wise they would still be employed is shear stupidity. Bypassing candidates who have been laid off, downsized, accepted a separation package, etc., because their last job was eliminated, shipped overseas, closed down, or was drastically affected by the worst economic recession in recent history, deserves a special distinction—that of “worst place to do business with”--and “even worse place to work for”. Like “A” ratings restaurants get such employers should be so distinguished.
Nikole, if these type of employers and recruiters are arrogant enough to openly admit that qualified but unemployed professionals need not apply to their job openings—they deserve to be outed and recognized as an aberration to common decency in the practice of business. Soon their customers will fall away and their employees will leave them for companies who embrace ethical behavior in their better business practices.
SHAME ON THOSE hiring managers and recruiters who actually victimize people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time relative to businesses that closed down, shipped jobs overseas, enticed early retirements and offered separation packages to accelerate downsizing efforts. I’m repeating myself because it’s worth repeating. Only a proud fool would embrace the logic that gives a pass to hiring entities like ENRON, WORLDCOM, ANDERSON CONSULTING, etc., on a large scale (with many thousands on a smaller scale) who caused the dismissal of outstanding professionals due to bad and even criminal management practices?
As a professional recruiter for the past 36 years, I’ve made it a point to distinguish between great, good and bad candidates—and recommend the best. And while it may not be your mission to help “America get back to work”, you can certainly recommend highly accomplished, highly qualified candidates who happen to be between jobs for good reason. I’ve always challenged hiring managers I’ve served over these many years to consider candidates who didn’t quite fit their template for what they sought in a candidate. I pointed out their great value and potential based on past performance. On many occasions many a hiring manager was made grateful that I did challenge them to consider candidates they would have typically passed on based on inane biases, traditions and outright discriminatory practices.…
n’t be the last to be drawn & quartered on a blogtalk radio program designed to ferret out a truth. Not necessarily thee-truth, but a-truth – if I can make that distinction.
I say, “You Have Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself -- When You Guest Appear on the Recruiting Animal Show” (title of a past photo post of mine on recruitingblogs.com).
However, when you give the Recruiting Animal access to your inner thought process, relative to the subject of recruitment -- it becomes fair game to dissect it. And he, and the Recruiting Animal Show crew & guests, will pursue a line of questioning that will ferret-out the veracity of what you say.
Frankly, the Recruiting Animal deserved a higher score…because he did his job. He simply followed your train of thought and the rest is history. And, Will – there is no crying in blog-talk-radio. Suck it up; learn from it and walk away or comeback for a rematch.
The Recruiting Animal Show is not for everyone – but I feel it should be mandatory as a kind of field test -- a gauntlet if you will –mildly similar to the survival training Special Forces soldiers have to undertake before they are considered “Special Forces” caliber capable. All recruiting professionals should test their mettle on the Recruiting Animal Show.
So, Will – what’s it going to be? The Animal was calling you “Willie” for shit-sake. Unless that’s a childhood nickname, or term of endearment, it seemed like he was baiting you to get your dander up. He was bellowing and begging and he got you to share your thoughts and feelings – and then he pounced. Next time come prepared. Defend yourself and mix it up with the Recruiting Animal. There are survivors after all – from Guest appearing on THE RECRUITING ANIMAL SSSHHOOOOW!...as Jerry likes to scream.
s civil matter) up for months and months during litigation . . . but to formally win and receive any form of damages? Highly unlikely. I have seen circumstances where the suing party has also been counter-sued for all legal costs in defense. This begs the question, "Was it worth it, at least in the sense that the defendant was tied up for months and months when attempting to launch their new venture?" The answer may very well be an emphatic "Yes", as limiting the defendant's ability to engage in early-stage business may bankrupt them.
The elephant in the room is simply this: By pursuing a non-compete against a 1099 contractor (of whom you paid zero federal withholding, etc.), you may open yourself up to a potential misclassification lawsuit as a result (at least here in the U.S.). Now let's ask the same question again . . . given the risk of such a development, was it worth it to protect a "client list" of organizations that are looking to hire the best people, regardless of source? Sometimes we must be careful because our bluff just might get called.
Now, for my own little flavor, I'll say this: If any firm thinks they're going to engage me as a 1099 in an Executive Search situation, and they think they are going to sue me for a Non-Compete, they will lose . . . and they will lose spectacularly. I just might invest a little of my own money and resources to make an example out of them; an example we can all laugh about here on RBC.
P.S. In closing, let me suggest that we have a global presence on RBC, and there are times when questions or discussions are started where it is difficult to speak intelligently and provide legitimate advice. While I have a grasp of the U.S., I cannot speak to Canada, the U.K., India, etc.
Heather Bussing said:Generally non-compete agreements only apply to employees. So they would not generally apply to independent contractors. BUT the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor usually gets decided on a case by case basis depending on factors such as where the person works, whose equipment is being used, whether they have independent discretion or are under supervision as to how to perform the job.
worked in a company that in 2007 had Microsoft's recruitment in 40 countries worldwide, - today they have 5 left!!! and I was active i one of those that were terminated.
Bottom line is if RPO's can offer true value versus a company going it alone then they have a place and justification, and only then. Looking around I do not think the RPO's can be said to have gone from strength to strength and there are many examples of big arm movements and excitement only for the whole thing to fall apart after 2-3-4 years. There is a reason for that, and no it is not as with people that 'we have grown apart' but more to do with value for money and justification for the premium paid versus having your own team. Corporate recruitment in 2012 and going forward is about so much more than just filling seats, it's about EVP, branding, talent communities, and building a coherent and holistic approach to the attraction and retention of great talent. With RPO's often paying 15-20% less than true market value for their people, with no real career path/prospects (as all depending on client portfolio and whether that relationship continues) with a market and companies knowing that having 100% control of one of the (if not the most) valuable aspects of their company (apart from our planet, the kingdom of plants, minerals and animals e v e r y t h i n g man made from paperclips to 'man on the moon') why right and best talent truly distinction between success or failure.
So do I agree with with Phil, - hmmm I will leave that one open. I have my doubts as to the true value of RPO's thereby not saying that they do not provide value,in some way or form and to some, but I have seen enough of it not working as ideally intended why I have reservations about how fantastic they are and how many problems they solve, - that couldn't or shouldn't be dealt with by the company itself with a better outcome.
Only history will show where and how RPO's will play a role in the coming years, tendency so far is though that they may not be the resolution to best and most effective ongoing talent identification/attraction management. …