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

On 20/09/2012 9:25 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> 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...)

I have personal experience of that. So I am very careful.
If I have applied for a job and a similar one comes up. I insist that 
the agency tells me who the client is before they put me in for it.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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....

Well, the main site I'm applying through keeps track of these things. 
However, that doesn't save you if two agencies have listed the same job. 
But usually you start reading the text, and realise it sounds awful 
familiar...

This last week, I've been actually writing down the jobs. Which is just 
as well, because I want to another site [as I was ordered to], and all 
the jobs were duplicates of ones I'd already applied to.

> One of the things that I've learned is
> without the delimiter of a workday, it's easy to get distracted.

Well, that's true enough. It's like, I have so much time to do 
everything, I tend to end up deciding to do *everything* "later"... 
which doesn't actually work.

But I'm working on that, and I feel like I'm getting a reasonable amount 
of stuff done.

> 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.

OK, but the labs they're applying to are scattered all over the country. 
I'm looking for jobs near where I live.

>> 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.

Well, when I asked, she claimed that "all our IT stuff is outsourced". 
(Which begs the question "so what do YOU do there then??") To me, this 
sounds not so much like a hot tip for where to work, but a sure-fire 
place to not waste your time with...

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

Perhaps you missed it. I know people - and yet, I'm not getting hired.

So perhaps you could /explain/ exactly how I can turn the fact that I 
know people into offers of employment. :-P

> 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.

Well... I don't know what else to say to that. As best as I can tell, 
knowing people is NO HELP whatsoever. Now you can stand there and tell 
me that actually it is, but this is totally at variance with my 
experience, to the point where I find it very hard to believe.

> Personal recommendations from current employees go a LONG way.

And yet, every time I ask somebody who works for somebody, they're 
always like "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't help you with that. It's not my 
department. I'm not even sure who deals with hiring. Maybe you could 
check our website?"

To me, this doesn't seem like insider knowledge being this "killer 
advantage" that everybody keeps talking about. I mean, sure, if your mum 
happens to know the CEO on a first-name basis or something...

> 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.

I suppose the next problem is that I don't remember who any of these 
auditors were, who they worked for or how to contact them. And that a 
tiny few of them might remember my employer, but none of them will 
remember me personally. You know, just saying...

[Actually, that's not completely true. I think the team from the MHRA 
was usually the same bunch of people every 3 years, and plausibly I 
could discover who they were... Doesn't change the fact that the MHRA 
audit thousands of labs per year though.]

>>> 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.

It doesn't look very far on the map. But there's no particularly direct 
route in that direction, so it's really awkward to get there. And the 
road system in Oxford itself is a nightmare - which is irrelevant, 
because there's nowhere to park even if you could drive in there. 
Instead I'd have to take the bicycle to the office, because the ****ing 
public transport system doesn't actually work...

>> 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.

2 days. I drove over there to scope it out, and then I went back there 
again for the actual interview. Both times it was a total PITA.

>> 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?

I've looked at jobs listed as being based within a reasonable distance 
of where I live. I didn't bother checking whether any of the companies 
involved [where you can even tell what company it is] are based in London.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 09:39 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/09/2012 9:25 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> 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...)
>
> I have personal experience of that. So I am very careful.
> If I have applied for a job and a similar one comes up. I insist that
> the agency tells me who the client is before they put me in for it.

Really, the HR person's input is why I'm scaling back on applications. 
She says that if one agency gets a big pile of applications from the 
same person, all for totally different jobs, it tends to make them 
reconsider whether this person is worth dealing with.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/09/2012 9:53 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Really, the HR person's input is why I'm scaling back on applications.
> She says that if one agency gets a big pile of applications from the
> same person, all for totally different jobs, it tends to make them
> reconsider whether this person is worth dealing with.

I can believe that, each agency will have only one data base entry for 
you and I lay odds that it is a simple one. You can be either IT support 
or a programmer but not both.
Having said that although I have been working in SAP for almost 20 years 
I still get emails for electronic engineering, process control and SCADA 
techs. I also get emails about jobs for sap modules where I’ve mentioned 
integration with. Just because they do a keyword search on their db. Lazy!
It is not a sinecure looking for a job but five to eight hours a day 
five days a week is either a lie to the job centre or the way to madness 
and depression. Don’t (IMO) feel guilty about killing a few hours doing 
what you like. And Jim has a good point about getting out and about, 
although not to the job centre, because it staves off depression.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:51:47 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Have you kept track of who you've sent the CVs to?  You wouldn't want
>> to send one twice for the same posting....
> 
> Well, the main site I'm applying through keeps track of these things.
> However, that doesn't save you if two agencies have listed the same job.
> But usually you start reading the text, and realise it sounds awful
> familiar...

That makes sense.  Most companies don't write more than one job 
description per position. :)

>> One of the things that I've learned is without the delimiter of a
>> workday, it's easy to get distracted.
> 
> Well, that's true enough. It's like, I have so much time to do
> everything, I tend to end up deciding to do *everything* "later"...
> which doesn't actually work.

Right, that's one of the reasons having the delimiter is valuable, and 
having a place to go to (whether it be the job centre, the local library, 
or whatever) is really helpful.

Back in the mid 90's when I was let go from my first job in Utah, I never 
left the house - and I'm sure that contributed to it taking longer for me 
to find something.  Job market was good then so it only took about 6 
months, but I spent a lot of time being depressed and feeling out of 
control.

I might've felt more in control if I'd taken the time to leave the house 
and go someplace to work on finding work.

> But I'm working on that, and I feel like I'm getting a reasonable amount
> of stuff done.

That's good. :)

>> 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.
> 
> OK, but the labs they're applying to are scattered all over the country.
> I'm looking for jobs near where I live.

So tell them that you have a desire to stay where you are - though 
personally, I think you should cast a larger net.  I also understand not 
wanting to deal with the hassle of moving until such time as it's 
convenient.  But you never know if that lab in Edinburgh has local 
employees where you are unless you look into it.

>> 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.
> 
> Well, when I asked, she claimed that "all our IT stuff is outsourced".
> (Which begs the question "so what do YOU do there then??") To me, this
> sounds not so much like a hot tip for where to work, but a sure-fire
> place to not waste your time with...

Maybe that have technical non-IT jobs that would be a good (or even 
better) fit for you.  You never know until you ask.

>>> See, that's the thing - knowing somebody doesn't actually get you
>>> hired.
>>
>> Sorry, that's bullshit.
> 
> Perhaps you missed it. I know people - and yet, I'm not getting hired.

Guess what?  I know people, and I've not been hired yet either beyond 
doing contract work.

But look at the difference between what I said and what you said.  I said 
"knowing people helps" and provided examples of times when it's worked 
for me or for other people.  It *does* work.  That it hasn't yet worked 
for you (having been out of work for all of 19 days) doesn't mean it's 
not worthwhile.  It does work, so rather than doing your "the world 
according to Andrew" approach to whether things work or not, trust those 
of us who have the experience and who have actually done this.  You keep 
insisting things that people actually do don't generally work because 
you've not experienced them working.

You need to stop doing that.  We're trying to *help*, you know.  But we 
can only lead you to the water - you have to actually drink it.

> So perhaps you could /explain/ exactly how I can turn the fact that I
> know people into offers of employment. :-P

It takes time, of course.  It takes a certain amount of luck, too.  But 
if someone you know who works for a company that has your dream job 
doesn't know (a) that you're looking and (b) that the job in question is 
actually your dream job, then they're really not going to tell you or 
even think of you, are they?

>> 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.
> 
> Well... I don't know what else to say to that. As best as I can tell,
> knowing people is NO HELP whatsoever. Now you can stand there and tell
> me that actually it is, but this is totally at variance with my
> experience, to the point where I find it very hard to believe.

Again, your experience nonwithstanding, this is what actual people who 
work for recruiting companies and who help people find work have said.  
It's the way most people find work.  That your very limited experience 
doesn't match up to the reality doesn't mean that reality is wrong.

>> Personal recommendations from current employees go a LONG way.
> 
> And yet, every time I ask somebody who works for somebody, they're
> always like "Oh, I'm sorry, I can't help you with that. It's not my
> department. I'm not even sure who deals with hiring. Maybe you could
> check our website?"

Of course there will be some who do that.  But at the same time, if they 
know what you're looking for, if something does come up that they hear 
about, they'll think of you.

> To me, this doesn't seem like insider knowledge being this "killer
> advantage" that everybody keeps talking about. I mean, sure, if your mum
> happens to know the CEO on a first-name basis or something...

*sigh* I keep forgetting that "Andy reality" is all you know, and your 
experience is *very* limited.

Seriously, I'm not trying to waste your time with shit that doesn't 
work.  I'm trying to tell you these are the things that professionals who 
help people find work and many people I know who have found work use AND 
IT WORKS.  It sometimes takes time, and usually takes patience, but it 
DOES pay off.  Nobody said it would be *easy*.

>> 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.
> 
> I suppose the next problem is that I don't remember who any of these
> auditors were, who they worked for or how to contact them. And that a
> tiny few of them might remember my employer, but none of them will
> remember me personally. You know, just saying...

Your own self-perceptions aside, I'm sure that, assuming your doc writing 
was as good as some of the things you've written here or on your blog, 
they would remember you.

> [Actually, that's not completely true. I think the team from the MHRA
> was usually the same bunch of people every 3 years, and plausibly I
> could discover who they were... Doesn't change the fact that the MHRA
> audit thousands of labs per year though.]

That fact is actually irrelevant.  You might need to remind them where 
you worked and what you did, but having worked with auditors myself, 
people who make it EASY for them to do their jobs are rare and 
memorable.  I had auditors from Deloitte come in to a place I was working 
to do a licensing audit, and they remarked that I always made sure they 
could reach me and had prepared everything they asked for - and that that 
was incredibly rare - usually the audits dragged on for days and days 
because they couldn't find what they needed and couldn't talk to the 
people they needed to talk to.

The second time they came back, they remembered the previous experience 
and, knowing they were going to be dealing with me again, they planned 
accordingly.  They got done in half a day what normally took them 2-3 
days at least because I was prepared and available.

>>>> 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.
> 
> It doesn't look very far on the map. But there's no particularly direct
> route in that direction, so it's really awkward to get there. And the
> road system in Oxford itself is a nightmare - which is irrelevant,
> because there's nowhere to park even if you could drive in there.
> Instead I'd have to take the bicycle to the office, because the ****ing
> public transport system doesn't actually work...

I repeat - ONE EXPERIENCE.  If it were a daily trip, I'm sure you'd find 
ways to optimize the travel experience.

>>> 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.
> 
> 2 days. I drove over there to scope it out, and then I went back there
> again for the actual interview. Both times it was a total PITA.

That's still not the same as making the trip regularly.  You're missing 
the point.

>>> 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?
> 
> I've looked at jobs listed as being based within a reasonable distance
> of where I live. I didn't bother checking whether any of the companies
> involved [where you can even tell what company it is] are based in
> London.

You might try casting a wider net.  Do some research on companies in 
London as well, and rather than going through recruiting websites where 
you don't know the company, go to the company website and look at their 
careers page.

For example, try bt.co.uk.  Bottom of the page, "Careers".  Follow the 
links to the open positions.

Then go to LinkedIn and look there for job postings.  Or to see if 
there's anyone in your network who's at BT (or who knows someone at BT).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> It is not a sinecure looking for a job but five to eight hours a day
> five days a week is either a lie to the job centre or the way to madness
> and depression. Don’t (IMO) feel guilty about killing a few hours doing
> what you like. And Jim has a good point about getting out and about,
> although not to the job centre, because it staves off depression.

I recently bought a bike - just to see if I can still ride one - and 
I've been cycling around the place quite a bit lately. Although in the 
last few days, the weather seems to have turned very cold and grey...

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

Maybe it's different for engineering jobs then, but every time I've 
spoken to a recruitment agency about a job they've told me not just the 
company name but a lot of detail about the company background and the 
job. I suspect the recruitment agency and the employer have a contract 
that states the agency will still get paid if they find you, no matter 
how you finally apply for the job. Otherwise you could just say no at 
the interview, and then call back the company the next day direct and 
say you want the job.

It also seems ridiculous to apply for a job with a company when you 
don't even know the company name (and thus presumably not know exactly 
where it is located, whether they are about to go bankrupt, or have a 
bad reputation, or even it might the same company you are working for 
already - which would be embarrassing).

Post a reply to this message