Le 05/08/2012 06:08, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
>  I clearly had the skills, but not the 
> "passion for their company or product" 

You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
to have ask a salary.

A glass of water and the opportunity of working for them should have
been enough to sustain you for the ten first years!

Post a reply to this message

Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
> to have ask a salary.

Technically speaking it's illegal here (and I'm sure in most civilized
countries) to ask an employee to work extra hours without pay, and it's
also quite illegal to fire them just because they refuse. Yet it happens
all the time here.

Finnish law protects employees from being fired at a whim, without a good
reason (monetary problems or employee misconduct are good reasons; the
refusal of an employee to work extra hours for free certainly isn't). Even
when the employer does have a good reason to fire the employee, the
employer must give a three-month notice (except in special circumstances).

Employers get around this tiny problem with a trick: Rather than employ
people indefinitely, they employ them a few months at a time, always
renovating the employment contract at the end of the previous one. This
way they can "soft-fire" someone by simply not renovating the contract.
This is *technically* legal (because they are not firing anybody), yet
achieves practically the same effect as firing someone at a whim.

Of course now the employers have leverage over the employees: If they refuse
to make extra hours without pay, then the employer might have no option but
to let him go... You know, difficult times, economic recession and all
that... (Never mind that they immediately hire someone else to fill the
vacancy. Someone who *is* willing to donate the extra hours.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 05/08/2012 10:57, Warp nous fit lire :
> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
>> to have ask a salary.
> 
> Technically speaking it's illegal here (and I'm sure in most civilized
> countries) to ask an employee to work extra hours without pay, and it's
> also quite illegal to fire them just because they refuse. Yet it happens
> all the time here.
> 
> Finnish law protects employees from being fired at a whim, without a good
> reason (monetary problems or employee misconduct are good reasons; the
> refusal of an employee to work extra hours for free certainly isn't). Even
> when the employer does have a good reason to fire the employee, the
> employer must give a three-month notice (except in special circumstances).
> 

Nearly the same thing here (France).
Additional bonus: previous ruling from tribunal states that refusing
extra hours is ok if previously extra hours wasn't paid. So, at most,
you get a month of unpaid extra, then stick to the clock, if you have
the nuts to fight.

> Employers get around this tiny problem with a trick: Rather than employ
> people indefinitely, they employ them a few months at a time, always
> renovating the employment contract at the end of the previous one.

A difference here, they can make it twice in a row only. And there is a
10% bonus (of the whole sum for the contract since its beginning) at the
end if they do not offer the place.

> Of course now the employers have leverage over the employees: If they refuse
> to make extra hours without pay, then the employer might have no option but
> to let him go... You know, difficult times, economic recession and all
> that... (Never mind that they immediately hire someone else to fill the
> vacancy. Someone who *is* willing to donate the extra hours.)

Yep, the old trick of "someone will do it if you do not". Works only for
low-formation time job. If getting productive take 4 months (to know the
job and setting), they cannot play that trick. (they might enforce a
strong documentation, but strong documentation costs a lot)

Post a reply to this message

On 05/08/2012 09:57 AM, Warp wrote:
> Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] freefr>  wrote:
>> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
>> to have ask a salary.
>
> Technically speaking it's illegal here (and I'm sure in most civilized
> countries) to ask an employee to work extra hours without pay, and it's
> also quite illegal to fire them just because they refuse. Yet it happens
> all the time here.

My sister is an accountant. She's /paid/ to work from 9 to 5. And yet, 
it's not uncommon to hear that she's stayed in the office until 11pm, 
and then taken a laptop home and worked until 3am. (And then gone back 
to the office at 8am on 4 hours' sleep.)

Sure, /technically/ they're not allowed to make people do that. But when 
the entire office is "expected" to put in the hours, and everybody else 
/does/, what are you going to do? Guess who gets the big promotions, the 
bonuses, etc. Yeah, that's right - the people who work for free...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>
> Finnish law protects employees from being fired at a whim, without a good
> reason (monetary problems or employee misconduct are good reasons; the
> refusal of an employee to work extra hours for free certainly isn't). Even

Actually refusing to work extra hours even when paid isn't a good reason 
for firing. The law makes no exceptance on the wording that extra hours 
must always be separately accepted by the employee.

> Employers get around this tiny problem with a trick: Rather than employ
> people indefinitely, they employ them a few months at a time, always
> renovating the employment contract at the end of the previous one. This
> way they can "soft-fire" someone by simply not renovating the contract.
> This is *technically* legal (because they are not firing anybody), yet
> achieves practically the same effect as firing someone at a whim.

After 3 short-time contracts it's actually illegal to just let people 
off and hire someone else instead (except, of course, the employee 
himself is willing to go).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 04/08/2012 10:37 PM, andrel wrote:
>> - do not have a problem posting about internal issues in your company
>
> I do not believe that this is a plus point for employers. ;-)
>

Might be, if there are potential customers here. After all, if we 
*don't* hear Andrew ranting, the firm must be a good place. ;-)

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 05/08/2012 11:43 AM, Eero Ahonen wrote:

>>
>
> Might be, if there are potential customers here. After all, if we
> *don't* hear Andrew ranting, the firm must be a good place. ;-)
>

I take it, that you are “a glass half full” type of person? :-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> This.  Looking back on it, most of the positions I've held, including those
>>> while I was active duty in the military, I got through word-of-mouth referral,
>>> despite the fact that I suck at networking.
>>
>> ...right... so given that I don't know anybody, I should just give up
>> now? Is that what you're saying?
>
> Absolutely not.  I have no intention of giving job-hunting advice here.  I suck
> at finding a job even more than I suck at networking.  That's why I have an
> interest in your saga.

My reply came off as perhaps more aggressive than I intended. What I 
/meant/ to say was something along the lines of:

1. If I accept that only people who are connected can get jobs, then I 
must accept that I will never get a job.

2. If I accept that, then basically any job hunting effort is a waste of 
time and I should just give up now.

3. Since I have no intention of giving up, I must therefore assume that 
#1 is actually incorrect.

> I failed to find a job for a year after receiving my undergraduate degree in
> civil engineering, that's why I'm back in school.  It didn't help that the
> economy melted down shortly before I graduated, or that my best contacts in the
> civil engineering department left or retired, some in disgrace.

Yeah, right now isn't a great time to be trying to get a job. (Not that 
it's ever /easy/, as far as I'm aware...)

> Despite sucking at networking, that's how I landed my current position.  Strange
> things happen.

I got my current job because daddy put in a good word with the bosses, 
and they were absolutely desperate. If it weren't for that, I'd 
presumably have been unemployed for the last ten years...

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
>
> I take it, that you are “a glass half full” type of person? :-)
>

Depends on many, many things. But for now, I do feel that is the case. :-)

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> My reply came off as perhaps more aggressive than I intended.[/]

As did mine, on rereading it now.

> [/] What I
> /meant/ to say was something along the lines of:
>
> 1. If I accept that only people who are connected can get jobs, then I
> must accept that I will never get a job.
>
> 2. If I accept that, then basically any job hunting effort is a waste of
> time and I should just give up now.
>
> 3. Since I have no intention of giving up, I must therefore assume that
> #1 is actually incorrect.

And, thank you for this nice little proof by contradiction with my morning
coffee.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/08/2012 3:07 PM, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>>
>> I take it, that you are “a glass half full” type of person? :-)
>>
>
> Depends on many, many things. But for now, I do feel that is the case. :-)
>

Good! I'm a "it's time to fill up my glass again" type of person, myself.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 00:54:50 -0400, waggy wrote:

> Jim Henderson  wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 18:57:27 -0400, waggy wrote:
>> > Doesn't that depend on how much they're paying and how desperate you
>> > are?
>>
>> Personally, I don't think so.  But I've never been so desperate as to
>> have to compromise my principles for pay.
>>
> I hope you never are.
> 
> Although being just shy of living on the streets did help me figure out
> exactly what my principles are, before selling a few.

I can say that I've come close - I nearly had my house foreclosed on many 
years ago when I was forced to resign from a particularly ugly job.

>> > Consider the financial services industry.  They appear to value,
>> > very,
>> > very highly, those who can think up new and creative ways to defraud
>> > people.
>>
>> I don't think I could work in that industry at all because of that - I
>> wouldn't even consider looking at it as a career option because it's an
>> industry that's all about greed, and I don't see greed as a virtue.
>>
> Stay away from the US health care industry, too.  "Pay us money or you
> and your loved ones will suffer and die needlessly," is pretty much the
> definition of extortion.

Indeed it is.  The job I mention above?  A benefits administration 
company.  Right on the edge of the health care industry.

Fortunately, in the actual care facilities, there are many compassionate 
people who do what they can even for those who cannot pay for it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 07:14:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 05/08/2012 5:05 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Doesn't that depend on how much they're paying and how desperate you
>>> >are?
>> Personally, I don't think so.  But I've never been so desperate as to
>> have to compromise my principles for pay.
>>
>>
> Lucky you.

Indeed, I recognise that I'm pretty lucky in that respect.

I had a chat with a software developer in Bangalore several years ago - 
he hadn't compromised on principles, but he really didn't like developing 
software.  But it was a way for him to afford to feed and clothe his 
family.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:10:03 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Le 05/08/2012 06:08, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
>>  I clearly had the skills, but not the
>> "passion for their company or product"
> 
> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
> to have ask a salary.

The first project to be worked on was on a relatively short timeframe for 
the work to be done, so it would have certainly required > 40 hour weeks 
to meet the objective.

> A glass of water and the opportunity of working for them should have
> been enough to sustain you for the ten first years!

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 04:57:21 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
>> to have ask a salary.
> 
> Technically speaking it's illegal here (and I'm sure in most civilized
> countries) to ask an employee to work extra hours without pay, and it's
> also quite illegal to fire them just because they refuse. Yet it happens
> all the time here.

Not in the US.  Salaried employees are paid for the job, regardless of 
the hours it takes to get it done.  Some employers take advantage of 
this, and the so-called "at will" employment laws in many US states mean 
that the employer can fire an employee at any time for cause - or even no 
reason at all.

The laws are very heavily in favor of the employers, with a few notable 
exceptions (it's damned near impossible to get a tenured teacher fired 
for incompetence, for example).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:57:24 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> I got my current job because daddy put in a good word with the bosses,
> and they were absolutely desperate. If it weren't for that, I'd
> presumably have been unemployed for the last ten years...

No, chances are you would have found something.  You've got skills, and 
eventually someone would have taken a chance on them.

There's no way to know for certain what would've happened.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 5-8-2012 10:57, Warp wrote:
> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
>> to have ask a salary.
>
> Technically speaking it's illegal here (and I'm sure in most civilized
> countries) to ask an employee to work extra hours without pay, and it's
> also quite illegal to fire them just because they refuse. Yet it happens
> all the time here.
>
> Finnish law protects employees from being fired at a whim, without a good
> reason (monetary problems or employee misconduct are good reasons; the
> refusal of an employee to work extra hours for free certainly isn't). Even
> when the employer does have a good reason to fire the employee, the
> employer must give a three-month notice (except in special circumstances).
>
> Employers get around this tiny problem with a trick: Rather than employ
> people indefinitely, they employ them a few months at a time, always
> renovating the employment contract at the end of the previous one. This
> way they can "soft-fire" someone by simply not renovating the contract.
> This is *technically* legal (because they are not firing anybody), yet
> achieves practically the same effect as firing someone at a whim.

Here you can not do that. Your third consecutive contract can not be a 
temporary contract, nor can you have someone on temporary contracts for 
3 years in a row (or 5, details change sometimes and I am not following 
this closely, though I should). Moreover you can not hire somebody via 
an agency and then the same person consecutively via another to 
circumvent these rules. It is the hiring party that counts, not the agency.
However, these rules can not explain why I am working for more than 23 
years now in the same hospital, doing the same work, on a string of 
temporary contracts.


-- 
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low

Post a reply to this message

On 05/08/2012 6:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 07:14:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Lucky you.
>
> Indeed, I recognise that I'm pretty lucky in that respect.
>

Well I've worked for multi-national oil companies. So you could say what 
principles?

What a change from when I was in my twenties. A dope smoking, hair down 
to my arse, hippy type.

> I had a chat with a software developer in Bangalore several years ago -
> he hadn't compromised on principles, but he really didn't like developing
> software.  But it was a way for him to afford to feed and clothe his
> family.
>

Most people I meet don't like working. They do it like your friend, to 
put bread on the table.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 05/08/2012 6:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 04:57:21 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>>> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky a*****e
>>> to have ask a salary.
>>
>> Technically speaking it's illegal here (and I'm sure in most civilized
>> countries) to ask an employee to work extra hours without pay, and it's
>> also quite illegal to fire them just because they refuse. Yet it happens
>> all the time here.
>
> Not in the US.  Salaried employees...

Now there's the rub.

Hourly paid workers work their hours. Salaried staff work untill the job 
is done.
I have worked several ghosters (two shifts of 12 hours). Twice when the 
clocks went back, making a twenty five hour day. The first time I was a 
contractor and got paid for it. The second time, by the grace of my 
supervisor got eight hours off. That still did not stop them from making 
me redundant when it suited them. LOL



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 05/08/2012 06:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:57:24 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> I got my current job because daddy put in a good word with the bosses,
>> and they were absolutely desperate. If it weren't for that, I'd
>> presumably have been unemployed for the last ten years...
>
> No, chances are you would have found something.  You've got skills, and
> eventually someone would have taken a chance on them.

Having skills is a vastly different thing than /proving/ you have 
skills. Therein lies the problem.

> There's no way to know for certain what would've happened.

Well, yes, that's ultimately true of everything in life.

Post a reply to this message

On 05/08/2012 06:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> The laws are very heavily in favor of the employers

I've noticed that.

My employer decided to shut two sites. The American one? 3pm local time, 
they say to everybody "pack up your stuff". And that's IT. The place is 
shut. They'll pay some contractor to come round and flog off any company 
assets which still have value, but as far as the staff are concerned, 
they turn up to work on Tuesday, and then suddenly they were unemployed.

In the UK, you can't do that. We have these pesky employee protection 
laws. Which means you can't just /shut/ the site, you have to pretend to 
think about it for 30 days. And /then/ you can just shut it.

(Unfortunately, the law doesn't force the employer to /really/ think 
about it. They only have to /pretend/ to reconsider...)

Post a reply to this message

On 8/5/2012 1:57, Warp wrote:
> This is *technically* legal

The best kind of legal!


Seriously, I really have to wonder what legislators think they're 
accomplishing by making laws that say "you're not allowed to do X, unless 
the employee signs a contract waiving that right."

We had a law go into effect that said, basically, that even if when you left 
the company you signed a form saying you wouldn't sue the company, you could 
still sue the company over something they did illegally while firing you if 
you didn't know they'd done it. (E.g., they fire you for being the wrong 
skin color, which is illegal. To get your bonus, you agree not to sue. Then 
one of your coworkers finds the memo telling your boss to fire you because 
of your skin color. Now you can sue.)

Of course, instantly, all companies added clauses that said you waive your 
right to sue over things you didn't know about when you got fired.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:41:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 05/08/2012 6:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 07:14:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Lucky you.
>>
>> Indeed, I recognise that I'm pretty lucky in that respect.
>>
>>
> Well I've worked for multi-national oil companies. So you could say what
> principles?
> 
> What a change from when I was in my twenties. A dope smoking, hair down
> to my arse, hippy type.

I think people's principles evolve and change over time.

>> I had a chat with a software developer in Bangalore several years ago -
>> he hadn't compromised on principles, but he really didn't like
>> developing software.  But it was a way for him to afford to feed and
>> clothe his family.
>>
>>
> Most people I meet don't like working. They do it like your friend, to
> put bread on the table.

I think overall it's about 50/50 for me - in terms of the people I meet.

It's a very fortunate thing indeed to take something you love doing and 
to be able to make a career out of it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:47:12 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 05/08/2012 6:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 04:57:21 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>>>> You were expected to work double time for free. You are a picky
>>>> a*****e to have ask a salary.
>>>
>>> Technically speaking it's illegal here (and I'm sure in most civilized
>>> countries) to ask an employee to work extra hours without pay, and
>>> it's also quite illegal to fire them just because they refuse. Yet it
>>> happens all the time here.
>>
>> Not in the US.  Salaried employees...
> 
> Now there's the rub.
> 
> Hourly paid workers work their hours. Salaried staff work untill the job
> is done.

Yep.  I worked one job where management "threatened" to move IT staff to 
salaried from hourly.  That was the job I was forced to resign from that 
I've mentioned.

> I have worked several ghosters (two shifts of 12 hours). Twice when the
> clocks went back, making a twenty five hour day. The first time I was a
> contractor and got paid for it. The second time, by the grace of my
> supervisor got eight hours off. That still did not stop them from making
> me redundant when it suited them. LOL

Hate when that happens.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 22:11:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 05/08/2012 06:47 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> The laws are very heavily in favor of the employers
> 
> I've noticed that.
> 
> My employer decided to shut two sites. The American one? 3pm local time,
> they say to everybody "pack up your stuff". And that's IT. The place is
> shut. They'll pay some contractor to come round and flog off any company
> assets which still have value, but as far as the staff are concerned,
> they turn up to work on Tuesday, and then suddenly they were unemployed.
> 
> In the UK, you can't do that. We have these pesky employee protection
> laws. Which means you can't just /shut/ the site, you have to pretend to
> think about it for 30 days. And /then/ you can just shut it.
> 
> (Unfortunately, the law doesn't force the employer to /really/ think
> about it. They only have to /pretend/ to reconsider...)

Yep.  When I was laid off from Novell, the layoff affected people around 
the world.  In the UK, employees had less idea what was going on, but 
were given months' advance notice in the end.  Similar situation in 
Germany IIRC.

I offered to take through the end of the week to hand stuff off, and they 
took me up on it.  I know others in the US offices who made the same 
offer and the offer was declined.

And in the US, remember that that not only affects your employment, but 
your health insurance, since it's usually tied to your employer's group 
plan.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 22:05:36 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 05/08/2012 06:49 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:57:24 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> I got my current job because daddy put in a good word with the bosses,
>>> and they were absolutely desperate. If it weren't for that, I'd
>>> presumably have been unemployed for the last ten years...
>>
>> No, chances are you would have found something.  You've got skills, and
>> eventually someone would have taken a chance on them.
> 
> Having skills is a vastly different thing than /proving/ you have
> skills. Therein lies the problem.

Not for the right employer.

What's been working for me is to do contract work with companies I'd like 
to work with.  That lets them see you work and see what you can do.  I've 
impressed every company I've worked with AFAIK, and three of them have 
talked about wanting to hire me - but with the economy the way it is, 
everyone is hesitant to hire over here.

>> There's no way to know for certain what would've happened.
> 
> Well, yes, that's ultimately true of everything in life.

Yep.

I'm glad to see that you're taking a "can do" attitude, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> This is *technically* legal
>
> The best kind of legal!
>
>
> Seriously, I really have to wonder what legislators think they're
> accomplishing by making laws that say "you're not allowed to do X,
> unless the employee signs a contract waiving that right."
>
> We had a law go into effect that said, basically, that even if when you
> left the company you signed a form saying you wouldn't sue the company,
> you could still sue the company over something they did illegally while
> firing you if you didn't know they'd done it. (E.g., they fire you for
> being the wrong skin color, which is illegal. To get your bonus, you
> agree not to sue. Then one of your coworkers finds the memo telling your
> boss to fire you because of your skin color. Now you can sue.)
>
> Of course, instantly, all companies added clauses that said you waive
> your right to sue over things you didn't know about when you got fired.

See, in my country, you can't write a contract that says something illegal.

Or rather, you can /write/ such a contract, and get people to sign it. 
But it still isn't legal.

(E.g., your employer can make you sign a contract saying "if I steal 
from my employer, they have the legal right to murder me in my sleep". 
But if the company /does/ murder you in your sleep, it's still illegal. 
It doesn't matter one jot what the contract says.)

Post a reply to this message

>> Having skills is a vastly different thing than /proving/ you have
>> skills. Therein lies the problem.
>
> Not for the right employer.

Yeah, well, there aren't too many of those around.

You would /think/ that the abundant evidence that I'm an intelligent 
person with a large capacity to learn and the necessary drive to do so 
would be worth more than a thousand paper qualifications. You would 
think this would be the most valuable thing /ever/.

And yet, the vast majority of companies will simply say "do you have 3 
years of commercial experience with product X?" If the answer is yes, 
then they will speak to you. If the answer is no, suddenly you stop 
existing. Don't give a damn about any other qualities you may have. If 
you don't already know X, you're no good to us.

Because, let's face it, a guy with a weak knowledge of X is far more 
desirable than a day with the capacity to learn everything there is to 
know about X, Y, Z, Q, W, V and R and then some. Right?

> What's been working for me is to do contract work with companies I'd like
> to work with.  That lets them see you work and see what you can do.  I've
> impressed every company I've worked with AFAIK, and three of them have
> talked about wanting to hire me - but with the economy the way it is,
> everyone is hesitant to hire over here.

I don't see how that makes it any easier to find companies, make them 
actually speak to you, and ultimately hire your services. It also 
appears to provide no financial security whatsoever. Instead of spending 
two years unemployed and then getting a job and being able to stop 
looking, you end up having to /permanently/ search for jobs...

Post a reply to this message

On 8/6/2012 1:14, Invisible wrote:
> See, in my country, you can't write a contract that says something illegal.

Mine either. But the legislators write into the law "unless the employee 
agrees otherwise."

Just like this thing with Sony and MS and Steam and all them suddenly 
writing into their TOSes that you can't bring class action suits against them.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 09:27:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Having skills is a vastly different thing than /proving/ you have
>>> skills. Therein lies the problem.
>>
>> Not for the right employer.
> 
> Yeah, well, there aren't too many of those around.

That's your experience, maybe.  Others have a different experience.
 
> You would /think/ that the abundant evidence that I'm an intelligent
> person with a large capacity to learn and the necessary drive to do so
> would be worth more than a thousand paper qualifications. You would
> think this would be the most valuable thing /ever/.

I've fought this one for a long time.  I refused to get certifications 
and relied instead on having proven experience.  That did disqualify me 
from some jobs (Iomega once upon a time) - but I used it as an employer 
litmus test; if they were more interested in the piece of paper than in 
my actual abilities, I wouldn't want to work for them anyways, because if 
there was ever a question about who was right on something, it'd be the 
one who earned the certification rather than the one who had the 
experience.

> And yet, the vast majority of companies will simply say "do you have 3
> years of commercial experience with product X?" If the answer is yes,
> then they will speak to you. If the answer is no, suddenly you stop
> existing. Don't give a damn about any other qualities you may have. If
> you don't already know X, you're no good to us.

If they're trying to fill a very specific need, then that becomes a 
rather important qualification.

> Because, let's face it, a guy with a weak knowledge of X is far more
> desirable than a day with the capacity to learn everything there is to
> know about X, Y, Z, Q, W, V and R and then some. Right?

In some cases, yes, actually.

>> What's been working for me is to do contract work with companies I'd
>> like to work with.  That lets them see you work and see what you can
>> do.  I've impressed every company I've worked with AFAIK, and three of
>> them have talked about wanting to hire me - but with the economy the
>> way it is, everyone is hesitant to hire over here.
> 
> I don't see how that makes it any easier to find companies, make them
> actually speak to you, and ultimately hire your services. 

I've got now almost a year of experience at doing this.  It helped that 
my CV ended up in the hands of someone with a client list already, and 
she's done the work of building the relationships with those companies.  
She knows I'm looking, and has put me with these clients of hers 
specifically so they can see what I'm capable of.

> It also
> appears to provide no financial security whatsoever. Instead of spending
> two years unemployed and then getting a job and being able to stop
> looking, you end up having to /permanently/ search for jobs...

That's why I have someone else to do that for me. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/08/2012 9:27 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Having skills is a vastly different thing than /proving/ you have
>>> skills. Therein lies the problem.
>>
>> Not for the right employer.
>
> Yeah, well, there aren't too many of those around.
>
> You would /think/ that the abundant evidence that I'm an intelligent
> person with a large capacity to learn and the necessary drive to do so
> would be worth more than a thousand paper qualifications. You would
> think this would be the most valuable thing /ever/.
>

It is but in this inclement climate short sightedness is the order of 
the day. :-(

> And yet, the vast majority of companies will simply say "do you have 3
> years of commercial experience with product X?" If the answer is yes,
> then they will speak to you. If the answer is no, suddenly you stop
> existing. Don't give a damn about any other qualities you may have. If
> you don't already know X, you're no good to us.
>
Again you are mostly right. It all goes back to when companies stopped 
taking on apprentices.
Those two sentences do not make good reading but as I know from personal 
experience. You can't ever give up and must try to addapt.
>
>> What's been working for me is to do contract work with companies I'd like
>> to work with.  That lets them see you work and see what you can do.  I've
>> impressed every company I've worked with AFAIK, and three of them have
>> talked about wanting to hire me - but with the economy the way it is,
>> everyone is hesitant to hire over here.
>
> I don't see how that makes it any easier to find companies, make them
> actually speak to you, and ultimately hire your services. It also
> appears to provide no financial security whatsoever. Instead of spending
> two years unemployed and then getting a job and being able to stop
> looking, you end up having to /permanently/ search for jobs...

Contracting is not an easy option but you might think about it while you 
are waiting to find a permanent job. It does supply an income.
If you feel that you cannot get a job locally and you don't want to be 
on the dole. It is the another option.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> It is but in this inclement climate short sightedness is the order of
> the day. :-(

In /this/ climate? Damn, and here I was thinking this has been the story 
of my /entire career/, long before things went thermonuclear.

It seems that in general companies are only interested in what's 
happening /right now/, and anything further out than that is irrelevant.

> Contracting is not an easy option but you might think about it while you
> are waiting to find a permanent job. It does supply an income.
> If you feel that you cannot get a job locally and you don't want to be
> on the dole. It is the another option.

I very much doubt I have the vast organisational skills required to pull 
this off.

Post a reply to this message

>>> Not for the right employer.
>>
>> Yeah, well, there aren't too many of those around.
>
> That's your experience, maybe.  Others have a different experience.

There are a huge number of companies out there. Not all of them are any 
good though. ;-)

> I've fought this one for a long time.  I refused to get certifications
> and relied instead on having proven experience.  That did disqualify me
> from some jobs (Iomega once upon a time) - but I used it as an employer
> litmus test; if they were more interested in the piece of paper than in
> my actual abilities, I wouldn't want to work for them anyways, because if
> there was ever a question about who was right on something, it'd be the
> one who earned the certification rather than the one who had the
> experience.

Amen.

>> Don't give a damn about any other qualities you may have. If
>> you don't already know X, you're no good to us.
>
> If they're trying to fill a very specific need, then that becomes a
> rather important qualification.
>
>> Because, let's face it, a guy with a weak knowledge of X is far more
>> desirable than a day with the capacity to learn everything there is to
>> know about X, Y, Z, Q, W, V and R and then some. Right?
>
> In some cases, yes, actually.

I could understand "in some cases".

What I'm rather bemused about is the "in ALL cases" part. I have yet to 
meet a single employer who was the /slightest/ bit interested in what I 
might be capable of learning.

> That's why I have someone else to do that for me. :)

Nice...

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 20:41:18 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> It is but in this inclement climate short sightedness is the order of
>> the day. :-(
> 
> In /this/ climate? Damn, and here I was thinking this has been the story
> of my /entire career/, long before things went thermonuclear.
> 
> It seems that in general companies are only interested in what's
> happening /right now/, and anything further out than that is irrelevant.

Public companies are run on a quarter-by-quarter basis (at least in the 
US, but probably elsewhere as well).  Everything is driven by immediate 
needs and quarterly earnings results.

That's one of the major problems IMHO with publicly traded corporations.  
Private corporations can focus on a longer game.

>> Contracting is not an easy option but you might think about it while
>> you are waiting to find a permanent job. It does supply an income.
>> If you feel that you cannot get a job locally and you don't want to be
>> on the dole. It is the another option.
> 
> I very much doubt I have the vast organisational skills required to pull
> this off.

I don't either.  That's why I have someone who organises my contracts for 
me.

If they're over in the UK, check out AeroTek (or TekSystems).  I've 
worked with them in the past and they found me something very quickly 
that turned into a full-time position (this was almost 15 years ago).

They specialize in technical recruiting and placement.  The offered pay 
was pretty good, too - though I never actually got paid by them because I 
was offered full-time permanent work and the company bought the contract 
out.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 20:43:49 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>>> Not for the right employer.
>>>
>>> Yeah, well, there aren't too many of those around.
>>
>> That's your experience, maybe.  Others have a different experience.
> 
> There are a huge number of companies out there. Not all of them are any
> good though. ;-)

Even given your limited experience, that's an astute observation. :)

>> I've fought this one for a long time.  I refused to get certifications
>> and relied instead on having proven experience.  That did disqualify me
>> from some jobs (Iomega once upon a time) - but I used it as an employer
>> litmus test; if they were more interested in the piece of paper than in
>> my actual abilities, I wouldn't want to work for them anyways, because
>> if there was ever a question about who was right on something, it'd be
>> the one who earned the certification rather than the one who had the
>> experience.
> 
> Amen.

What it means is when you *do* find the right place, they respect you for 
the right reasons.  For me, that is worth a lot.

>>> Don't give a damn about any other qualities you may have. If you don't
>>> already know X, you're no good to us.
>>
>> If they're trying to fill a very specific need, then that becomes a
>> rather important qualification.
>>
>>> Because, let's face it, a guy with a weak knowledge of X is far more
>>> desirable than a day with the capacity to learn everything there is to
>>> know about X, Y, Z, Q, W, V and R and then some. Right?
>>
>> In some cases, yes, actually.
> 
> I could understand "in some cases".
> 
> What I'm rather bemused about is the "in ALL cases" part. I have yet to
> meet a single employer who was the /slightest/ bit interested in what I
> might be capable of learning.

As you observed, there are a lot of companies out there.  So it's not 
"all cases", it's just "all cases within [your] experience".

>> That's why I have someone else to do that for me. :)
> 
> Nice...

You could probably do so as well.  You write well enough (that's what I 
end up doing) - but the person I'm working with deals primarily with US-
based companies.  I could ask her if she knows anyone who does what she 
does in the UK, though, if you like.  She may.

One thing that is *really* helpful in this particular line of work is an 
ability to learn new technologies quickly.  That becomes a HUGE asset.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> It seems that in general companies are only interested in what's
>> happening /right now/, and anything further out than that is irrelevant.
>
> Public companies are run on a quarter-by-quarter basis (at least in the
> US, but probably elsewhere as well).  Everything is driven by immediate
> needs and quarterly earnings results.
>
> That's one of the major problems IMHO with publicly traded corporations.
> Private corporations can focus on a longer game.

Isn't this exactly the same problem as democratic government? The people 
in power want to stay in power, and the electorate only seem to be 
interested in what's happening today, so...

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-08-04 16:35, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 04/08/2012 09:09 PM, waggy wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> You know someone, and they recommend a position for you. If you were
>>> willing
>>> to move to where someone on p.o-t lives, there would probably be people
>>> offering you jobs based on what they know of you here.
>>>
>> This.  Looking back on it, most of the positions I've held, including
>> those
>> while I was active duty in the military, I got through word-of-mouth
>> referral,
>> despite the fact that I suck at networking.
>
> ...right... so given that I don't know anybody, I should just give up
> now? Is that what you're saying?

Aren't you in a dance club or class or something?  Do any of these 
people work in some sort of office, or company?  ASK them if they know 
of any openings at their workplace.

On a semi-related note, when we were grown up enough that my mom decided 
to re-enter the job market, someone told her to take a piece of paper 
and fill it with the word "NO", but and the very end write "YES".  For 
every job you don't get, you scratch one of the NOs.  Don't despair 
until you get to the YES.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>> ...right... so given that I don't know anybody, I should just give up
>> now? Is that what you're saying?
>
> Aren't you in a dance club or class or something? Do any of these people
> work in some sort of office, or company? ASK them if they know of any
> openings at their workplace.

I'll give it a go. I doubt I'll get many offers though...

> Don't despair until you get to the YES.

Right. Because /now/ you're in your own personal Dilbert strip. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 08:54:51 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> It seems that in general companies are only interested in what's
>>> happening /right now/, and anything further out than that is
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Public companies are run on a quarter-by-quarter basis (at least in the
>> US, but probably elsewhere as well).  Everything is driven by immediate
>> needs and quarterly earnings results.
>>
>> That's one of the major problems IMHO with publicly traded
>> corporations.
>> Private corporations can focus on a longer game.
> 
> Isn't this exactly the same problem as democratic government? The people
> in power want to stay in power, and the electorate only seem to be
> interested in what's happening today, so...

Not really - though part of the problem is that problems aren't solved 
quickly, possibly as a means of extending the need to stay in office.

But the electorate - at re-election time - if they don't like what's 
happening, in theory can vote out the bums in office and put new bums in 
office.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:44:14 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> ...right... so given that I don't know anybody, I should just give up
>>> now? Is that what you're saying?
>>
>> Aren't you in a dance club or class or something? Do any of these
>> people work in some sort of office, or company? ASK them if they know
>> of any openings at their workplace.
> 
> I'll give it a go. I doubt I'll get many offers though...

They may not be the hiring manager; that doesn't mean that they can't 
refer you.  We've talekd about this before.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/08/2012 7:35 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I have worked several ghosters (two shifts of 12 hours)...

> Hate when that happens.

Nah! I have dined out on that tale for years.
And it was an experience. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 06/08/2012 7:33 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>
> I think people's principles evolve and change over time.
>

That is true but when I weigh up cash in one hand and perceived 
principles on the other. I find that multi nationals are a way of life. 
And what would the world be like with out oil? No PovRay for one thing.

>> Most people I meet don't like working. They do it like your friend, to
>> put bread on the table.
>
> I think overall it's about 50/50 for me - in terms of the people I meet.
>

When I worked in factories and the like. It was more 95/5. But in my 
present job the most of the people I meet are very enthusiastic about 
their work. But then they have got on and are successful.

> It's a very fortunate thing indeed to take something you love doing and
> to be able to make a career out of it.
>
>
It is indeed.
  When I tell people that my hobby is 3D computer graphics they cannot 
understand that I can spend all day at a computer and hours at night.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:27:27 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/08/2012 7:35 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I have worked several ghosters (two shifts of 12 hours)...
> 
>> Hate when that happens.
> 
> Nah! I have dined out on that tale for years.

Well, at least something good came from it. :)

> And it was an experience. :-D

That could be said about anything that happens to you, though. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/08/2012 9:36 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:27:27 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 06/08/2012 7:35 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I have worked several ghosters (two shifts of 12 hours)...
>>
>>> Hate when that happens.
>>
>> Nah! I have dined out on that tale for years.
>
> Well, at least something good came from it. :)

Yes indeed. :-)

>
>> And it was an experience. :-D
>
> That could be said about anything that happens to you, though. ;)
>

Well it has not been a humdrum life, so far. And to think that I wanted 
to be a school teacher.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:35:51 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/08/2012 7:33 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>> I think people's principles evolve and change over time.
>>
>>
> That is true but when I weigh up cash in one hand and perceived
> principles on the other. I find that multi nationals are a way of life.
> And what would the world be like with out oil? No PovRay for one thing.

Sure, and sometimes principles can be compromised for "the right price".  
At least some people see it that way.  Not having had to confront the 
idea of working for a company that I had a moral or ethical issue with, 
I've not been tested in that way personally.

>>> Most people I meet don't like working. They do it like your friend, to
>>> put bread on the table.
>>
>> I think overall it's about 50/50 for me - in terms of the people I
>> meet.
>>
>>
> When I worked in factories and the like. It was more 95/5. But in my
> present job the most of the people I meet are very enthusiastic about
> their work. But then they have got on and are successful.

Yeah, I count that in my 50/50, but I've only worked in one manufacturing 
plant.  And to an extent, I envied my coworkers who were 'lifers' on the 
assembly lines, because they /never/ took their work home.

There's a certain appeal to that.  I've always worked jobs where I've 
taken work home - sometimes because it needed to be done on a tight 
deadline, and sometimes just because it was interesting and I wasn't 
ready to stop working on it for the day.

>> It's a very fortunate thing indeed to take something you love doing and
>> to be able to make a career out of it.
>>
>>
> It is indeed.
>   When I tell people that my hobby is 3D computer graphics they cannot
> understand that I can spend all day at a computer and hours at night.

I get the same thing as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:39:49 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> And it was an experience. :-D
>>
>> That could be said about anything that happens to you, though. ;)
>>
>>
> Well it has not been a humdrum life, so far. And to think that I wanted
> to be a school teacher.

I'll bet you'd have done well at that as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/08/2012 10:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:39:49 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> And it was an experience. :-D
>>>
>>> That could be said about anything that happens to you, though. ;)
>>>
>>>

Not all of them good, though. :-(

>> Well it has not been a humdrum life, so far. And to think that I wanted
>> to be a school teacher.
>
> I'll bet you'd have done well at that as well.
>


I doubt it. Can you imagine the reaction to a teacher with his hair down 
to his arse?
Just a minute man. I'll get to the second derivative when I finish this 
joint.
Treating children as if their opinions mattered?
Punching someone's lights out because they pulled a knife on you?
Listening to the staffroom bores?
Nah! I'm glad that I came to terms with my dyslexia and found that my 
hands were better on the tools than round the neck of an over privileged 
twerp whose daddy could afford to buy him a car when he turned 
seventeen. Or a hard nut whose only aim in life was to get a rep.
But then I was young and knew nothing.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07/08/2012 10:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>    When I tell people that my hobby is 3D computer graphics they cannot
>> >understand that I can spend all day at a computer and hours at night.

> I get the same thing as well.

I bet we all do. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:45:43 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 07/08/2012 10:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:39:49 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> And it was an experience. :-D
>>>>
>>>> That could be said about anything that happens to you, though. ;)
>>>>
> Not all of them good, though. :-(

Sadly, that's true.  Then again, having the variety gives appreciation 
for the good experiences.

>>> Well it has not been a humdrum life, so far. And to think that I
>>> wanted to be a school teacher.
>>
>> I'll bet you'd have done well at that as well.
> 
> I doubt it. Can you imagine the reaction to a teacher with his hair down
> to his arse?

University prof at MIT? ;)

> Just a minute man. I'll get to the second derivative when I finish this
> joint.

University prof at UC Berkeley, then? ;)

> Treating children as if their opinions mattered?

Oooh, that'd be a nonstarter in Texas.

> Punching someone's lights out because they pulled a knife on you?

Daily occurrence in some inner city schools, possibly.

> Listening to the staffroom bores?

I can't imagine doing that, OK, one out of 'n' (can't be bothered to 
count). ;)

> Nah! I'm glad that I came to terms with my dyslexia and found that my
> hands were better on the tools than round the neck of an over privileged
> twerp whose daddy could afford to buy him a car when he turned
> seventeen. Or a hard nut whose only aim in life was to get a rep.

You might've gotten one of those entitled twerps to realise that they 
could actually make a positive contribution to the world.  Even if it 
required punching them out. ;)

But that said, it is good to know what one is suited for.  Not everyone 
gets that opportunity.

> But then I was young and knew nothing.

As did we all.  Then we grew up, and the more mature we got, the less we 
found we knew.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/08/2012 02:44 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> OK, so nothing focuses the mind on job hunting quite like imminent
> unemployment. (!)

Perhaps I should try this?

http://www.xkcd.com/1094/

Post a reply to this message