Bonkers

[Nicholas Clark]

On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 03:39:30PM +0200, Richard Foley wrote:
> On Friday 04 May 2007 14:39, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >
> > I know of people
> > who aren't so dissatisfied that they will take any pile of excrement
> > (with or without fries), but potentially could be lured into a new job.
> > Yet they aren't bothering to make contact with the companies recruiting.
> > 
> Yep, that's a bit wierd.  Maybe people just need a better offer.  I also know 
> several people who have gone from Perl to ****, essentially for a better 
> rate, sadly.

So currently, if we can get the message to

a: the London employers
b: the used-to-consider-Perl people

in theory, this void in London could be filled.

But that was beside the point of my real question

> > And I *am* surprised that no-one from these companies appears to be
> > confident enough to de-anonymise there recruiting efforts. This is my point.
> > (Or at least, my question. "Why is it this way?")
> > 
> Ah, if I read you correctly, you're asking why agents don't release the name 
> of their clients?  It's probably partly because the 12 companies may actually 
> be 4, with 3 different agencies looking to fill all 4 spots.  Although from 
> the way you described it, that sounds unlikely.  It may also be natural 
> paranoia on behalf of the agencies, to  protect what little leverage they 
> actually have in terms of being the only possible middle-man through whom the
> actual client can source good people.  Otherwise, bang goes their commission.  

No, as you suspected you didn't quite read me correctly.
10 were named on the non-archived jobs-discuss list.
For four of those firms, I can name one or more employees subscribed to this
list.

Pimps never want to reveal the names of the firm they are searching for,
usually because they are paranoid that other pimps will attempt to steal
the business.

For example

1: I now know that Venda only had 5 agencies on the case. Yet there were at
   least 7 with the UML/CVS signature:
   http://use.perl.org/~nicholas/journal/31553

2: When I had dealings with one agency, I remember an agent who said that he
   was about to pretend to be a Java programmer on a call. This appeared to
   be a ruse where he was hoping to get the company name out of another
   agency.

But in this case the names are known.

> I also suspect the companies can't be bothered to handle contacts with 
> individuals either, and would much rather deal with a single entity, (the 
> agent) when recruiting.

This can be true.

But I don't think it's true of all. Most places I've worked have loved to
deal direct where they could, as it saves about 15-20% of salary.
(An agent won't cost you an arm *and* a leg, merely an arm *or* a leg.)

> Speaking for myself, I have managed to find good roles directly, but the vast 
> majority have come through an agency, and I don't mind paying the premium, if 
> they do all the job hunting, networking and contact building, on my behalf.  
> I guess I'm just lazy, but it's less hassle, they do it better than I do 
> anyway, and it leaves me free to go for a good long walk in the hills, for 
> example, which is a far better use of my time.

Ah right. But here in London we have some sort of social network, and yet
it's not being used by employees to fill local vacancies.

And I want to know why.

Nicholas Clark