recruiting site, after all) just wasn't for him. Here's a segment of his post:
Believe it or not but I have experienced a couple of occasions where listed hobbies triggered a conversation (that’s something people will have when they show an interest in each other)...
It may not read the same out of context, but it was quite the snarky riposte. (I know what you're thinking - shocking that poor manners were shown on the interweb.)
I'm not posting this to try to start a battle, since (a) I have no interest in one, and (b) I doubt he reads this site - if I were to respond, I would have done so in the comments of the original post.
No, I'm trying to point out what bad form this was - not in some grand vision of manners and polity, but at an individual level. A group of colleagues were discussing a topic quite professionally, despite disagreements. This is what grown ups do. This is what we all should do in the workplace.
Recruiters live by networking. That's how we do our job. Why on earth would a recruiter want to poison a relationship with a potential colleague in order to get off a here's-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-conversation-is jab? It's silly, and it reflects poorly on him.
So what's the point? The point is you're always, potentially, networking. You're always, potentially, branding yourself.
(I should note that I am willing to admit that the original post of mine was perhaps a little snarky - it was a rant after all, however I think a fair reading of it would determine that the joking manner in which I described things was more frivolous than attacking. Further, it certainly couldn't be considered personal, as I used no derogatory examples from actual resumes.)
Thursday, May 28, 2009
It's not that I'm lonely, but... (Contact Information)
I realized that I probably don't have any contact information on this blog, and even though I'll read any comments that are left, it's probably best that I give out some contact info, just in case.
If anyone wants to reach me, you can email me at jonathan.mcleod@microtime-it.com .
If anyone wants to reach me, you can email me at jonathan.mcleod@microtime-it.com .
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
There's no excuse for typos, Part II
A few days ago, I noted that there is no excuse for having a typo-laden resume. Well, there is a b-side to this record; there is no excuse for typos by recruiters.
People's names are important. When contacting a candidate, or entering her into a database, make sure you have the right name and the right spelling. Calling Cecile "Cecil" isn't acceptable (just as calling Jonathan "John" isn't acceptable). This is especially important when your colleagues are relying on the information you provide about the candidate.
People's names are important. When contacting a candidate, or entering her into a database, make sure you have the right name and the right spelling. Calling Cecile "Cecil" isn't acceptable (just as calling Jonathan "John" isn't acceptable). This is especially important when your colleagues are relying on the information you provide about the candidate.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Counterintuitive Job Security
It has been noted in a few places that EI was up for the month of March. Obviously, that's not good news, though I can't say whether it's a leading indicator or a lagging indicator of our short run economic prospects.
I will, however, touch on another tangential subject, job security. I have been laid off in the past. I have been in other situations where I have worried about my job security. Before my current job, I was on a three month contract (which wound up lasting for about five months). I know what it's like to have an uncertain employment situation.
Many candidates come before me looking for permanent employment (unfortunately for them, my company deals almost exclusively with contract opportunities). I understand where they're coming from. They like the benefits; they like the permanency; they like the certainty.
Sadly, they're wrong. Permanent positions are lumbering towards extinction. There is no job certainty in a permanent position - termination, lay off, insolvency, any one of them can put the lie to your job certainty.
Contract positions have the same potential pitfalls, but with less risk of befalling any of them. Many of these positions are budgeted for; the money is set aside - the money "exists". (At this point, I should note the at my company deals mainly with government contracts, so I'm sure I have a different vantage point than people in other industries and other cities.) If you sign a 12 month contract, you may not know what you're doing a year from now, but you know what you're doing for the next year. This is certainty.
In today's job market, most people are going to be changing jobs every couple of years, if not more frequently - what is the difference to your career if you have two contract positions within a year or two "permanent" positions. There are certainly pro's and con's to both permanent and contract positions, but when it comes to duration and job security, it's probably a wash.
It may seem incredibly counterintuitive to suggest there is equal or greater job security in contract positions, but many truths are counterintuitive.
I will, however, touch on another tangential subject, job security. I have been laid off in the past. I have been in other situations where I have worried about my job security. Before my current job, I was on a three month contract (which wound up lasting for about five months). I know what it's like to have an uncertain employment situation.
Many candidates come before me looking for permanent employment (unfortunately for them, my company deals almost exclusively with contract opportunities). I understand where they're coming from. They like the benefits; they like the permanency; they like the certainty.
Sadly, they're wrong. Permanent positions are lumbering towards extinction. There is no job certainty in a permanent position - termination, lay off, insolvency, any one of them can put the lie to your job certainty.
Contract positions have the same potential pitfalls, but with less risk of befalling any of them. Many of these positions are budgeted for; the money is set aside - the money "exists". (At this point, I should note the at my company deals mainly with government contracts, so I'm sure I have a different vantage point than people in other industries and other cities.) If you sign a 12 month contract, you may not know what you're doing a year from now, but you know what you're doing for the next year. This is certainty.
In today's job market, most people are going to be changing jobs every couple of years, if not more frequently - what is the difference to your career if you have two contract positions within a year or two "permanent" positions. There are certainly pro's and con's to both permanent and contract positions, but when it comes to duration and job security, it's probably a wash.
It may seem incredibly counterintuitive to suggest there is equal or greater job security in contract positions, but many truths are counterintuitive.
Some times, they get it right.
Right now (most likely), I have a senior consultant sitting in an interview with three representatives of a government department. Anonymity isn't a big priority at Jonathan McLeod Recruiting, but in this case, I won't divulge any more information.
I have worked with this consultant in the past. A few months ago we were preparing a proposal for a different government agency (at the last minute, we hit a snag and had to abandon it), so when this new opportunity came up, I already had a head start in preparing his resume and the "grid". All tolled, I have probably spent about 20 - 30 hours on his resume - which grew first from about 10 to 14 pages, then to 17, then finally to 19.
Here's the scary part - I hadn't had a chance to meet him in person. Many phone calls, many more emails, but never anything in the flesh, as they say.
I gave him some interview tips (though apparently I neglected to send him one document - though it shouldn't make a difference), and I made sure he knew the importance of appearance and making a good impression. Still, you never what that person is going to be like when he shows up at the client's office. We've had senior people come into our office in a suit and tie, then show up for a meeting with the client in a t-shirt; you can guess how those went.
This opportunity is pretty important. It's not a long contract, and won't make a lot of money, but it should give us a good chance at getting more work. Plus, having been up until one or two in the morning many nights, I have a bit more of a personal stake in this proposal than some others.
So our guy stopped by the office today before his interview with the client - shirt, tie, suit... he'd even come straight from the barber. It was great. We sat and spoke with him for about 20 minutes. We gave him some tips; he talked to us about what he was looking for from the client; we focused on some specific points in his work history that he should touch on. This is how the process is supposed to work.
So, kudos to you, "Mr. Consultant." I know you'll represent us well.
Of course, now I'll be checking my email constantly tonight to find out how it went.
[UPDATE: I just got word from the consultant; indeed, it went well, he tells me. Now we just have to wait for confirmation from the client.]
[UPDATE II: Yup, he nailed it. Apparently the technical authority was really pressing him, and he was able to win her over. He'll probably be starting soon. Things are pretty slow these days, so it's nice to put one in the win column.]
I have worked with this consultant in the past. A few months ago we were preparing a proposal for a different government agency (at the last minute, we hit a snag and had to abandon it), so when this new opportunity came up, I already had a head start in preparing his resume and the "grid". All tolled, I have probably spent about 20 - 30 hours on his resume - which grew first from about 10 to 14 pages, then to 17, then finally to 19.
Here's the scary part - I hadn't had a chance to meet him in person. Many phone calls, many more emails, but never anything in the flesh, as they say.
I gave him some interview tips (though apparently I neglected to send him one document - though it shouldn't make a difference), and I made sure he knew the importance of appearance and making a good impression. Still, you never what that person is going to be like when he shows up at the client's office. We've had senior people come into our office in a suit and tie, then show up for a meeting with the client in a t-shirt; you can guess how those went.
This opportunity is pretty important. It's not a long contract, and won't make a lot of money, but it should give us a good chance at getting more work. Plus, having been up until one or two in the morning many nights, I have a bit more of a personal stake in this proposal than some others.
So our guy stopped by the office today before his interview with the client - shirt, tie, suit... he'd even come straight from the barber. It was great. We sat and spoke with him for about 20 minutes. We gave him some tips; he talked to us about what he was looking for from the client; we focused on some specific points in his work history that he should touch on. This is how the process is supposed to work.
So, kudos to you, "Mr. Consultant." I know you'll represent us well.
Of course, now I'll be checking my email constantly tonight to find out how it went.
[UPDATE: I just got word from the consultant; indeed, it went well, he tells me. Now we just have to wait for confirmation from the client.]
[UPDATE II: Yup, he nailed it. Apparently the technical authority was really pressing him, and he was able to win her over. He'll probably be starting soon. Things are pretty slow these days, so it's nice to put one in the win column.]
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Three Hour Rule
I am not suggesting that if you drop a chocolate bar on the ground, it's fine to eat it as long as you pick it up within three hours. That's nasty.
I'm talking about one of those myths about the ESA (the Employment Standards Act - the labour law in the province of Ontario). There's a notion out there among hourly workers that if you come in to work, you have to get paid for three hours no matter how short the duration of your shift happens to be. This is wrong - or at least not quite right.
First, you can be scheduled for a shift less than three hours. If they book you to work from noon to one, you get one hour's pay. That's it. (By the way, if your boss does that without a good reason, s/he probably wants you to quit - it's probably constructive dismissal, a topic for another post.)
But now to the real crux of this myth: if you are scheduled for a shift longer than three hours, and they send you home before three hours, you are not necessarily entitled to three hours pay. The ESA states that you are entitled to the amount you earned at your hourly rate for the time you were on duty or three hours pay at minimum wage.
I can't remember what minimum wage is right now (it's been changing a lot in the past few years), but let's say that it's $10. So what if you get sent home after 2 hours? Let's look at two scenarios:
1. You make $12/hour
In this situation, 2 hours work at $12/hour gives you $24.
3 hours work at minimum wage gives you $30.
So, your boss has to pay you $30.
(If s/he's on the ball, you'll wind up working an extra half hour doing some boring task so that they get the full $30 worth of work out of you.)
2. You make $16/hour
Now, after 2 hours, you have earned $32.
Since 3 hours at minimum wage is $30, your boss has to pay you $32.
This is quite progressive legislation. The lower your wage, the more likely you are to benefit. Depending on your outlook, this will either be a way of protecting the little guy, or a situation where a bunch of people get screwed - but if this happens to you a lot, it is a blessing in disguise, as it will give you a lot of extra time to search for a new job because the current one just ain't gonna cut it.
I'm talking about one of those myths about the ESA (the Employment Standards Act - the labour law in the province of Ontario). There's a notion out there among hourly workers that if you come in to work, you have to get paid for three hours no matter how short the duration of your shift happens to be. This is wrong - or at least not quite right.
First, you can be scheduled for a shift less than three hours. If they book you to work from noon to one, you get one hour's pay. That's it. (By the way, if your boss does that without a good reason, s/he probably wants you to quit - it's probably constructive dismissal, a topic for another post.)
But now to the real crux of this myth: if you are scheduled for a shift longer than three hours, and they send you home before three hours, you are not necessarily entitled to three hours pay. The ESA states that you are entitled to the amount you earned at your hourly rate for the time you were on duty or three hours pay at minimum wage.
I can't remember what minimum wage is right now (it's been changing a lot in the past few years), but let's say that it's $10. So what if you get sent home after 2 hours? Let's look at two scenarios:
1. You make $12/hour
In this situation, 2 hours work at $12/hour gives you $24.
3 hours work at minimum wage gives you $30.
So, your boss has to pay you $30.
(If s/he's on the ball, you'll wind up working an extra half hour doing some boring task so that they get the full $30 worth of work out of you.)
2. You make $16/hour
Now, after 2 hours, you have earned $32.
Since 3 hours at minimum wage is $30, your boss has to pay you $32.
This is quite progressive legislation. The lower your wage, the more likely you are to benefit. Depending on your outlook, this will either be a way of protecting the little guy, or a situation where a bunch of people get screwed - but if this happens to you a lot, it is a blessing in disguise, as it will give you a lot of extra time to search for a new job because the current one just ain't gonna cut it.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
New grad or unemployed?
My boss and I are on our way to Algonquin college shortly to lead an open house for students in the school's IT program. So, do we tell them that if they work hard and search diligently, they'll be able to land a job in their field? Or do we tell them that right now the market sucks, the economy sucks, and there are a bunch of experienced junior and intermediate level developers looking for work who will jump at entry level positions in order to make rent?
We figure we'll be realistic, but also try to give them a pep talk. Here's hoping it goes well.
We figure we'll be realistic, but also try to give them a pep talk. Here's hoping it goes well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
