Nicholas Clark nick at
Fri May 4 21:03:58 BST 2007

I had a reply directly that I was welcome to forward on, from someone who
wishes to explain why he/she/it is currently anonymous.

On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 01:39:53PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:

> 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?")

  In our case it's at least partly because we have people trying to do
  Perl recruitment, and we have people in, but they aren't the
  same people.

  Somebody at the top has picked some recruitment "consultants" for the
  company as a whole to use, without considering whether for certain
  positions they may be non-ideal, and our managers use them.  I asked
  one manager where the jobs are being advertised and he gleefully told
  me that the consultants look after all that so that we don't have to,
  and I don't need to worry about such things.

  I do not even know what salary range our current vacancies are being
  advertised at.

On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 02:49:29PM +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:

> I can't speak for the people involved, but several places I've worked  
> have had contractual agreements with agencies that mean I wouldn't  
> have been allowed to pimp a job publicly (I was allowed to recommend  
> people I knew, but not post to a public list, etc.)

  I even know of a place where the "exclusive" deal the recruitment
  agency had cut with the employer meant that even if the employer takes
  an applicant on through some other route the agency gets their fee

Also I'm aware that a certain large investment bank seems to have an HR
department that deals with agencies, and centralises things, such that the
clued-up Perl people there aren't able to advertise on
[or get the agency to do so, for the Perl related jobs]

Nicholas Clark

More information about the mailing list