On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:55:35 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> What makes you think I'm not doing it?
>>
>> You've been out of work for how long now?
> 
> Strictly speaking, 19 days.
> 
>> How many CVs have you sent out?
> 
> I've only really started properly keeping track the last week or so. But
> a rough count shows that in the last few weeks, I've sent out roughly
> 50+ job applications.

Have you kept track of who you've sent the CVs to?  You wouldn't want to 
send one twice for the same posting....

>> How many interviews have you given?
> 
> So far I've only been invited for 2 interviews. I did get a phone call
> yesterday suggesting that I may or may not be invited for one next week.

That's good.

>>> What can you actually *do* for 8 hours straight, every single day,
>>> which will have any meaningful impact on your chances of finding work?
>>
>> When's the last time you visited the job centre in your area?
> 
> Friday. You have to in order to claim JSA. Not sure how visiting a job
> centre is supposed to improve your chances of getting work though...

It gets you out of the house.  One of the things that I've learned is 
without the delimiter of a workday, it's easy to get distracted.  I 
worked from home for the better part of 8 years, but losing that 
structure in my day made it hard for me to focus on the job search.

Getting out of the house helps set that delimiter and can help focus your 
time.

>> Have you been in touch with any of your former coworkers and asked them
>> how their searches are going?
> 
> How would that help? They all live in Coventry, and they're all looking
> for lab work, not IT.

So?  When I was laid off, I kept in touch with sales people and others 
who were laid off when I was.  It's not like the labs they're looking at 
going to work for have no IT infrastructure and no staff needs in that 
area.  It's not like they don't know people who might know something.

Keeping your name and skills in their minds means when they see something 
that might be a fit, they'll think to pass the lead along to you (and you 
should do the same for them).  But be specific, tell them what type of 
work you're looking for - don't just say "if you see something you think 
might be a fit for me, let me know".

> Basically, I don't know anybody in computing. With the exception of
> Jayne - who keeps telling me that I should come work for Network Rail.
> Which sounds like a great idea, except that they don't have any
> computer-related jobs going.

Not publicly posted.  Maybe she knows something internal or can find out 
something that hasn't been posted yet.  You don't know if you don't ask.

> See, that's the thing - knowing somebody doesn't actually get you hired.

Sorry, that's bullshit.  I wouldn't have the current contract I'm on if I 
didn't know people.  I wouldn't have gotten the job that let me move to 
Utah if I didn't know people.  I wouldn't have gotten the training job at 
Novell if I didn't know people.  Knowing people is the *most* common way 
to get your foot in the door.

A former coworker of mine applied for a job with a local company; he 
didn't know anyone there, but I did, so I introduced him.  Guess what - 
he got the job, in part due to my recommendation to two former coworkers 
who passed my recommendation along to the hiring manager.

> I suppose it might plausibly let you hear about a job you wouldn't
> otherwise hear about... but if you're doing daily Internet searches,
> you're going to find this stuff anyway. (Or it's not advertised, in
> which case you can't apply for it.) Again, it's not like insider
> knowledge actually gets you any nearer to your goal.

Again, that's total bullshit not based on how the real world works.  
*Most* of the people I know who both work in the job search business (and 
yes, that's actually a business) report time and time again that insider 
contacts are the single most important thing to have in a job search next 
to the skills necessary to do the job.

Personal recommendations from current employees go a LONG way.

>> Have you contacted any of the government auditors you worked with in
>> reviewing your former employer's compliance?  You did pretty good with
>> that, and they may remember that and know of a company that could use
>> your skills.
> 
> Lab companies are /very/ few and far between - this is exactly the
> problem my dad is currently having. He has 30+ years of experience in
> lab work, but he can't find any labs to apply to. And labs need /lots/
> of scientists. They only need /one/ IT guy.

Depends on the lab.  But this is a place where your insider contact at 
the auditing agency could well help you and your dad out.  Wouldn't it be 
nice if in addition to finding yourself a job, you were able to leverage 
your contacts in the auditing agency to find a lab for your dad to work 
for?  Pay him back for helping you get your first job (which, BTW, is 
another example of an insider helping someone get a job).

>> It's not like they'll arrest you for contacting them.  For that matter,
>> having prepared audits means you're well-positioned to conduct them as
>> well.
> 
> I didn't really "prepare" audits. I wrote documentation which we are
> legally required to have. The auditors' job is to come and look at it.
> Writing documentation which you think will fend off auditors is one
> thing. Knowing all the legal scriptures required to properly audit
> someone is another thing entirely.

You prepared documentation that successfully met the auditing 
requirements.  Whether you believe it or not, that actually does count 
for something.  Get hold of one of the auditors who went over your 
documentation and see if they know of anyone who's looking for someone 
with your skills.  The worst that happens is that they don't.  The best 
is that maybe you get a lead and a recommendation from an auditor who was 
impressed by what you did.

Which would count a lot as recommendations go.  Hiring someone who you 
know is capable of writing documentation to satisfy an audit = quite 
valuable to the right company.

> On top of that, if labs are rare, lab auditors are far, far rarer.

Which doesn't mean that they're not looking to hire one, or to hire 
someone to train on the actual regulations.

> If anything, all we can say is that I have experience of working in a
> tightly controlled environment, that I'm good at writing documentation
> which is appropriate for its intended audience, and that I can explain
> complex concepts to nontechnical people. (Believe me, most lab auditors
> know everything there is to know about freeze-thaw stability testing,
> but know bugger all about computers.)
> 
> There are all worthy skills, of course, but it's not like having worked
> in a lab specifically is going to really open doors.

It doesn't have to.  They may work with auditing other businesses as 
well, or the specific auditor may have worked with other organizations 
outside that environment.

>> ISTR you ruled out going to Oxford fairly quickly.
> 
> I tried to travel there. It was hell. Just for one day, and it was hell.
> I don't want that every day.

You had one bad experience - your first, it sounded like - and decided 
that maybe familiarity wouldn't actually help, so you gave up.

>> You ruled out London fairly quickly - both based on the assumption that
>> you'd have to go to the office every day to work.  That's not a good
>> assumption.
> 
> The Oxford company TOLD ME that I would have to come there every day.
> That's not an assumption, that's fact.

Sure, but that's not the only company in Oxford.  Don't miss the point 
that you've ruled out Oxford based on one days' experience when you had 
no prior knowledge of how to find your way around.

It's also possible that they told you that you'd have to be there every 
day, but that not being able/willing is a dealbreaker.  True, sometimes 
it is - I applied for a position with a global company based in Ft. 
Lauderdale a couple months ago, but I'm not willing to move to Florida.  
In the end, even though they did interview me and said they'd consider a 
remote office for this position, they decided they had to have someone in 
the area.

> Now, I don't mind working for a company based in London (hell, I used to
> work for one based in some place called "Indianapolis" or something).
> But I *do not* want to have to travel to London more than once a month.

So have you looked at jobs with companies based in London?

Jim

Post a reply to this message