For those of you who aren't intimately familiar with the UK legal system...

There was a time when if you didn't have gainful employment, you either 
became a thief, or you starved to death. That time was several centuries 
ago. More recently, if you were unemployed, you could claim 
"unemployment benefit" from the government, meaning that they basically 
pay you enough money to live off until you can find another job.

The trouble is, that lead to a generation of people who had no 
/intention/ of ever doing an honest day's work, and just spent their 
lives lounging around, sponging off the government. [At least, assuming 
you believe the mass media.] In other words, it has the exact same 
problem as the hundreds of other benefits schemes that preceded it: 
Trying to help the people who /actually/ need it, without benefiting the 
people who just want to cheat the system.

The stereotype goes that kinds from poor families go to school, don't 
apply themselves, dos around, don't turn up half the time, drop out of 
school with no skills or qualifications, and go on to spend a lifetime 
living off government handouts and nicking cars for amusement. Even if, 
by some miracle, someone offers them a job, they turn up for maybe a 
week or two, and then can't be bothered with it any more. Because hey, 
why /work/ for a living, when you can just sit on your arse and still 
get paid?

Then there are the people who get the chance to take on a job, but 
"legitimately" turn it down because the job actually /pays less money/ 
than being unemployed. In an ideal world, no such jobs would exist in 
the first place. Doing productive work should /always/ pay more money 
than doing nothing. But that's apparently not how the real world works. 
(Especially if you lack skills to go into highly paid jobs.)

Basically the benefits have to be high enough that honest people don't 
starve to death just because they genuinely can't find work right now, 
and yet not so high that lazy people decide to live off them their whole 
lives...

This has always been and always will be the problem that any benefits 
scheme faces. Helping the people who deserve to be helped, without 
discouraging people from helping themselves.



OK, so where am I going with this? Well, as you know, I am now 
unemployed. Right now I have a stackload of money in my bank account. 
Owing to the levels of WTFness at my ex-employer, I am essentially 
getting my usual monthly wages paid until the end of the year, even 
though I'm not doing any work. Plus I just got a large lump sum paid 
into my account. So right now, I have more money than I've had in years.

Of course, once I stop getting paid, all of that is going to change. In 
short, it's time to sign up for some benefit money from the government.

Now, the government scrapped "unemployment benefit" a long time ago. 
They no longer pay you to just "be unemployed". Because we don't want 
that. If there's some specific reason why you genuinely /cannot/ be 
employed, there's a number of benefits different benefits for that, 
depending on what the reason is. Otherwise, they pay you "jobseeker's 
allowance" (JSA).

Now JSA is basically a different name for the same thing. (This is 
government, right?) The basic idea is that they are not being you to "be 
unemployed"; they are paying you to "seek jobs".

When I did this ten years ago, the difference is that you have to check 
in twice a month and convince the [very irritable, probably poorly-paid] 
government employees that you /really are/ trying to get a job. And the 
government reserves the option to /force/ you to take a specific job. 
And if you fail to do any of these things, they stop paying you.

Well, on Friday I went to get JSA again. Unsurprisingly, in ten years, 
the process has changed somewhat. On the one hand, I am going to get a 
piffling amount of money which almost pays for my petrol costs. (It 
won't even touch the costs of the loan for my car.) On the other hand, 
it appears that I've just signed up for a full-time job: finding a job!

Essentially it seems that in order to claim JSA, you have to be working 
5 hours per day trying to get hired. So if you work it out, 5 hours per 
day, 5 days per week, for £71/week, that's... £14.20/day, and 
£2.84/hour. In the UK, the legal minimum wage is £6.08/hour. So, 
essentially, I am now in full-time employment by the UK government, for 
about half the legal minimum wage. Isn't that fantastic? :-/

Still, hopefully this state of affairs won't persist long. [At least, I 
damned well hope not!]

So what can you actually /do/ for five hours every single day which will 
actually increase your chances of getting hired? Well, there's a 
government-run jobs site, which I have to check at least twice per week. 
(I strongly suspect that a /very/ tiny fraction of the jobs they list 
are for anything highly-skilled like computing, but we'll see.) I have 
to check either the print version or the website of two specific local 
newspapers every week. I have to perform searches of [unspecified] sites 
such as Total Jobs - and I have to do that /daily/. (Because hey, it's 
not like they only get a few new jobs per month... oh, wait.) On top of 
that, I have to somehow find and register with at least three jobs 
agencies [Because those aren't a total waste of space... oh, wait.] and 
I have to hassle them at least once per week.

In short, I have to do a whole crapload of work, very little of which is 
likely to actually get me hired. On the other hand, the only "proof" I 
have to supply is that I wrote on a sheet of paper that I did this. I 
could literally just /invent/ this stuff out of thin air, and nobody 
would ever know. [OTOH, if they find out, presumably I'm going to jail 
for a decade or two, after which I will never be employed ever again.]



Having just said all that, it's now nearly 11AM on Monday morning, and I 
haven't done /any/ of my appointed activities yet. So I suppose I'd 
better go get on with it. :-S

Post a reply to this message

On 9/17/2012 2:38, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Having just said all that, it's now nearly 11AM on Monday morning, and I
> haven't done /any/ of my appointed activities yet. So I suppose I'd better
> go get on with it. :-S

I suggest checking out Craigslist daily. That's the only site where I ever 
applied to a job and got an answer, let alone an actual job.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 10:38:27 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On the other hand, it appears that I've just signed up for a full-time
> job: finding a job!

Yep, finding a job is a full-time job.  Most people don't get paid at all 
to do it, either.

You've got a severance package, don't wait for it to run out.  Start now 
and don't give up.

> essentially, I am now in full-time employment by the UK government, for
> about half the legal minimum wage. Isn't that fantastic? :-/

Nope, you're not employed by the UK government.  You're receiving a 
taxpayer-paid "benefit" to help you while you look for work.  It's not 
intended to replace a full wage.

For me here in Utah, I could get unemployment benefits, but they only 
come to $1400/month, just barely enough to cover my mortgage.  But if I 
make any money during a period, I have to deduct that from the benefit.

So for me, if I'm claiming unemployment, I'm not getting my bills paid or 
not eating.

I suggested contract work before, and I'll suggest it again.  It's a way 
to get the bills paid, and in the UK you don't have to worry so much 
about health coverage.  If I break a leg or am in an auto accident, I'm 
pretty much screwed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.09.2012 17:52, schrieb Jim Henderson:

> For me here in Utah, I could get unemployment benefits, but they only
> come to $1400/month, just barely enough to cover my mortgage.  But if I
> make any money during a period, I have to deduct that from the benefit.

Here in Germany it's somewhat similar, but you only have to deduce any 
money you make in excess of 100 EUR/month. (At least that's for people 
who have been unemployed quite a while, or only did contract work in the 
recent years; for people who have just been released from regular 
employment, I think it's a bit more.)

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-17 05:38, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> Essentially it seems that in order to claim JSA, you have to be working
> 5 hours per day trying to get hired. So if you work it out, 5 hours per
> day, 5 days per week, for £71/week, that's... £14.20/day, and
> £2.84/hour. In the UK, the legal minimum wage is £6.08/hour. So,
> essentially, I am now in full-time employment by the UK government, for
> about half the legal minimum wage. Isn't that fantastic? :-/

Just for giggles, how much would a job bagging groceries or delivering 
pizzas, or selling nails at the harwdware store pay for 5hrs/day, 
5days/week?

If it's more than what the govt is offering you, you can opt out of this 
JSA thingie and get a little more money by having a real job that should 
help you pay for food and leave more than enough time everyday to hunt 
for a more rewarding (monetarily and mentally) job.


-- 
/*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

On 17/09/2012 07:14 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-09-17 05:38, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> Essentially it seems that in order to claim JSA, you have to be working
>> 5 hours per day trying to get hired. So if you work it out, 5 hours per
>> day, 5 days per week, for £71/week, that's... £14.20/day, and
>> £2.84/hour. In the UK, the legal minimum wage is £6.08/hour. So,
>> essentially, I am now in full-time employment by the UK government, for
>> about half the legal minimum wage. Isn't that fantastic? :-/
>
> Just for giggles, how much would a job bagging groceries or delivering
> pizzas, or selling nails at the harwdware store pay for 5hrs/day,
> 5days/week?

As I say, legally nobody can pay you less than £6.08/hour.

> If it's more than what the govt is offering you, you can opt out of this
> JSA thingie and get a little more money by having a real job that should
> help you pay for food and leave more than enough time everyday to hunt
> for a more rewarding (monetarily and mentally) job.

I doubt that's going to work. You apply for some menial job like that 
with a diploma and an honours degree, it doesn't take a genius to figure 
out that you won't be staying very long... Most employers probably 
wouldn't like that.

But hey, I mean, we'll see how it goes...

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:57:27 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> I doubt that's going to work. You apply for some menial job like that
> with a diploma and an honours degree, it doesn't take a genius to figure
> out that you won't be staying very long... Most employers probably
> wouldn't like that.

Some employers are only looking for temporary help.

Worst that can happen is they say 'no'.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17/09/2012 10:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:57:27 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> I doubt that's going to work. You apply for some menial job like that
>> with a diploma and an honours degree, it doesn't take a genius to figure
>> out that you won't be staying very long... Most employers probably
>> wouldn't like that.
>
> Some employers are only looking for temporary help.
>
> Worst that can happen is they say 'no'.
>

I don’t think that taking a menial job is a good idea. For a start it 
would limit your time looking for a suitable job. It would not do your 
self esteem any good either. You are not hurting for money ATM and you 
don’t have the pressure of a mortgage or supporting a wife and kids. So 
make looking for a suitable job your job. As Jim mentioned consider 
contracting. It would bring in some money and stop your CV having a gap.
My tuppence ha’ penny’s worth.




-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Woah, I earned 110 rep on Stack Overflow yesterday. Pity I can't put 
/that/ on my CV. :-P

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-18 05:10, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> Woah, I earned 110 rep on Stack Overflow yesterday. Pity I can't put
> /that/ on my CV. :-P

[Dad mode]
That's what you call looking for work?
[/Dad mode]

-- 
/*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

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:37:48 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 17/09/2012 10:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:57:27 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt that's going to work. You apply for some menial job like that
>>> with a diploma and an honours degree, it doesn't take a genius to
>>> figure out that you won't be staying very long... Most employers
>>> probably wouldn't like that.
>>
>> Some employers are only looking for temporary help.
>>
>> Worst that can happen is they say 'no'.
>>
>>
> I don’t think that taking a menial job is a good idea. For a start it
> would limit your time looking for a suitable job. It would not do your
> self esteem any good either. You are not hurting for money ATM and you
> don’t have the pressure of a mortgage or supporting a wife and kids. So
> make looking for a suitable job your job. As Jim mentioned consider
> contracting. It would bring in some money and stop your CV having a gap.
> My tuppence ha’ penny’s worth.

Fair points.

Given the choice, a contract would be the first thing to look at.  But if 
push came to shove and the job was necessary, it can be a useful stopgap 
that many people don't consider.

Sometimes as well, that menial job can lead to something else.  When I 
was at uni, I worked summers on an assembly line.  It led to an MIS job 
that really got my career started.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 9/18/2012 8:15 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> [Dad mode]
> That's what you call looking for work?
> [/Dad mode]

What I would say is don't get complacent just because you have severance 
to cover you through the next few months. Keep looking, You'll find 
something.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:11:06 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 9/18/2012 8:15 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> [Dad mode]
>> That's what you call looking for work?
>> [/Dad mode]
> 
> What I would say is don't get complacent just because you have severance
> to cover you through the next few months. Keep looking, You'll find
> something.

Yes - this * 1000.  Consider the severance as "my old employer is paying 
me to find a new job" and treat it accordingly.  Our strategy last year 
when I was laid off was to reduce expenses and make the severance last 
until I found something.  Didn't work out that way (still looking for 
something full time and the severance ran out last October), but the time 
during the day is the time to network and talk to companies.  Don't spend 
normal working hours scouring monster.com and other job sites - that's 
something that can be done after people have gone home from the office.

Office hours are the best time to contact people who can get you in for a 
new job.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 17/09/2012 03:05 PM, Darren New wrote:
> I suggest checking out Craigslist daily. That's the only site where I
> ever applied to a job and got an answer, let alone an actual job.

I'd ask what the call Craigslist is, but you'll probably just tell me to 
Google it anyway. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 17/09/2012 04:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You've got a severance package, don't wait for it to run out.  Start now
> and don't give up.

Now? I started several weeks ago. :-P (I've already been to 2 interviews 
this summer, remember? That equals my previous record of 2 interviews 
this human lifetime...)

> If I break a leg or am in an auto accident, I'm pretty much screwed.

Uh, yeah. It must be great living in a country where if you have a 
health problem but you're not rich enough to pay a doctor, they just 
leave you to die... (What is this, the 5th century or something?!)

Post a reply to this message

On 18/09/2012 06:37 AM, Stephen wrote:
> I don’t think that taking a menial job is a good idea. For a start it
> would limit your time looking for a suitable job. It would not do your
> self esteem any good either. You are not hurting for money ATM and you
> don’t have the pressure of a mortgage or supporting a wife and kids. So
> make looking for a suitable job your job.

This.

Post a reply to this message

>> What I would say is don't get complacent just because you have severance
>> to cover you through the next few months. Keep looking, You'll find
>> something.
>
> Yes - this * 1000.  Consider the severance as "my old employer is paying
> me to find a new job" and treat it accordingly.

Agreed.

> Office hours are the best time to contact people who can get you in for a
> new job.

Yeah, it makes a change to be able to just phone people, without having 
to find somewhere I can hide so I can make the call without interruptions...

Post a reply to this message

On 17/09/2012 04:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I suggested contract work before, and I'll suggest it again.  It's a way
> to get the bills paid.

I don't get that.

Currently, I am unemployed, which is a problem. It means I have to waste 
endless hours of my life vainly searching for employment. But 
eventually, I will [hopefully] find a job, at which point I no longer 
have that particular problem.

"Contact works" basically means "being /permanently/ unemployed". It 
means you spend two or three weeks per year getting paid, and the rest 
of the entire year desperately looking for your next contact. There's no 
way I could deal with that level of stress. (Not to mention the extreme 
financial problems...) I really don't get why anybody would voluntarily 
work that way.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 17/09/2012 04:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > I suggested contract work before, and I'll suggest it again.  It's a way
> > to get the bills paid.
>
> I don't get that.
>
> Currently, I am unemployed, which is a problem. It means I have to waste
> endless hours of my life vainly searching for employment. But
> eventually, I will [hopefully] find a job, at which point I no longer
> have that particular problem.
>

This is the 21st Century going on the 18th Century. You may have to wait until
you get your bus pass before getting a job. So don’t bank on your financial
situation going away soon. (I hope that it does, though)


> "Contact works" basically means "being /permanently/ unemployed". It
> means you spend two or three weeks per year getting paid, and the rest
> of the entire year desperately looking for your next contact. There's no
> way I could deal with that level of stress. (Not to mention the extreme
> financial problems...) I really don't get why anybody would voluntarily
> work that way.

As usual you express opinions that are based in a reality of your own.
I have been contracting for almost twenty years. True I have had periods when I
found it hard to get a suitable contract but the pay rate for contractors is
much better than for permies, at least in my line of work. So I’ve had savings
to tide me over. You don’t spend all of your time looking for work. I wait until
about a month before my contract is due to expire before I start looking. Any
earlier than that and your notice period is too long for an employer to wait.
I don’t think that I would take a permanent job now. The money is not as good,
there is little real job security and I can decide to take two or three months
off if I feel like it.
But if you want job security why not try the civil service. Ours have enough IT
blunders to need decent staff.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-19 05:35, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> "Contact works" basically means "being /permanently/ unemployed". It
> means you spend two or three weeks per year getting paid, and the rest
> of the entire year desperately looking for your next contact. There's no
> way I could deal with that level of stress. (Not to mention the extreme
> financial problems...) I really don't get why anybody would voluntarily
> work that way.

The contractors I have worked with were usually on 1-year contracts, 
that our management would renew until they reached the limit (a 
contractor that has been doing the same thing for 3 years has to be 
offered a permanent position since you can't justify it as being 
temporary anymore).   Most would refuse the offer since they prefered 
the liberty of being able to change jobs whenever they wanted.

-- 
/*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

On 19/09/2012 02:26 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> The contractors I have worked with were usually on 1-year contracts,

Like I say, finding /one/ job is hard enough. Having to find a job every 
12 months would just be intractably difficult.

> Most would refuse the offer since they prefered the
> liberty of being able to change jobs whenever they wanted.

This could make sense, if we were in an employee's market. But currently 
we are in an employer's market.

(Currently the market is flooded with people looking for work. That 
gives employers the power to be very fussy about who they hire.)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:29:35 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 17/09/2012 04:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You've got a severance package, don't wait for it to run out.  Start
>> now and don't give up.
> 
> Now? I started several weeks ago. :-P (I've already been to 2 interviews
> this summer, remember? That equals my previous record of 2 interviews
> this human lifetime...)

The outplacement service I was given access to with the layoff said that 
one should be doing 4-5 interviews a week IIRC, and sending 20-30 CVs a 
week.  It's all about numbers.

Now, myself, I haven't done that kind of volume myself.  And 16 months 
later, I'm still looking for a full-time position.  But I'm also being 
very picky about who I even apply to - and since I have contract work 
bringing in income, I can afford to be a little more picky.

>> If I break a leg or am in an auto accident, I'm pretty much screwed.
> 
> Uh, yeah. It must be great living in a country where if you have a
> health problem but you're not rich enough to pay a doctor, they just
> leave you to die... (What is this, the 5th century or something?!)

Well, no, they don't leave you to die (though there are some who would be 
perfectly happy to do so).  You go to the emergency room and get the 
minimum care necessary to keep you alive - and then you end up paying for 
anything else until you go bankrupt.

Fortunately, the new health care law addresses part of that problem - 
along with lifetime maximum coverage (without which, even people with 
coverage can/have gone bankrupt if they contract something that requires 
a lifetime of expensive meds and treatments).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:35:50 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 17/09/2012 04:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I suggested contract work before, and I'll suggest it again.  It's a
>> way to get the bills paid.
> 
> I don't get that.
> 
> Currently, I am unemployed, which is a problem. It means I have to waste
> endless hours of my life vainly searching for employment. But
> eventually, I will [hopefully] find a job, at which point I no longer
> have that particular problem.
> 
> "Contact works" basically means "being /permanently/ unemployed". It
> means you spend two or three weeks per year getting paid, and the rest
> of the entire year desperately looking for your next contact. There's no
> way I could deal with that level of stress. (Not to mention the extreme
> financial problems...) I really don't get why anybody would voluntarily
> work that way.

Yeah, two or three weeks getting paid.

Oh, wait, no - my current contract started in July and runs through the 
end of December.  Unless I can't count, that's more than 2-3 weeks.

And it's not the only one I've done.

The money is very good (but it's all pre-tax, so here in the US, we have 
to submit a quarterly estimate and pay our taxes with that estimate).

So as is fairly common, you base your feeling on how something works from 
a completely unrealistic view of how it actually works, and then decide 
that it's not for you.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:29:52 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 19/09/2012 02:26 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> The contractors I have worked with were usually on 1-year contracts,
> 
> Like I say, finding /one/ job is hard enough. Having to find a job every
> 12 months would just be intractably difficult.

In my experience this past year, it's been easier.  Partly because 
contract employees don't count as "head count", which means it comes out 
of a different budget.

A contract is also becoming a more and more common way for auditioning 
for a permanent position.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:30:22 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 18/09/2012 06:37 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> I don’t think that taking a menial job is a good idea. For a start it
>> would limit your time looking for a suitable job. It would not do your
>> self esteem any good either. You are not hurting for money ATM and you
>> don’t have the pressure of a mortgage or supporting a wife and kids. So
>> make looking for a suitable job your job.
> 
> This.

Then *do* it.

And don't cite your two interviews and say that you are.  That's not 
spending 8 hours a day working on finding something, networking with 
people, and considering all options carefully, and weighing the pros and 
cons (for example, a job that has a commute might be offset by a 
significant pay increase or a willingness on the part of the prospective 
employer to let you work from home).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:32:36 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> What I would say is don't get complacent just because you have
>>> severance to cover you through the next few months. Keep looking,
>>> You'll find something.
>>
>> Yes - this * 1000.  Consider the severance as "my old employer is
>> paying me to find a new job" and treat it accordingly.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> Office hours are the best time to contact people who can get you in for
>> a new job.
> 
> Yeah, it makes a change to be able to just phone people, without having
> to find somewhere I can hide so I can make the call without
> interruptions...

Here in the US, it's possible to reserve a conference room at the local 
library.  You might try that if that's something that's available in the 
UK.

Or the local job centre might have a place for making private calls.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I don’t think that taking a menial job is a good idea. For a start it
>> would limit your time looking for a suitable job. It would not do your
>> self esteem any good either. You are not hurting for money ATM and you
>> don’t have the pressure of a mortgage or supporting a wife and kids. So
>> make looking for a suitable job your job.
>
> This.

Also you're lucky that you have a bit of money, so you'll be able to 
start renting accommodation straight away to start your job. A lot of 
people can't do that because you might not get your first pay check 
until you've been working for 3-6 weeks.

Post a reply to this message

> The outplacement service I was given access to with the layoff said that
> one should be doing 4-5 interviews a week IIRC, and sending 20-30 CVs a
> week.  It's all about numbers.

I'm not sure how you could even achieve that. I'm not sure I could find 
that many [remotely relevant] jobs to apply for. But more to the point, 
you control how many applications you send out; you do /not/ have any 
control at all over how many interviews you get invited to. :-P

Post a reply to this message

> Yeah, two or three weeks getting paid.
>
> Oh, wait, no - my current contract started in July and runs through the
> end of December.  Unless I can't count, that's more than 2-3 weeks.

OK. But that still leaves you with the issue that come December, you 
have no idea if you'll ever get another contract with anyone ever again.

Given that being unemployed is an extremely dangerous thing, why 
wouldn't you try to minimise the possibility of it happening?

> So as is fairly common, you base your feeling on how something works from
> a completely unrealistic view of how it actually works, and then decide
> that it's not for you.

I'm just saying. It's not like jobs grow on trees...

Post a reply to this message

> Then *do* it.

What makes you think I'm not doing it?

> That's not spending 8 hours a day working on finding something,

What can you actually *do* for 8 hours straight, every single day, which 
will have any meaningful impact on your chances of finding work?

Seriously, if I did an Internet search and blindly applied for every 
single job that turned up [which is probably a bad idea], that would 
still only take, like, an hour or so. What are the other 7 for?

> networking with people,

How does this work? I don't really understand what "networking" is, or 
how it's useful. I sort of vaguely see the idea behind it, but that's 
about it.

> and considering all options carefully, and weighing the pros and cons

Gotta find something to look at before you can weigh anything up.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:05:11 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> The outplacement service I was given access to with the layoff said
>> that one should be doing 4-5 interviews a week IIRC, and sending 20-30
>> CVs a week.  It's all about numbers.
> 
> I'm not sure how you could even achieve that. I'm not sure I could find
> that many [remotely relevant] jobs to apply for. But more to the point,
> you control how many applications you send out; you do /not/ have any
> control at all over how many interviews you get invited to. :-P

You do have control over how many interviews you get invited to - if you 
get 'x' interviews for 'y' CVs sent out, you have some degree of control 
of how many interviews you may get.

Conversely, if you send out no CVs, you get no interviews.  That's also 
in your control.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:09:56 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Yeah, two or three weeks getting paid.
>>
>> Oh, wait, no - my current contract started in July and runs through the
>> end of December.  Unless I can't count, that's more than 2-3 weeks.
> 
> OK. But that still leaves you with the issue that come December, you
> have no idea if you'll ever get another contract with anyone ever again.

Which is why I keep my eyes and ears open for possible contract work 
until December.  I expect by the end of November, I'll know what the next 
gig is or if I have a full-time offer from my current client (which is a 
possibility).

I also do my contracting through a third party, and she's also keeping me 
in mind for upcoming jobs.  I've been doing this for a year now.

However, I'm also building a financial reserve so if I end up without 
anything in January, I'm still able to pay the bills.

> Given that being unemployed is an extremely dangerous thing, why
> wouldn't you try to minimise the possibility of it happening?

Being unemployed isn't "dangerous" if you've managed your money 
properly.  Of course one would try to minimise the possibility of it 
happening, but things aren't always in your control, so you have to have 
a contingency (such as building up a savings so you can keep paying the 
bills while looking for the next gig).

>> So as is fairly common, you base your feeling on how something works
>> from a completely unrealistic view of how it actually works, and then
>> decide that it's not for you.
> 
> I'm just saying. It's not like jobs grow on trees...

Certainly if you limit your scope unreasonably, you won't find anything.  
If there's nothing local to you, you /have/ to (by necessity) increase 
your scope or you will have a self-fulfilling prophecy - and it'll be 
your own fault for limiting your options.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:16:18 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Then *do* it.
> 
> What makes you think I'm not doing it?

You've been out of work for how long now?  How many CVs have you sent 
out?  How many interviews have you given?

>> That's not spending 8 hours a day working on finding something,
> 
> What can you actually *do* for 8 hours straight, every single day, which
> will have any meaningful impact on your chances of finding work?

When's the last time you visited the job centre in your area?  Have you 
been in touch with any of your former coworkers and asked them how their 
searches are going?

> Seriously, if I did an Internet search and blindly applied for every
> single job that turned up [which is probably a bad idea], that would
> still only take, like, an hour or so. What are the other 7 for?

<sigh>  Again with the "Andy's world is not the same as everyone else's 
world".

>> networking with people,
> 
> How does this work? I don't really understand what "networking" is, or
> how it's useful. I sort of vaguely see the idea behind it, but that's
> about it.

"Hey, how are things going in your job search?  I was looking at a few 
things myself and saw this posting that isn't a good fit for me, but I 
thought you might be interested in it." (good for those who were let go 
when you were).

Have you contacted any of the government auditors you worked with in 
reviewing your former employer's compliance?  You did pretty good with 
that, and they may remember that and know of a company that could use 
your skills.

It's not like they'll arrest you for contacting them.  For that matter, 
having prepared audits means you're well-positioned to conduct them as 
well.

>> and considering all options carefully, and weighing the pros and cons
> 
> Gotta find something to look at before you can weigh anything up.

ISTR you ruled out going to Oxford fairly quickly.  You ruled out London 
fairly quickly - both based on the assumption that you'd have to go to 
the office every day to work.  That's not a good assumption.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 19/09/2012 4:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The money is very good (but it's all pre-tax, so here in the US, we have
> to submit a quarterly estimate and pay our taxes with that estimate).

In the UK you can start your own company as a sole trader. That way you 
can get tax breaks. (I won’t say what but it is all legal above board 
and not offshore.) And I just found out last week from my accountant 
that there is a tax scheme where you can pay a flat rate of VAT (sales 
tax). So if your turnover is less than GBP 150000 you charge 20% to the 
client or agency and pay back 14.5% to the Inland Revenue and you don’t 
have to do much paperwork. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19/09/2012 6:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> You do have control over how many interviews you get invited to - if you
> get 'x' interviews for 'y' CVs sent out, you have some degree of control
> of how many interviews you may get.
>

I would not say that it is a linear relationship though.

> Conversely, if you send out no CVs, you get no interviews.  That's also
> in your control.

That is very true.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 19/09/2012 10:30 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 06:37 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> I don’t think that taking a menial job is a good idea. For a start it
>> would limit your time looking for a suitable job. It would not do your
>> self esteem any good either. You are not hurting for money ATM and you
>> don’t have the pressure of a mortgage or supporting a wife and kids. So
>> make looking for a suitable job your job.
>
> This.

Whoosh! That reply went over my head.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> What makes you think I'm not doing it?
>
> You've been out of work for how long now?

Strictly speaking, 19 days.

> How many CVs have you sent out?

I've only really started properly keeping track the last week or so. But 
a rough count shows that in the last few weeks, I've sent out roughly 
50+ job applications.

> How many interviews have you given?

So far I've only been invited for 2 interviews. I did get a phone call 
yesterday suggesting that I may or may not be invited for one next week.

>> What can you actually *do* for 8 hours straight, every single day, which
>> will have any meaningful impact on your chances of finding work?
>
> When's the last time you visited the job centre in your area?

Friday. You have to in order to claim JSA. Not sure how visiting a job 
centre is supposed to improve your chances of getting work though...

> Have you
> been in touch with any of your former coworkers and asked them how their
> searches are going?

How would that help? They all live in Coventry, and they're all looking 
for lab work, not IT.

>> How does this work? I don't really understand what "networking" is, or
>> how it's useful. I sort of vaguely see the idea behind it, but that's
>> about it.
>
> "Hey, how are things going in your job search?  I was looking at a few
> things myself and saw this posting that isn't a good fit for me, but I
> thought you might be interested in it." (good for those who were let go
> when you were).

[See above.]

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

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

> Have you contacted any of the government auditors you worked with in
> reviewing your former employer's compliance?  You did pretty good with
> that, and they may remember that and know of a company that could use
> your skills.

Lab companies are /very/ few and far between - this is exactly the 
problem my dad is currently having. He has 30+ years of experience in 
lab work, but he can't find any labs to apply to. And labs need /lots/ 
of scientists. They only need /one/ IT guy.

> It's not like they'll arrest you for contacting them.  For that matter,
> having prepared audits means you're well-positioned to conduct them as
> well.

I didn't really "prepare" audits. I wrote documentation which we are 
legally required to have. The auditors' job is to come and look at it. 
Writing documentation which you think will fend off auditors is one 
thing. Knowing all the legal scriptures required to properly audit 
someone is another thing entirely.

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

If anything, all we can say is that I have experience of working in a 
tightly controlled environment, that I'm good at writing documentation 
which is appropriate for its intended audience, and that I can explain 
complex concepts to nontechnical people. (Believe me, most lab auditors 
know everything there is to know about freeze-thaw stability testing, 
but know bugger all about computers.)

There are all worthy skills, of course, but it's not like having worked 
in a lab specifically is going to really open doors.

> ISTR you ruled out going to Oxford fairly quickly.

I tried to travel there. It was hell. Just for one day, and it was hell. 
I don't want that every day.

> You ruled out London
> fairly quickly - both based on the assumption that you'd have to go to
> the office every day to work.  That's not a good assumption.

The Oxford company TOLD ME that I would have to come there every day. 
That's not an assumption, that's fact.

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

Post a reply to this message

> Seriously, if I did an Internet search and blindly applied for every
> single job that turned up [which is probably a bad idea], that would
> still only take, like, an hour or so. What are the other 7 for?

???

I think it took about an hour *per job* when I was applying - you can't 
tailor your CV and cover letter for an application within 5 minutes, you 
also should be spending some time researching the company you are 
applying for.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 08:22 AM, scott wrote:
> I think it took about an hour *per job* when I was applying - you can't
> tailor your CV and cover letter for an application within 5 minutes, you
> also should be spending some time researching the company you are
> applying for.

Well, there's two schools of thought here.

You can spend weeks researching the company, analysing the job spec, 
trying to distil what they're looking for, and finely crafting your CV 
to match, and only then applying.

Or you can write the best CV you can, and just send it to as many people 
as possible.

Currently I'm going with the latter approach. Most of the jobs I'm 
applying for I probably don't stand a hope in hell of getting anyway, so 
it seems wasteful to expend huge amounts of energy on something which is 
probably futile.

I do make exceptions, of course. When I applied to Google, I spent weeks 
customising my CV. (Then again, it's Google, the industry's best 
employer.) But for the most part, I just send out lots of applications. 
So far it's got me to two interviews, equalling my previous lifetime 
best. And it's only been a few weeks...

Post a reply to this message

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

The last 3 people who started in my office had no formal interview and 
there certainly weren't any adverts anywhere, they were just known by 
others in the office from previous jobs.

My girlfriend got her job by knowing a manager, she still had to send in 
an application form but it was a formality, they didn't even bother 
looking at the other applications, even though surely there would have 
been people better qualified and with more experience.

I'm sure others here have similar experiences, it's quite common. And 
even if you can't bypass the official application/interview procedure, 
you can get the name/email of the best person to send your CV to, the 
right things to say, get someone to put in a good word for you etc. It's 
not what you know it's who you know :-)

Post a reply to this message

> Well, there's two schools of thought here.
>
> You can spend weeks researching the company, analysing the job spec,
> trying to distil what they're looking for, and finely crafting your CV
> to match, and only then applying.
>
> Or you can write the best CV you can, and just send it to as many people
> as possible.

Really, both of those extremes are a very bad idea.

If you have 8 hours a day then scheduling 1 hour for customising your CV 
and researching the company sounds about right. That way you should get 
out 8 high quality applications each day.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 09:11 AM, scott wrote:
> It's not what you know it's who you know :-)

On the one hand, I've only ever had one job - and that's because my dad 
worked there.

On the other hand, I know people who work at the OU, and yet I can't get 
a job at the OU. I know somebody who works for Network Rail, and yet I 
can't get a job at Network Rail. Hell, I know a guy who works at Google, 
and I can't get them to hire me either. (Although, amazingly, I did get 
an interview...)

You see what I'm saying? Just knowing somebody who works at company X 
doesn't seem to help you actually get in there. (Unless the company is 
the kind of hopelessly unprofessional place like where I left just...)

In short, I know a tiny handful of people, but I'm not sure how to /use/ 
that to get hired.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 09:15 AM, scott wrote:
> If you have 8 hours a day then scheduling 1 hour for customising your CV
> and researching the company sounds about right. That way you should get
> out 8 high quality applications each day.

Well, if you're going to spend an entire hour on each application, you 
need to be /very/ picky about which jobs you bother applying to. (And to 
think everybody keeps telling me I'm /already/ being too picky...)

Also, like I said, at the point where you apply, you usually have /no 
idea/ who the company is. You just know who the recruitment agency is. 
It's kind of hard to research a company when you don't know who they are.

Post a reply to this message

> Well, if you're going to spend an entire hour on each application, you
> need to be /very/ picky about which jobs you bother applying to. (And to
> think everybody keeps telling me I'm /already/ being too picky...)

I don't think anyone would advise you to apply for more than 8 jobs per 
day. That's 40 a week.

> Also, like I said, at the point where you apply, you usually have /no
> idea/ who the company is. You just know who the recruitment agency is.
> It's kind of hard to research a company when you don't know who they are.

You call the recruitment agency and ask then.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-09-20 04:15, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 20/09/2012 09:11 AM, scott wrote:
>> It's not what you know it's who you know :-)
>
> On the one hand, I've only ever had one job - and that's because my dad
> worked there.
>

Proof that networking works!  You got your first job because of your 
connections.

> On the other hand, I know people who work at the OU, and yet I can't get
> a job at the OU. I know somebody who works for Network Rail, and yet I
> can't get a job at Network Rail. Hell, I know a guy who works at Google,
> and I can't get them to hire me either. (Although, amazingly, I did get
> an interview...)
>
> You see what I'm saying? Just knowing somebody who works at company X
> doesn't seem to help you actually get in there. (Unless the company is
> the kind of hopelessly unprofessional place like where I left just...)
>

You rarely win the lotto with your first ticket.

> In short, I know a tiny handful of people, but I'm not sure how to /use/
> that to get hired.

As I've said before... you take dance classes.  Ask the people in your 
class if they have openings at their workplace.  Even if they're 
marketing assistants or dentists, they may know that their IT dept. is 
looking for people.

-- 
/*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

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:34:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 19/09/2012 6:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> You do have control over how many interviews you get invited to - if
>> you get 'x' interviews for 'y' CVs sent out, you have some degree of
>> control of how many interviews you may get.
>>
>>
> I would not say that it is a linear relationship though.

True, it is more complex than that.  Hence the next statement:

>> Conversely, if you send out no CVs, you get no interviews.  That's also
>> in your control.
> 
> That is very true.

:)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:33:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 19/09/2012 4:51 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The money is very good (but it's all pre-tax, so here in the US, we
>> have to submit a quarterly estimate and pay our taxes with that
>> estimate).
> 
> In the UK you can start your own company as a sole trader. That way you
> can get tax breaks. (I won’t say what but it is all legal above board
> and not offshore.) And I just found out last week from my accountant
> that there is a tax scheme where you can pay a flat rate of VAT (sales
> tax). So if your turnover is less than GBP 150000 you charge 20% to the
> client or agency and pay back 14.5% to the Inland Revenue and you don’t
> have to do much paperwork. :-)

Yeah, you can do stuff like that here in the US.  I haven't yet because I 
hadn't expected to be doing contract work for so long.

Once I know what's happening after this gig, I'll decide whether I'm 
setting up a sole proprietorship or something similar myself.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

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

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

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

That's good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal recommendations from current employees go a LONG way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 10:19 AM, scott wrote:
>
>> Also, like I said, at the point where you apply, you usually have /no
>> idea/ who the company is. You just know who the recruitment agency is.
>> It's kind of hard to research a company when you don't know who they are.
>
> You call the recruitment agency and ask then.

But they won't tell you in case you go direct or mention it to another 
agency. And that's the truth.
Occasionally I will be told who the client is but that is because either 
I've made a good guess or I've known the recruiter for years.
The thing is that you don't want to be put in for the same job by two 
different agencies. That way the client will discount both applications.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> Also, like I said, at the point where you apply, you usually have /no
>>> idea/ who the company is. You just know who the recruitment agency is.
>>> It's kind of hard to research a company when you don't know who they
>>> are.
>>
>> You call the recruitment agency and ask then.
>
> But they won't tell you in case you go direct or mention it to another
> agency. And that's the truth.

Quite.

> The thing is that you don't want to be put in for the same job by two
> different agencies. That way the client will discount both applications.

Our HR person concurs. (And she claims to have worked in hiring, so...)

Post a reply to this message