Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And your stereotyping people as worthless because they are out of work is not helping the situation.
Quote:
I see people here are as usual aghast by my bottom-line assessment that does not appear sympathetic.
The issue is not appearing sympathetic. The first issue is that your assessment is not based on facts but based on stereotypes. The second issue is a false assessment of the job market, thinking it is all rainbows and unicorns.
I frankly don't care if you are a gruff, frank kind of guy who tells it like it is. I understand that, but I deal with facts and not stereotypes.
Having said that, here's where you went and showed your awesomeness.
Your metrics suggestion is a great idea, I include them on my resume when I can. Your suggestions to put certain facts is another great idea.
Quote:
Now, at my own time and expense, while some of you are exuding sympathy (which is not career advice) I will see what I can do to guide this person back into EHS employment.
That's very good, and I give up thumbs up for that.
And your stereotyping people as worthless because they are out of work is not helping the situation. .....
"The second issue is a false assessment of the job market, thinking it is all rainbows and unicorns."
I honestly don't know what that means. I live in the real world where employers strive to hire the best available candidates and expect headhunters/recruiters to being them the best qualified candidates. An applicant who has been away from the EHS industry for nearly ten years could not possibly be considered a viable candidate for serious consideration.
"...not helping the situation...."
Are you joking?
I am the only person here who has identified the problem, made practical suggestions as to what is necessary to correct the situation and I have put my money where my mouth is by letting this person know I will coach them through this process. At my expense.
There is no 'stereotyping' here. Just plain fact. This is not a 'generalization' of some sort- the fact is this person has been away from the EHS industry for such a long period of time that they no longer hold currency with the industry.
Since EHS has evolved over the years and has grown to be more complicated, a hiring authority would be putting their company at risk by hiring such a person where it would be expected this person would be reasonably high profile and have a significant impact on that company's operations.
"...worthless..."? I did not say that. I said this person is not a viable candidate at this time, according to the description of his credentials by his friend who posted here.
Paul..........
..
Last edited by HeadhunterPaul; 06-13-2018 at 05:14 PM..
Reason: added text
"...worthless..."? I did not say that. I said this person is not a viable candidate at this time, according to the description of his credentials by his friend who posted here.
No practical difference between worthless and not a viable candidate. Can't get the job either which way.
However, the help you're providing is likely to change that.
No practical difference between worthless and not a viable candidate. Can't get the job either which way.
However, the help you're providing is likely to change that.
Hey, BobSell....!
I was taught, while learning the Executive Search business, to use the term 'viable' referring to whether or not a recruit/search assignment has value, whether or not that person/assignment could be turned into a recruitment fee.
People who are not in the top 3% to 5% of their chosen profession or a vacancy that has unrealistic parameters are considered not worth spending time on. (excuse the preposition blooper)
To call such people 'worthless' is probably a little harsh.
.............
"However, the help you're providing is likely to change that."
Well, as for that, first- the person who DM'd me was sending me a compliment and was not the pizza guy, after all.
Second, said pizza guy has so far not chosen to ask for my help. I've helped others here at C-D, offline and with great results but it does not appear as though pizza guy is going to be one of them.
Maybe he is going with the resume writer- the one who can turn pizzas into fire extinguishers.
People who are not in the top 3% to 5% of their chosen profession or a vacancy that has unrealistic parameters are considered not worth spending time on. (excuse the preposition blooper)
To call such people 'worthless' is probably a little harsh.
When the results for both the 6% and totally nonqualified at all are the same - unemployment - that says a lot about the perceived value by the employer - which is none at all.
I look at how the employers value the candidates, I'm not the one making the valuation. Their judgments are very harsh.
On the other hand:
Again, keep up the great work in helping others. Humanity needs more people like you.
When the results for both the 6% and totally nonqualified at all are the same -
unemployment -
that says a lot about the perceived value by the employer - which is none at all....
No, No, BobSell, that is not what I meant; I did not make myself clear:
Employers engage Executive Search consultants to bring them the very best possible candidates. They are paying a recruitment fee that is about 33.3% of the first year salary of the hired candidate so the people we recruit need to be in the top percentile of their industry.
We also need to recruit top percentile people because our competitors are doing the same thing so if I recruit someone who is not among the very best, I will lose out to another executive search firm who brings 'better qualified' candidates.
So that "6%" is not unemployable, it is just that smart headhunters won't call them if there are better people available. Those in that "6%" get jobs on their own, at next best companies, through direct application, referrals, etc.
The top '3% to 5%' get the 'best' jobs at the best companies and everyone else -that "6%" you refer to, get jobs everywhere else, more or less.
When the results for both the 6% and totally nonqualified at all are the same - unemployment - that says a lot about the perceived value by the employer - which is none at all.
Nonsense. Your statements are shown to be absurd by reality. Most people find employment. Some more easily than others, but in excess of 90% of those who look for work find it. I know you are going to want to argue about how the unemployment rate is calculated, but you have already defeated your own argument. More than 6% of the population is employed, so you have proven yourself to be wrong.
Quote:
I look at how the employers value the candidates, I'm not the one making the valuation. Their judgments are very harsh.
How so? Are you really going to advance the argument that employers should bypass the best candidate for a position and hire the 2nd, 3rd, or 45th best?
I can understand Paul wanting to focus on only the top people. He only gets paid if he places a candidate, and it takes much less effort and chance if he limits his candidate pool to the premier people out there.
That doesn’t mean others don’t get jobs. It simply means people need to work a bit harder, and a bit more gets left to chance.
ETA: Looks like Paul posted essentially the same thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Advice for Friend re: EHS
Advice for Friend re: EHS
