How would you react to a Recruiter telling you?

kohr-ah

neo9006 wrote: »

It is sad about the situation about loyalty. I been with the same company for 19 years and have literally watched everyone else get rich in the process. I understood some things and why it was happening. I just find things hard myself. I thought at one point I would retire from here but that will not happen. I feel management right now is just sitting on things which is unfortunate. I told my co worker the cracks are starting to show. I understand companies have to work toward profit. But eventually you have to take care of business and the workers you have. I have said it before and say it again if you do not you take care of your people you will suffer in the end plus deserve what you get. It will happen here. We have one engineer that told my co worker yesterday to go find another job, but too bad he doesn't have a contract without our help. I can't see this guy getting all his data and doing that work on top of his duties. He always says he makes too much money to do things. I just laugh in mind thinking about well the sh** is going to hit the fan eventually. When i turn in my two week notice they are down to one guy. I know he can't do it all by himself. Keep your head up peeps and do what you like to do.

I applaud your dedication sorry to hear how it has turned out though.
I agree with what you said. Walgreens here in Illinois just fired a lot of their corporate IT staff. Some of them were there 20 years.
My father worked for his company for 25 and they laid off all the older workers and brought in all new ones (they took a major dive with their customers because of that).

It is sad to see workers treated that way that do work hard and are loyal.

darkerz

coreyb80 wrote: »

Always good hear to that.

+ing on this,

I've worked with TekSystems in Seattle, WA area for quite awhile. I'm on a personal and professional level with my "go to guy", he really seems to understand and "get" the industry in the area.

I'd imagine if you're ever willing to relocate and cover your own costs, you can fund a preferred company and work through them.

The benefit for me has been the trust, meaning no extensive review of my references, background, etc. The company handles it and the clients can scoop people up much faster.

It's a win win.

Xyro

Chitownjedi wrote: »

... its just like... really? You really going to stick to your guns, when i have a Cruise Missile on my back?

Precisely!

It appears to be all about "cookie cutter" ideas with absolutely no level of common sense applied. I have over 15 years of experience (more if you count childhood hobby experience) but recently could not get a helpdesk position because I did not have ticketing experience anywhere on my resume.

This is a superb thread. Thank you for creating it & thank you for your self-defined "rants".

PurpleIT

f0rgiv3n wrote: »

Sounds to me like these recruiters are selling cars on craigslist... not finding qualified candidates by the way they are acting.

I think many recruiters view us as a commodity; if we aren't cheap enough they will find someone who is and if we don't name our price we will be sold as cheaply as possible.

MSP-IT

darkerz wrote: »

I've worked with TekSystems in Seattle, WA area for quite awhile. I'm on a personal and professional level with my "go to guy", he really seems to understand and "get" the industry in the area.

TekSystems here in the Twin Cities is quite good as well. They placed me in my current security role. Very professional staff.

devils_haircut

SweenMachine wrote: »

This is what I have noticed about techs:

A lot care more about the resume than actually performing
A lot care more about the status of the job, and will leave as soon as something 'better' comes along, even if that means losing out on a good benefit package because all they care about is their resume statistics.

I know all situations are different, but having just left a contract position where we were endlessly promised that full-time, well-paying positions were "coming soon", I felt the need to add my two cents (probably doesn't apply to your situation at all, so no offense intended).

I applied for a contract Desktop Support gig; it turned out to NOT be desktop support at all. The posting wanted 3 years experience, certs, encryption experience, etc. Turns out they just wanted techs for a Windows 7 migration in a healthcare environment that made use of Symantec full-disk encryption. Several people I worked with who had ZERO certs and ZERO experience were getting paid more than me (my fault for not negotiating, but still....)

It was hinted several times that they wanted to bring several of us on full-time. The rate would've been around $21-22 an hour, which is pretty good for the area. After speaking to some of the "vets", we found out that they had been saying that for 4 years.

So after 90 days I bailed. Yes, now I have Desktop Support on my resume. And losing out on the alleged pay and benefits of full-time would've hurt me if it had actually been true. As a contractor, I felt like a second-class citizen, so I got out.

Individual experiences may vary.

LeifAlire

If your not happy with the job / job offer say no deal with it or else accept the position and deal with it. Sorry for being blunt but in some lines of work that is what is needed..no hand holding found here...

apr911

SweenMachine wrote: »

This is what I have noticed about techs:

A lot care more about the resume than actually performing
A lot care more about the status of the job, and will leave as soon as something 'better' comes along, even if that means losing out on a good benefit package because all they care about is their resume statistics.
A lot of techs have no desire to fight through something, they just bail when the going gets tough.

I actually feel kind of sorry for you and your experience if that is all you have had to go on. Ive met very few, if any, people in the industry where "resume statistics" had anything to do with it. Which makes me wonder if maybe what you "see" is off the mark a bit.

Perhaps you should look deeper into why these people are leaving.

Caring more about the resume than actually performing screams to me that you have overqualified people in lower job functions receiving lower pay. Its demotivating and promotes bitterness. As one of those high achievers who picks things up quickly, it is something I go through constantly... Over several years with the last company I was with, I was constantly told by peers, direct and indirect managers, etc. that my skills warranted a higher title (and pay). That was usually followed up with some lame reason about why they cant promote me to the higher title (I swear time-in-seat and other arbitrary promotion requirements are probably responsible for more employee churn than anything else).

While I remained with the company for some time, by the end I was very bitter about my experience there and I was motivated only to work up to the level of my job title.

So at that point, you have to ask, are these people really chasing "the resume" or do we have policies, job titles, etc that make these people feel undervalued and unrewarded.

I dont know that Ive ever met someone who is excited by the number of jobs they've held. That being said, leaving a company instead of going FTE is just the same as leaving as a FTE. You have to look at what really motivates people to leave. Just because you think FTE is great and the benefits package is great doesnt mean your employees or coworkers agree with you.

You see this a lot with things like maternity/paternity leave. If you're single or older and/or not planning to start a family anytime soon, leave is useless for you as a benefit. Healthcare too, if you have a family then a reduced cost healthplan for the family sounds ideal but if you're not a family its another benefit you are unable to capitalize on.

The same occurs for non-contractual benefits like free soda or food. I dont know how many times Ive been on interviews where the interviewer has tried to convince me to take a lesser salary because of the "benefits" such as free soda or free food... All of which are non-contractual and not actually written anywhere... Who's to say 6 months from now someone doesnt see that as a center for cost savings? Now instead of getting 3 meals a day for free, I get 2... 6 months later 1, 6 months after that 3 a week until eventually you are getting the lower salary but none of the original benefits. At my current job, we used to get free meals on a routine (once per week, 2-3 times per month) basis. It happened slowly, so slowly I barely noticed it until it was too late, but now if we get a meal provided to us once ever other month, its a treat.

Also, dont forget your benefits might not be as "good" as some place else. Since Im single and make a good living, I put more of my paycheck into my 401k than most. So for me, with my current priorities, a place that offers a 50% match on 15% of my contributions will win over a place that offers a 100% match on 6% of my contributions... In the future my priorities might shift as I decide to contribute less to retirement to cover expenses like a house or child care. Your pay might be great for the area but not so great for other areas or cost of living. (Id likely take a 10% pay "cut" to live somewhere with a 20% lower cost of living before taking a 10% pay increase to live somewhere with a 20% higher cost of living)

Then of course you have the mix of both and the entire "cost/compensation" dynamic of the benefits packet shifts.

Beyond just the benefits, you also have to look at the position. Maybe the person realized the position isn't for them or maybe the offered pay band isnt in range of what they could make elsewhere... Or the other popular one... Maybe they aren't being challenged enough to stay on.

Finally you also have to look at other personal reasons. I routinely receive job offers for more and less than I make now. I sometimes consider the jobs offering more and I sometimes consider the ones offering less for reasons other than pay and benefits... Things such as location, proximity to family, social activities, etc. come into play. Going back to my Cost-of-living example, I would consider taking less in standard of living, to live in NYC because of the proximity to my family, the social outlets it affords me, etc.

Basically, pay & benefit packages and the importance of each piece varies from person to person.


Finally, on the topic of techs not wanting to fight through something... This is a loyalty issue. Which has been well discussed already. The company isn't going to show them any loyalty so why should they wait around to find out whats going to happen... There's a chance things might get better but often times, you can see which way the tide is headed when the issue begins... If they're on a contract there's even less holding them to the company. Even FTE employees start plotting escape routes when "issues" start arising that they need to "fight through." Even if that escape route is only brushing up their resume and making sure Linkedin is updated while taking a wait and see approach as best as possible. Its fight/flight response and its human nature. Why "fight" when you can take "flight" and likely find yourself in a better place with better benefits/pay where you dont have to fight at all.

tprice5

Chitownjedi wrote: »

its just like... really? You really going to stick to your guns, when i have a Cruise Missile on my back?

Yeah, play checkers with me, so that the other 15 admins and engineers I Managed reach their termination date, I can say yeah, I wouldn't suggest working with that staffing agency they are really not out for what's best for you..

Hahaha, I love this.