Skip to main content

View Diary: This week in the War on Workers: If you're not born rich, how do you rise? (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Companies that require exclusivity agreements (4+ / 0-)

    before they give you an actual signed hire letter or contract agreement should be boycotted by all IT folks to force them to stop this BS.

    Exclusivity agreements make sense if you have accepted an offer in writing that delineates the four corners of your employment contract.  If you break the contract, they can sue you, for reason.  They have locked in to you, and you have locked in to them.

    This "lock you into us but we promise you nothing" unless we decide we choose you, is unreasonable.  

    Poetry magazines used to do this with submissions, you couldn't submit the same poem to more than one contest, or your submission was void - even if it took them a year to make a decision. That practice has mostly ended because it was extraordinarily unfair, "usurious", and punitive.  And poets started self publishing on-line.

    "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

    by Uncle Moji on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:21:40 AM PDT

    •  Seems grossly undesirable for us commoners (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uncle Moji, YucatanMan, Laconic Lib

      like asking us to stick our foot into a bear trap.

    •  these arent the final companies (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uncle Moji, maryabein, duhban, Laconic Lib

      These are all headhunter/staffing firms. There are hundreds of them.  ALL these headhunters are angling at the same contracts. The arguably sensible idea is that if you give your name ti Recruiter A, then recruiter A will argue on your behalf for Job Z.  If Recruiter B, C, D, and E also have your resume, the actual hiring department is overwhelmed.

      This doesn't stop you using recruiter B for Job Y, and C for Job X and so on

      We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

      by ScrewySquirrel on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:04:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have been used to contracting (0+ / 0-)

        with a headhunter to find candidates for a particular position.  We sign a contract with them, they find candidates and we review.  

        So are you suggesting that if I fail Recruiter A because he or she gives me no useful pool of candidates that Recruiter B may show up with the same pool of candidates if they don't have exclusivity contracts with the employees?  

        If I saw the same unacceptable names pop up on both pools I would assume neither recruiter has done a good job in vetting their pools for appropriateness for my job(s), and fire them both.

        Honestly, as the hiring entity, I want qualified candidates, I don't care how I get them, as long as I don't have to waste the time searching or unless I am engaged in a confidential search.

        So, while I understand how this works for recruiters, I am still not as sanguine about how this works for candidates or for employers.  But maybe I am just missing some nuance.  Thanks for your time.

        "Out of Many, One Nation." This is the great promise of the United States of America -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:21:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not quite (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Government contracts cannot sign exclusivity agreements with just your staffing firm,  They have to be open to everyone.  And so EVERYONE tries to get an angle on it.

          So, to avoid 'person A gets submitted by 20 different companies to this government contract position'  (repeat 300 times for each applicant!), you say 'for this contract, I will have you advocate for me,l and won't also submit my name for this same conbtract wih any other recruiter'

          It happens as well in private sectors if a company gives a position opening to several recruiters, but government contracts in particular are SWAMPED with this because they can't limit who can do the headhunting for them.

          We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

          by ScrewySquirrel on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:18:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  That and unpaid internships (5+ / 0-)
      Like 30 percent of undergraduates in the United States, my daughter, Emma, has an unpaid internship this summer. She is one of the lucky ones. She is following her passion: her internship at a food Web site is in her field of study; the work she’s doing there is providing her, at age 20, with valuable skills, experience and connections.

      But the idea of an unpaid internship is a misnomer — mostly because someone is, in some sense, paying. In this case, it’s my husband and me (with a helping hand from various friends and relatives).

      Emma’s internship is in New York City, across the country from our Los Angeles home. We can afford it, in large part, because she has a friend whose family generously offered her a place to stay this summer. Otherwise, she might have had to pass on this great opportunity. (Her friend, by the way, is a fellow undergrad with an unpaid internship at a Condé Nast magazine.)

      There are, of course, other expenses: round-trip airfare, housing incidentals, food and a MetroCard, to name just a few. With no salary, Emma herself can’t afford any of those things — more expenses for the parents who are footing the bill. These are costs that only those with relatively high incomes can afford. Meanwhile, those who are from less well-to-do households are getting left behind.

      In a poor economy the corporate insects will feed on those who have no choice.
      The Privilege of the Unpaid InternBy RANDYE HODER

      What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. King Henry, scene ii

      by TerryDarc on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:23:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm in IT/medical programming and work (0+ / 0-)

      mostly contract/hourly. There are scores of recruiters with various business models and boilerplate they want you to sign. Some are better than others. I NEVER SIGN ANY "agreement" that even hints of exclusivity. First of all, it's an injustice, akin to high-tech slavery - second it's probably unenforceable legally in just about any state. I'd much rather not work at all than allow myself to be in harness to some of the slime contract-writers out there. But unfortunately, sometimes they get away with it - especially when the job-seeker has few choices -- many of the "talent shops" out there are run by immigrants (usually from India) sponsoring H1B visa workers, also from India or Banglasesh. They exploit their own kind. The way the job seekers are treated amounts to a modern version of indentured servitude. Then they try to pull that crap on some of us US citizens - I zap them with a long and intimidating harangue about how they are breaking slavery laws and how if I don't sue them, someone soon will...

    •  How Do They Check (0+ / 0-)

      I'd say sign the "confidentiality agreement" and then sign up with any and all other recruiters.  Just how are they going to check all of the names in their database against those candidates in other recruiter databases?  If they're swapping names, they're involved in anti-trust and should be broken up.  That would make for some interesting reading.  

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:10:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site