Nothing like reading the Big Salmon on a Saturday morning to take in a global view of business. From letters and op/eds on the editorial pages, here's my take on how FT and it's readers view the world and how it relates to recruiting...

As a result of the global financial pickle, many around the world can see that regulators have "a legitimate interest in how bankers, traders and other financiers... Yet "the only practical way forward is for regulators to weigh compensation schemes in the balance when judging the risk of a financial company's activities, and to penalise poorly designed contracts."

In the realm of recruiting, who should bear the downside risks, if there are truly any that can be measured as opposed to "felt", of what some would call dubious techniques (fine, fine - call it rusing if you have a stick up your bum) used in sourcing candidates - or if you prefer, getting them on the phone? The companies whose retention programs revolve around keeping recruiters away from the ranks of employees? The hiring managers who couldn't lead horses to water? The corporate recruiters who must recruit under the restrictiveness of constraining process when hiring managers are calling these very recruiters incompetent - when they're not? The subordinates of inferior managers who can't wait to get out from their bosses' umbrellas of incompetence?

The way to penalize a poor employer is for their valued assets to leave (provided other channels have proven to be futile). Perhaps then the employer will get the message. Working is risky these days and how a recruiter gets to a person to present an opportunity that may be far superior to one's current job should not be denigrated just because someone does it in a manner that is anathema to your way of doing it.

Let individuals decide.