 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
