[svlug] unix work - recruiters should change their income attitudes

[Steven L. Fountain]

On 3 Jan 2003, David N. Welton wrote:
> Maybe that's not such a bad idea.  I don't think California has ever
> really gotten over the gold-rush mentality, in some ways.  I wouldn't
> be here if it weren't for my girlfriend finding a really good
> opportunity - I was doing much better as a consultant in Italy.  Here,
> there is work to be had, but it's tough to find, [snip]...

I've been through Berkeley a couple of times this past month,
after getting asked for change a couple of times an idea hit me.

Agency recruiters need to change the way they seek income.

The aggressive 'whats in it for me approach?' by greedy
recruiters requires a cut of the lump sum yearly salary right up
front. Now, this makes the company 'take a loss' when you go early, at you
(the employee's) expense. I have lost out on good opportunities at google
because they haven't given me personally the time of day (i've sent lots
of emails to jobs@) -- but when I took my name to an agency, they said
that because I had represented myself already that Google would view them
(the agency) as a nuissance. I lose. They lose. Where's the income?

To propose something radically different in this payment procedure, I
would pay a modest sum (100$-200$) per paycheck in exchange for
maintaining a decent working relationship with some good recruiters. I
depend on them to help me get the jobs I truely want, they in exchange
help me knowing that I am residual income.

Things have to change.