Jobing.com Slashes Jobs Nationwide

Our wonderful friends in Phoenix have had to make the tough decision to slash jobs across the country. The one time up and coming job board with the video and blogs, plus $65 million in investments, is slowly winding down their business operations across the country with their local approach. The so-called "franchise" model of local offices is failing as the economy weakens. Gone are several Director level positions plus sales and marketing people from coast to coast.

The future is not a bright one for the company that spent close to $1 million at SHRM just a few months ago. We have to assume Matos (CEO) and team were attempting to unload the business and showing the brighter side of things at this years SHRM conference. The executive night out at the Cubs game obviously didn't go off as planned.

What's next for this at one time up and coming organization? They are ripe for a buyout as staff leaves, revenue falls and the investors are looking for a return on their at this point close to $75 million investment.

Many in the industry are wondering how Matos and team could have gone through so much cash in only 2 years. The future is dim - let's see if they can pull a rabbit out of a hat and keep the doors open.

Comment by Eric Shannon on October 30, 2008 at 4:31pm: could be a smart response to a very tough environment with tremendous uncertainty - job cuts are everywhere, but it doesn't mean that every company cutting staff is going out of business... could even be a positive sign for the company's long-term prospects.

Comment by John Sumser on October 30, 2008 at 5:52pm: That's weird. If you didn't read closely, you'd think this note was from the Jobing team. It's a bit odd to get critical info like this from an anonymous source who wants you to be confused about the source of the information.

I wonder what the RBC policy on name squatting is.

Comment by Amitai Givertz on October 30, 2008 at 10:18pm: John, in the past I think we have been aligned on "you own what you say" and "anonymity" and bomb-throwing posts. But to the name squatting thing, what would you suggest the policy should be? Whatever it is, do you think the policy should be applied from the get-go or only when it becomes apparent the cuckoo is a "malcontent?"

Comment by John Sumser on October 31, 2008 at 3:13am: You know, I don't know how you describe or enforce a name squatting policy. Clearly, Mr. "Jobing" is infringing on a trademark. That's sort of the whole point.

We're going to get to watch this issue explode at Twitter, on LinkedIn and in Facebook. We'll all learn some things there.

It would be really nice if there were kindness and embedded accountability here on RBC. I'd love to take the next "Jobing" aside and simply say, "Try not to be such an idiot." Or something diplomatic like that. These sort of situations always make me wish I knew more Yiddish. With Yiddish, you can call someone a 'putz' and they're often flattered or bewildered.

Anyhow, this isn't the last time. Maybe all 13,000 of us could sing Kumbaya and chant "I will try not to be such an idiot."

And still, the boundaries will get tested and retested.

Comment by John Sumser on October 31, 2008 at 3:16am: You could offer a bit of common sense advice at registration. Something like:

"We really benefit from knowing who you are. Please give yourself a user name that helps us get to know you. While you're at it, please don't use recognizable brands unless you have clear authorization to do so. It just makes you look stupid and us feel stupid."

Comment by Amitai Givertz on October 31, 2008 at 7:42am: All good points, John.

Comment by Jobing on October 31, 2008 at 8:18am: Perhaps being anonymous at times can help. Getting the truth out there and protecting oneself. I do understand what you're saying John but I want to keep my job in these tough economic conditions.

Comment by Amitai Givertz on October 31, 2008 at 8:38am: Anonymity is hardly the issue. The point is that you are passing yourself off as an entity that you neither represent nor accurately reflect and in so doing create a false impression.

If you had to pick between telling the truth and keeping your job which would you pick? Once you've decided I suggest you pick one. In this instance it would appear you cannot have both.

Comment by Jobing on October 31, 2008 at 9:44am: Sometimes in life you are required to make hard decisions. I tend to think Amitai & John are blowing the entire "Anonymity" issue out of proportion. As in business and politics - anonymity - can be quite important for the public good.
I wish you luck and will cease and desist going forward.

Good Luck & Go Jobing

Comment by Amitai Givertz on October 31, 2008 at 9:58am: >> As in business and politics - anonymity - can be quite important for the public good.

Again, it's not the issue of anonymity, it's your misrepresentation. As in business and politics - honesty and transparency - can be quite important for the public good too. Again, on balance you'll be judged by which of those you choose.

Comment