 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] free fr> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:54:41 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 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/
I was thinking I needed to try something like that as well. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The thread is certainly old and so is the 'toon (yeah, it's
republished), but I just can't resist.
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> I'm contracting to a company now that
> has an office in Bracknell.
>
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20120928
When I read the joke earlier today, I immediadly remember Jim talking
about contracting :-).
>
> Jim
>
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:33:33 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20120928
>
> When I read the joke earlier today, I immediadly remember Jim talking
> about contracting :-).
Hehehehehe, I thought that as well when I saw that was today's episode.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2012 2:44 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> OK, so nothing focuses the mind on job hunting quite like
Before deleting an email from my unsolicited mail this link caught my
eye. It may be of some small interest to you.
http://www.vineresources.com/blog/how-write-brilliant-cover-letter?utm_source=Candidate+List+October+2012&utm_campaign=d04d6d0c6e-Q3_Vine_Resources_candidate_newsletter10_4_2012&utm_medium=email
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
