Scammish: Job boards and Company Online Jobs Listings (based on my personal experience and thoughts)

To be fully honest, I am not a fan of the current HR (Human Resource) industry/practice today.

I have used glassdoor, indeed, monster, linkedin, and a couple others in the past. And my experience is that I rarely ever get any response from any online applications (including directly on the company websites). All my work opportunities (nine different employments, eleven if you count contract to hire) have come through a physical person whether that is a friend, acquaintance, or even a recruiter.

Yet when I interview through traditional means, my success rates to get offers are extremely high, nearly 100%. And usually with a day or two of my interview (which makes me think my salary request is on the low end, and never has a company offered more than my ask). So this makes me think there are a couple things I am doing incorrectly with online applications.

The easier and within my control is not using the proper keywords or catchphrases that will get me past the automatic filtering system. I have so many variants of my resume. I tailor my resume to the job positions. So I like to think that I should have been accidentally correct at some point.

The other reason is a bit scammish. I have seen a few of these practices myself.

The simplest one is that some companies are require to post positions publicly even though they already have someone in mind. This typically is with larger corporations and most definitely for contract-to-hire positions. As mentioned above, I have had a couple of these. This transition took time, and part of the reason is that HR has to post the job publicly and it needs to be up for a certain period of time. They will field the minimum candidates with the minimum amount of work. I may have been focused on my work, and I am not one to keep an eye out for what my managers do, but I am pretty sure they did not interview anyone. Eventually, I get transitioned to full-time employee status. Therefore, people saw the post, applied, and most likely never heard back.

Technically, this is not the job boards fault but it kind of is if they scrape these positions from the company websites which most of them do.

A more scammish practice is companies that are not real. They just post jobs to just collect data. I have worked for a marketing group, and there is a lot of bartering for personal information (especially behind the scenes). One of the biggest values to data is how much of their data is legit data. Job applicants on job boards are one of the best and easiest sources of data to be collected. I use a separate email and phone for my job search. After applying to certain unknown companies, I get sudden spikes of spam. Sometimes all it takes is just to publish your resume on the board which I typically get smaller spikes and more sporadic.

A similar practice but more borderline scammish is corporations doing similar practice but only to populate their HR system of records. Because they purchase bulk amounts of job postings, companies that have remaining posts will just use them to post non-existent positions. This has all sorts of implications. The simplest is just to have a queue of available candidates. Second, they can see how desperate the candidates are which can be used to set their expectations on how much they pay their current employees. Last, they can also use that on low-balling other or future candidates.

Suspiciously, even the job boards ads and site metrics seem to avoid how effective they really are. Many states number of users but they don't state how successful they are. Maybe it is also due to users abusing the system too. But if they claim number of users then they must take responsibility that number is somewhat accurate, thus they should have the ability to give some estimate on how successful users are. Otherwise, they should not market how many users they have.


References
https://zerista.s3.amazonaws.com/item_files/ab2f/attachments/458970/original/source_of_hire_2018_pdf.pdf

glassdoor.com (first impression, three weeks)

I have been passively looking to see what new opportunities are out there, and was suggested to use a few sites. One of the sites was glassdoor.

I still went through the usual agony of filling in yet another profile and job history. It does have an importer, but obviously my formatting is not obvious enough for the automated process. I think it took more time to correct than just to enter the details myself. The process is very standard, no love or hate.

Once the profile is created, it is pretty simple to apply to job posts that are connected via glassdoor. After a couple job posts, I actually started avoiding job posts that required me to apply via the employer's company site. Why is that not automated to pass my details to the company site? Honestly, I did not care much because they were mostly larger corporate companies which I was not in the mood of applying to at the time.

After a week or two, I actually had real calls for phone interviews from the actual employer. This was actually pretty amazing! I have to admit I was very impressed with this. I did not apply to that many. The interviews were legit and did not waste my time.

I was impressed because I had very little luck in the past with job boards: monster.com, dice.com, etc. (more than ten years ago). One of the biggest problem was that I was constantly called by recruiters. These recruiters clearly do not read the resume and are just fishing for anyone that would respond, then figure out if they are a fit. I tested this by clearly putting on my resume that I am not looking for work in my current state, yet all the opportunities are for that state.

Cons

For whatever reason, I cannot update the experience field on their website. I have tried multiple times and multiple browsers. It appears to save once I enter the experience detail, but once I refresh the page, it disappears.

Reference
http://glassdoor.com

Human Decency - Mr. Rogers - Senate Subcommittee (1969)

Still relevant today...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatetestimonypbs.htm


Senator Pastore: Alright Rogers, you've got the floor.
Mr. Rogers: Senator Pastore, this is a philosophical statement and would take about ten minutes to read, so I'll not do that. One of the first things that a child learns in a healthy family is trust, and I trust what you have said that you will read this. It's very important to me. I care deeply about children.
Senator Pastore: Will it make you happy if you read it?
Mr. Rogers: I'd just like to talk about it, if it's alright. My first children's program was on WQED fifteen years ago, and its budget was $30. Now, with the help of the Sears-Roebuck Foundation and National Educational Television, as well as all of the affiliated stations -- each station pays to show our program. It's a unique kind of funding in educational television. With this help, now our program has a budget of $6000. It may sound like quite a difference, but $6000 pays for less than two minutes of cartoons. Two minutes of animated, what I sometimes say, bombardment. I'm very much concerned, as I know you are, about what's being delivered to our children in this country. And I've worked in the field of child development for six years now, trying to understand the inner needs of children. We deal with such things as -- as the inner drama of childhood. We don't have to bop somebody over the head to...make drama on the screen. We deal with such things as getting a haircut, or the feelings about brothers and sisters, and the kind of anger that arises in simple family situations. And we speak to it constructively.
Senator Pastore: How long of a program is it?
Mr. Rogers: It's a half hour every day. Most channels schedule it in the noontime as well as in the evening. WETA here has scheduled it in the late afternoon.
Senator Pastore: Could we get a copy of this so that we can see it? Maybe not today, but I'd like to see the program.
Mr. Rogers: I'd like very much for you to see it.
Senator Pastore: I'd like to see the program itself, or any one of them.
Mr. Rogers: We made a hundred programs for EEN, the Eastern Educational Network, and then when the money ran out, people in Boston and Pittsburgh and Chicago all came to the fore and said we've got to have more of this neighborhood expression of care. And this is what -- This is what I give. I give an expression of care every day to each child, to help him realize that he is unique. I end the program by saying, "You've made this day a special day, by just your being you. There's no person in the whole world like you, and I like you, just the way you are." And I feel that if we in public television can only make it clear that feelings are mentionable and manageable, we will have done a great service for mental health. I think that it's much more dramatic that two men could be working out their feelings of anger -- much more dramatic than showing something of gunfire. I'm constantly concerned about what our children are seeing, and for 15 years I have tried in this country and Canada, to present what I feel is a meaningful expression of care.
Senator Pastore: Do you narrate it?
Mr. Rogers: I'm the host, yes. And I do all the puppets and I write all the music, and I write all the scripts --
Senator Pastore: Well, I'm supposed to be a pretty tough guy, and this is the first time I've had goose bumps for the last two days.
Mr. Rogers: Well, I'm grateful, not only for your goose bumps, but for your interest in -- in our kind of communication. Could I tell you the words of one of the songs, which I feel is very important?
Senator Pastore: Yes.
Mr. Rogers: This has to do with that good feeling of control which I feel that children need to know is there. And it starts out, "What do you do with the mad that you feel?" And that first line came straight from a child. I work with children doing puppets in -- in very personal communication with small groups:

What do you do with the mad that you feel? When you feel so mad you could bite. When the whole wide world seems oh so wrong, and nothing you do seems very right. What do you do? Do you punch a bag? Do you pound some clay or some dough? Do you round up friends for a game of tag or see how fast you go? It's great to be able to stop when you've planned the thing that's wrong. And be able to do something else instead -- and think this song --

'I can stop when I want to. Can stop when I wish. Can stop, stop, stop anytime....And what a good feeling to feel like this! And know that the feeling is really mine. Know that there's something deep inside that helps us become what we can. For a girl can be someday a lady, and a boy can be someday a man.'

Senator Pastore: I think it's wonderful. I think it's wonderful. Looks like you just earned the 20 million dollars.

Cold Calling "Recruiters"

Every so often, I get a burst of cold calling recruiters. I don't know if it is a season or what, but for whatever reason, I always get 5-6 cold callers within a 3-5 day span then radio silence for about a month. I always like to listen to them discuss the last activity on my resume. Because I switch somewhat frequently, I can tell how old the resume the resume they have. And, it is quite fascinating how old some of them are... then at the same time, how old my phone number is............ then how old I am...................... (sigh)

Although kind of annoying, I will admit that I did get a couple jobs through the cold callers and the jobs ended-up not bad. Respectfully, I usually just start the conversation by asking what their rates are. If they tell me, usually the numbers are pretty low, and I tell them the minimum amount it would take me to leave my current job which typically higher than (what I think is) the normal rates. "I think" because I am still figuring out how what that is.

My first couple contracting jobs, the recruiters were more than happy to meet my rate. Then I was suckered into that I already signed up for those rates when I bring up the topic after the interviews. I still worked hard and got some experience eventually leaving for something better. Odd that the same recruiter cannot find a new job for candidates they already have.

Most of the time the recruiter does not give the rate first by asking what I am looking for. So I give a much higher rate than if they gave me their client's range. What I found interesting is that no matter what I give, they always say they cannot meet the range, pick the lower ranged number, and subtract $5 / hr. So if I say that I am look for $50 - 55, they will respond, "I don't think our client can pay that but I can probably get them to do $45." I can double this amount, and they'll say $95. (The values are made up although it would be nice to make $100 / hr.)

Of course, I get fewer call backs when I give higher numbers but it is surprising (at least to me) how they won't reject any value that I provide. Although it sounds like a game, I actually give them real numbers that I can live with because if they ever do say that they can work with it, I do not want to be stuck with something I didn't mean for... even if the number is much higher than the market. Why would I leave a job that I already have good standing at to an unknown place for the similar amount?

Worst is when they ask what I do make... sometimes I give it and sometimes I do not. Why does it matter what I make? If I am going to do more, I should be paid more. If I got a job as a cashier, I am sure they will not be matching my current rate.

One of the many double standards on why everyone just hates the HR industry. Don't hate the recruiters, hate the game =P

Interview: Dear Interviewer, Would you Answer Your Own Questions Honestly?

Dear Interviewer, Would you Answer Your Own Questions Honestly?

If you are new to interviewing, these are good starting points (or see link below).

What I have thought interesting since I started interviewing is how "textbook" some of the answers are to the interview questions. All questions are structured to get some sort of information about the interviewee, but do interviewers ever think about what the interviewee thinks about the company on certain questions?

One of the questions, "Tell me about the worst boss you ever had," the interviewer is "trying" to see if you are going to talk smack about your older bosses. Almost everyone will recommend that you try to redirect the question to something positive, but why not say bad things about a bad boss (unless you've only had 1-2 bosses then I would also recommend you avoid answering this directly)?

Is the new boss expecting to be bad? If he is not bad, then why would he worry about what I say about bad bosses? Who has not had a bad boss? I mean this is like asking, "have you ever lied?" We all know the real answer, and we know that is not the answer the questioner wants to hear. Basically, you want us to lie. Is that how you want to start someone's career at your company?

If going the route of "yes, I do lie," I would also suggest that you add what you did about it. Like when my boss hired someone that was weak, I wrote a report trying to avoid any personal bias. I told her that this is my opinion and that I respect her choice because there are usually other factors that they have to consider that I am not privy to. Another example was a poor process. I recommended a better process with analytic on how it is a better business strategy. I want to show that I will go to my boss with my experience and my knowledge. I do not jump levels and report to his boss about my thoughts on him. If you cannot back up your actions, then maybe you should stick with the suggest response from CareerBuilder.

What if your boss was doing something illegal? I have not actually thought about this... and I am not sure exactly what I should do on that matter. I'd probably read the employee handbook and probably should be handled by HR. Anyways, this is probably a bit too personal to answer publicly because if you happen to be my boss... it is probably better that you don't know what I would choose. To all the not-worst bosses, what would you suggest?

Another question is "Where do you see yourself in five years?" Does anyone really know where they see themselves in five years that are relevant to work? Does the interviewer even know where they see themselves in five years with their current work? How can they expect that from someone who doesn't even know who is going to hire them?

I seem to dislike questions that really only have one correct answer. These types of questions only seem to serve one purpose and it is not to understand the interviewee. If you or your HR is not going to put effort into finding the right candidates, I have lower views of your company. Does that mean I will not choose you? Unfortunately for me, I probably would consider the option since most companies ask the same types of questions.

But like interviewers who are looking for that one ideal candidate, I am seeking for that one ideal employer and I hope to do so by being more straightforward about my profession abilities. If there was one recommendations for employers about their interview questions, that would be that you would be able to answer the same questions you ask: "tell me who was your worst manager that you've had," "where do you see me in five years?" If you do not like answering those questions, then do not ask those questions. Like interviewees, avoid lying because you will not get what you really want. It is a lose-lose for both parties.

On a different matter, these staple responses from recruiters and head-hunters are things that have always made me uncomfortable with them. Shouldn't they be people who should be making the hiring process easier by being more honest about the truths? Why has the whole interview process been mutated into something that favors people who know how to interview and not their real talent? Does a company really care if someone knew how to answer a certain question that is really irrelevant to them? Who cares if the person cannot see where they are in 5 years? Who cares if they had a bad boss or had all bad bosses? They only care that the employee adds value to the company.

I am not saying that the knowledge is important. It is important to know if we have ambition or have social issues. But you are expecting someone to know those with just one or two questions?

Sometimes I wonder about the use of recruiters. Their business model revolves around getting people hired. People don't get hired if the company already has perfect people. They love churn because that gets them the bonuses that they work out in the contracts.

I think there is a lot of room for improvements for HR, recruiters, and head-hunters to really make more long term solutions to the interviewing process. I think recruiters have the most to gain especially with the current technology in social networking. They can now keep in touch with people for several years without being very intrusive.

Why recruiters? Because companies do really not care much about employees or potential employees' life outside of their company. They want to focus on their product. Also on the political level, there are some managers that hire people they know over people people who are capable. It only takes one poor manager to make systems extremely inefficient.

And, people want to focus on their skills so that they can add value where they are talented at. Why should the person know who they work best with, especially when the employer does not even give them a say in the matter? People struggle to get themselves hired and you want them to know someone else?

This leaves the recruiters to find the best matches because that's their role in the process. They care that you did good work for Company A, showed loyalty in Company B, and demonstrated hard work at Company C. They should care that you had that one bad boss but you overcame it. They should have a better idea what your 5 year goal is better than the interviewee (isn't it kind of messed up that they call the company the client and not the other way or even both?) With their experience, they should know where you can be in 5 years and they should know what the company would expect in 5 years. They should know historically who you have worked best with. Not only that, that knowledge should be exactly the same except that you explain it in the perspective for that person. Too bad they only care about the person being at the right place and at the right time... if not, they move onto someone else.

Anyways, there's probably an infinite and one reasons to why the system is not that way. Unfortunately, I cannot help but think on these processes on a part-time basis as I would really wish to focus on processes on building new engineering technologies. I have been distracted by other industries because getting good coworkers is the biggest problem in process improvements. So here's my weakness... I am easily distracted by things that I consider the biggest problems on things that are preventing me from working on new engineering technologies.

Reference:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/worklife/03/04/cb.answering.tough.interview.questions/