General discussion

Locked

Again, that's not what I've said, Tim.

By Tim Heard ·
Tags: Off Topic
article root

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I understand what you have been saying.

by Tim Heard In reply to Again, that's not what I' ...

I have read and reread your assertion.

And employer is willing to pay $100k, BUT...

What I'm saying is that if the employer is willing to pay $100k, that doesn't change. The salary they are willing to pay the employee doesn't change.

I'm not sure how I have been proven wrong, and I don't believe I have proven you wrong. I do know that what you are asserting isn't factual when it comes to the way the companies I know about deal with vendors.

Having said that, in the case of *contract* labor, what you are describing is very similar to the reality. It is a process that becomes even worse if vendor A subcontracts to vendor B and takes a cut.
While I don't doubt a word of what you have posted, I think your statements would be more compelling if they included a link to who you actually are. ... Just because accountability for one's words generally leads to more civil conversations.

Collapse -

if the employer is willing to pay $100k,That doesn't change

by aidemzo_adanac In reply to I understand what you hav ...

Exactly what I said.

"The salary they are willing to pay the employee doesn't change"
Again, exactly what I said.

"I'm not sure how I have been proven wrong,"

When I explained how recruiting DOES work for major recruiting companies, your reply was titled: "Honestly, that's not the way it works."

Actually it is exactly how it works for many recruiters, especially the larger ones.

"I don't believe I have proven you wrong."
You are correct.

"I do know that what you are asserting isn't factual when it comes to the way the companies I know about deal with vendors."

Now you are offering personal insight, which very well could be correct. That doesn't make my experience wrong though, as you had suggested.

I wasn't referring to contract labour, but you probably have a point there too, especially with respect to temp workers or labourers.

"While I don't doubt a word of what you have posted, I think your statements would be more compelling if they included a link to who you actually are.":

You DID doubt what I had posted and said as much. As for me linking to who I am, do you need my LinkedIn profile in order to understand that I was speaking from experience? Why do I need to qualify my comments beyond stating that I had personal experience working with major recruiters, which is the topic of discussion. I have a resume that reads like a novel, been working a lot of different roles over the years (jack of all trades, master of f-all).

I think I made my point, though it took a while. You of course have a point too, and as valid as it may be, your first response to my description of how recruiters commonly work, was to say I was wrong and that isn't how it works. Clearly you stand corrected and that's fine, you were just very quick to assert that I didn't know what I was saying, perhaps a little more consideration and thought in future would help.

Collapse -

can of worms

by Tim Heard In reply to if the employer is willin ...

Without opening up this can of worms further, you and Tony made some pretty broad assertions too which easily could be construed to imply that I either lacked integrity, or was just plain stupid.
Granted, you guys are the readers, and have the liberty of ranting away if you feel the need to. I would be unprofessional though if I were to make sweeping negative generalizations about developers, staffing account managers, or whomever I thought my readers might be. (Not to mention, inaccurate.)
Ironically, this technically isn't even one of my articles. I just responded to the some reader question at Toni's request. It's her blog article. :-\
There's a chance that I may be back on TR at a regular contributor. Keep your eyes peeled and maybe we can have some additional discussions in the future. :-)

Collapse -

I certainly never intended to imply you were stupid

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to can of worms

And if that was the way you took it I aplogise.

In terms of my questioning the ah ethics of recruitment as profession, that was more addressing you as foolishly representing it.

Your own personal integrity I have no experience of, nor indeed your professional integrity and I do make that distinction.

Your profession, a lot and too much of it, bad.

So the "rant" wasn't personal.

Count yourself lucky anyway. My current employers have spent a few years trying to teach me that being blunt isn't as valued a commodity in the industry as I would wish. A few years back I'd have just pigeon holed you with the the worst elements of your profession and ripped you a new one.
But I've mellowed, or matured, depending on which side of the tell it like is fence you sit on.

Collapse -

I'll grant...

by Tim Heard In reply to Again, that's not what I' ...

I'll grant that there are some people and companies in the industry who would make excellent used car salesmen. There's a company in Louisville that was aggressively trying to recruit me last year, despite my very blunt statements that I didn't want anything o do with them.
The challenge is that there are plenty of developers like that too. Developers just aren't in roles that typically draw that much attention. Believe me, though, I have known my fair share that had their own personality issues. ... I wouldn't make a generalization though that all developers are greedy, or dishonest, or whatever.
That's primarily where I took issue with the direction the thread took.
No hard feelings though.
Oh, and I'm definitely on the tell it like it is side of the fence too. Have gotten in trouble with my in-laws on more than one occasion for being that way. :-D

Back to After Hours Forum
5 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums