[Position-available] Please comment on the new posting rules for those seeking or offering jobs

[lug-TwWeWiF2EGRi+ztankeudA at public.gmane.org (Don Levey)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bill Horne wrote:
> Here's "Round Two" of revisions to the BLU's draft posting
> guidelines.
> 
> I've pasted things in here from different sources, so I'll apologize
> in advance if I get something mixed up.
> 
> Bill
> 
> Bill Bogstad wrote:
>>>>> The length limit is almost meaningless as it depends on
>>>>> screen size/font size/etc.  Why not just specify max # of
>>>>> lines/columns?
>>>>> 
> 
> Good point: I've changed it to ask for 30 lines maximum. This will
> need more debate, but I agree that there should be a limit.
> 
For what it's worth: I'd be happy seeing the "highlights" version here,
as long as there is a link to the full posting.

>> Guidelines for Positions Available (a.k.a. "Help Wanted") notices:
>> 
>> 1. All positions offered must be for jobs that require proficiency 
>> in Linux or UNIX. *** 2. You must include a contact telephone
>> number with your announcement. Any applicant who has questions
>> about the job is entitled to talk to a live human being. Web forms
>> or email addresses alone are not sufficient.
>> 
>> 
>>>>> Why?  Personally, I would never accept a job without
>>>>> eventually talking to someone, but email is more efficient
>>>>> for an initial
>>>>> 
>> 'does this make any sense at all for either party' and eliminates 
>> wasteful phone tag.  Why not leave it up to the applicants to
>> decide for themselves if this is necessary to them?  I'm not sure
>> what problem this requirement is solving.  Something generic on
>> 'clear contact information must be provided for responding for this
>> job' would seem sufficient to me.
>> 
> 
Many people will request, in a listing, a college degree.  This is not
(always) because a particular course of study is necessary, but because
its absence is a red flag to some.

Unless a listing here is the only place the job is listed, that phone
number is likely to be posted elsewhere in connection with the job.

I'd be happy with "clear contact information" as long as the link to the
full posting (see above) has a phone number or a way to get it.

> dsr-mzpnVDyJpH4k7aNtvndDlA at public.gmane.org wrote:
> 
>> From the viewpoint of an occasional job poster: the problem is 
>> rarely in getting resumes; the problem is getting resumes of 
>> qualified people. Putting a personal email address in a wanted ad
>> is asking for a flood; putting a personal phone number in is asking
>> to be interrupted every ten minutes for the next two weeks.
> 
> 
> I want phone numbers because they're hard to fake and trivial to 
> confirm. It's the only way I could think of to limit spam and 
> fishing/phishing posts. As for emails, it's OK to obfuscate them, but
>  I think those reading such posts are entitled to have an address,
> and I doubt there'll be a flood if the address is anti-spammed.
> Applicants who are concerned about it can use a throwaway address.
> 
A company that is advertising for people should be able to deal with
spam in one way or another.  Do they have their own domain name?  Can
they create an address for the listing, and delete it when the position
is filled?  I get concerned when a company that is looking for my
services makes it difficult for me to contact them, or find out about them.

>> ***   3. Your announcement must be complete and self-contained.
>> Such phrases as "Call for details" will cause your announcement to
>> be rejected.
>> 
> 
>> There's no reason to cover common sense issues, I think.
> 
> Yep, you're right.
> 
This can run against the "30 line" limit above.  Is there enough space
in 30 lines to cover all the details?  On the other hand, the potential
applicant should be able to see those details *without* needing to close
a loop with the recruiter.  I want to see something posted and available
for (semi)public perusal.  A link somewhere on the company or
recruiter's website that contains those details, included in the posting
here, should satisfy both rules.

>> Bill Bogstad wrote:
> 
>> ***   5. No fishing allowed. All positions must be immediately 
>> available and any applicants are entitled to expect a decision
>> within 30 ***days of their response.
>> 
>> 
>>>>> Should this be 'phishing'?
>>>>> 
> 
> Depends on your definition. Recruiters routinely advertise "generic"
>  jobs in order to get more r?sum?s, and that's considered ethical 
> behavior in their world.
> 
I'm not particularly interested in *their* definitions of things like
"ethics".  I've deal with some pretty sleazy ones a few years ago.  When
I ran across this, though, I remember it being called "farming" -
sprinkling some seed and seeing what grows.


>> Guidelines for Positions Wanted (a.k.a. "At Liberty" or "Seeking 
>> Employment") notices:
>> 
>> ***   1. You must be seeking a job in the Boston area.
>> 
>> 
>>>>> Should something similar be required for 'wanted' postings as
>>>>> well?  I certainly don't want to read a hundred job postings
>>>>> 
>> for Silicon Valley positions on this list and nothing prevents it
>> in the rules above.
>> 
> 
> Ted Roche wrote:
> 
>> Re: Boston-area. What qualifies as Boston-area these days? As an 
>> independent contractor, I've worked with clients who live in lands 
>> I'm hard-pressed to find on a map. With the internet, the world has
>>  become much flatter. I also know several people who've moved 
>> cross-country for the right position. I know we don't want to
>> become a competitor to Monster nor a graffitti board, but we don't
>> want to restrict the opportunities, too.
> 
> I added the "Boston Area" language to the 'wanted' section. I don't 
> know if we're reaching an audience outside Metro Boston, or if the 
> intersection of {Our Members} and {Job Seekers skilled in UNIX and/or
>  Linux} is a large enough group to take announcements for a wider
> area. Ted's point about a flatter Earth is well taken: this needs
> more debate as well.
> 
For both applicants and positions sought:
I'm less concerned with where the company is located, and more concerned
with where I am required to be.  For example, I'd be OK working for a
company in Alaska, if I only had to go there once or twice a year (for
less than a week).  I'd consider a company in Albany, or Portland ME, if
I was required there a day a week or less (each is about the same
distance from my house).  If I'm required at the office every day,
physical proximity is much more important.

How about - for job listings:
Where the company is located, and physical presence requirements.
For positions wanted: location criteria (such as above).

> 
> Bill Bogstad wrote:
> 
>>>>> 2. A post may only be for a single individual, and must
>>>>> include a telephone number where the applicant may be
>>>>> reached. Email address and snail mail addresses are also
>>>>> customary: you may obfuscate your email address if you
>>>>> choose, but it must be human-readable and it must be your own
>>>>> address. (Posts on behalf of others will be considered on a
>>>>> case-by-case basis).
> 
>> *** Same comments about phone vs. email here.  Plus, I would never 
>> post my personal phone number to a publicly accessible mailing list
>>  and would discourage others from doing so as well.
> 
> Well, I concede that some members may be reluctant to post a
> telephone number. This also needs more debate.
> 
"Phone number available upon request" or some such.  A company phone
number, in addition to the expectation of certain types of calls, has
protections that personal phones do not.  If a company wants my number,
they can post/email theirs and I'll call them.

>>>>> 3. If you list CV that include college credentials, you
>>>>> should
>> expect that they will be verified and give permission for anyone to
>> do so.
>> 
>> ***I guessing that posting to a mailing list would not be
>> considered by a college to be permission to do anything so this is
>> probably unenforceable.  Something generic about applicants should
>> expect employers to desire to check credentials/references might
>> educate the few people who haven't yet learned this is common
>> practice.
> 
> I removed it; the "common sense" rule again.
> 
Yes, one should expect that anything you put in your post/resume is
subject to verification (even if posting it isn't considered legal
permission to initiate verification in and of itself).  Sadly, common
sense is an oxymoron.

>> 5. If you are fluent in a language other than American English, 
>> please include that as well.
> 
> This is also gone, since I'd bet multi-lingual applicants will want
> to include it anyway.
> 
This brings up another question: would it be worthwhile to create a
page, FAQ, or whatever, listing tips for job-seekers?  This would then
fall under the "make sure to include things which might distinguish you
from other job seekers."  While many of us have been doing this for
years, I suspect that there are those who subscribe to the list who are
nearing the end of their (current) academic career, are considering
their job search, and could use the advice.

And then there are those of us who were surprised to find that the
multi-page resume is back in fashion again...  :-)

 -Don
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJdiukiVR8AmYXiFARAg9vAJwMjGvGUBc7ULOaJzRo3c9cpk/d6ACfdpjX
SaGkF6YavvdEItmSjCPLdhU=
=6Ni4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----