I was heading out the door for a writing date yesterday morning when the phone rang—Shruti, a recruiter for one of the 374,533 IT job shops in this country, gabbling like all her counterparts as fast as she could about a contract product manager position in “San Joz, California” (I’m not making that up. She’s located in Jersey City—and I’m not making that up, either—but you’d think that if you do any amount of recruiting or managing contracts for the Silicon Valley you’d be able to pronounce the name of the linchpin city; evidently you’d be wrong), and was I “comfortable” with that?
She was well on her way to bludgeoning me into committing to her representation right then when I interrupted. First, I asked her to call me by my actual, you know, name. There is nothing guaranteed to get up my nose faster than putting an N in my first name; if you can’t read what’s in front of you, especially in a people-oriented business, you get nothing but well-earned contempt. Then I said that if she emailed me a job description I could then discuss details.
She said she was doing that immediately and wanted to know when I’d reply. I said that I was just leaving (not yet 0800) but I’d get back to her later in the morning. She was clearly dismayed.
“Later?" Voice drifting off into disbelief. "Not in…30 minutes?”
No.
Oh, okay.
Well, here’s what she sent me:
“We have an urgent opening with one of our client. [sic] Kindly let me know if you are comfortable with the requirement. Send me your updated RESUME along with following details ASAP:
“Full Name (as per passport):
“Current Full Address:
“Contact Number:
“Email:
“Availability:
“Availability for Face-to-face interview (Yes/No):
“Any Relocation “Issue:
“Visa Status:
“Employer Details:
“Location: San Jose, CA
“F2F interview will be there.
“Product Manager - Contract to Hire“- Front line product manager - owns a particular product line, but doesn't necessarily set strategy“- Must have: Experience with Enterprise and SaaS software product offerings is required“- Familiarity with Energy domain a major plus”
Now, even for a job shop recruiter this is paltry and certainly not enough information for me to decide whether I’m “comfortable” with discussing it. I replied to her email asking for some level of detail, but of course I’ve had nothing back from her.
(I did, however, find the same email from Shruti later in the day in the queue of the email address I use in my Dice.com profile. My name, with or without the N, is unique; Shruti just isn’t paying attention. I know that, even if she actually types in the email address manually instead of having an algorithm that matches up addresses in her database with email content, it’s not much of an effort. But this duplication is sloppy and not a recommendation for her company as being able to manage a contract employee out of a paper bag.)
Then, late in the day I received an unintelligible voicemail and an email from a recruiter from another job shop with the exact same four-line description. She didn’t inquire about my comfort level. Just for the sake of messing with her, I sent the same “give me details” email.
Guess whether I’ve had a response.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Have a care
I see that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is being sent to a first-rate rehabilitation center to begin the arduous treatment to recover from the gunshot to the head she sustained earlier this month. And that’s good—when you think about a bullet to the brain, you don’t ordinarily think “recovery”, so she deserves all the medical support she can afford.
Being a member of Congress, that’s going to be a lot, and first-rate. She’ll only have to pay a portion of the tens of thousands of dollars this will cost; we, the taxpaying people, will pick up the rest of the tab.
I wonder, though—what about the other six people who were wounded in the attack in Tucson? What kind of care are they getting? And how long will they be paying off the bills? What struggles are they having with their insurance companies (if they have any at all) to understand their coverage and gain access to the treatment they need?
Perhaps if our Congressmorons could be deflected from playing schoolground games of outshouting each other on topics that are the political equivalent of gaining fame for being famous, they might consider this idea that the microcosm of seven people injured in a single incident will have completely disparate experiences and expenses trying to regain their health.
Ah, hell—what am I thinking? These people just repealed the biggest attempt (albeit flawed) at reforming our healthcare system to expand access and bring down costs ever made on a national level—and are strutting around and preening their feathers as though they saved civilization like Christian soldiers marching to the foe.
Meanwhile, as long as I have my current COBRA coverage, I don’t have to worry about seeking out top-notch healthcare services, while my BFF has two fights on her hand: getting her tight-fisted HMO to pay for the life/death treatments she needs to survive cancer.
I do not begrudge Giffords seeking the best treatment available without having to worry about bankrupting her family. But Leilah should have the same expectation of quality and affordability of care.
Being a member of Congress, that’s going to be a lot, and first-rate. She’ll only have to pay a portion of the tens of thousands of dollars this will cost; we, the taxpaying people, will pick up the rest of the tab.
I wonder, though—what about the other six people who were wounded in the attack in Tucson? What kind of care are they getting? And how long will they be paying off the bills? What struggles are they having with their insurance companies (if they have any at all) to understand their coverage and gain access to the treatment they need?
Perhaps if our Congressmorons could be deflected from playing schoolground games of outshouting each other on topics that are the political equivalent of gaining fame for being famous, they might consider this idea that the microcosm of seven people injured in a single incident will have completely disparate experiences and expenses trying to regain their health.
Ah, hell—what am I thinking? These people just repealed the biggest attempt (albeit flawed) at reforming our healthcare system to expand access and bring down costs ever made on a national level—and are strutting around and preening their feathers as though they saved civilization like Christian soldiers marching to the foe.
Meanwhile, as long as I have my current COBRA coverage, I don’t have to worry about seeking out top-notch healthcare services, while my BFF has two fights on her hand: getting her tight-fisted HMO to pay for the life/death treatments she needs to survive cancer.
I do not begrudge Giffords seeking the best treatment available without having to worry about bankrupting her family. But Leilah should have the same expectation of quality and affordability of care.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Oral hygiene
I went to the dentist yesterday, to get a couple of fillings replaced. The office staff told me that my dental insurance covers 85% of the cost, with a $25 deductible for the year. (The previous appointment, for the six-monthly checkup and cleaning was completely covered.) Since I also need a couple of crowns replaced, we’re waiting to see what the insurance will cover before proceeding. (The dentist is concerned that I’m not currently working and wants to find the most cost-effective way to get things done.)
Now, here’s the thing: this insurance is part of my former employer’s overall health coverage. The medical part of this has to be the best in the country: 100% of allowed services paid by the insurance, no deductible and no co-pays; and 100% of prescriptions paid, no deductible and no co-pay. And, back in the day when I was working there, 100% of premiums were paid by my employer.
In the US, it really don’t get any better than that.
And yet my dental coverage is only 85%, and crowns are probably around 50%.
So my question is—why is dental coverage so much worse than medical? Do insurers think we go to the dentist for fun? Can they possibly imagine that we make that bi-annual trip for any reason other than that it’s absolutely necessary for basic oral health?
What’s up with this discrepancy?
A few months ago I heard an NPR report on how cuts to Medi-Cal (the state of California’s Medicaid program) dental coverage were affecting recipients. They found far fewer dental care providers than even before and were thus developing more major problems that might have been obviated by preventive care.
And one of the interviewees said something that absolutely left me gobsmacked: insurance companies stint on dental coverage because “they don’t view the mouth as an organ”.
Blow me—is it possible that any of these actuaries or plan adminsitrators don’t see the connection between oral hygiene and healthy operation of other organic systems? Really?
I mean, that theory totally explains how insurance plans cover dental care at such a crappy rate. But—what freaking world are they living in?
My first response: the ADA doesn’t have nearly the clout that the AMA has.
Now, here’s the thing: this insurance is part of my former employer’s overall health coverage. The medical part of this has to be the best in the country: 100% of allowed services paid by the insurance, no deductible and no co-pays; and 100% of prescriptions paid, no deductible and no co-pay. And, back in the day when I was working there, 100% of premiums were paid by my employer.
In the US, it really don’t get any better than that.
And yet my dental coverage is only 85%, and crowns are probably around 50%.
So my question is—why is dental coverage so much worse than medical? Do insurers think we go to the dentist for fun? Can they possibly imagine that we make that bi-annual trip for any reason other than that it’s absolutely necessary for basic oral health?
What’s up with this discrepancy?
A few months ago I heard an NPR report on how cuts to Medi-Cal (the state of California’s Medicaid program) dental coverage were affecting recipients. They found far fewer dental care providers than even before and were thus developing more major problems that might have been obviated by preventive care.
And one of the interviewees said something that absolutely left me gobsmacked: insurance companies stint on dental coverage because “they don’t view the mouth as an organ”.
Blow me—is it possible that any of these actuaries or plan adminsitrators don’t see the connection between oral hygiene and healthy operation of other organic systems? Really?
I mean, that theory totally explains how insurance plans cover dental care at such a crappy rate. But—what freaking world are they living in?
My first response: the ADA doesn’t have nearly the clout that the AMA has.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Doctor, doctor
Interesting that on the same day that the Republican-heavy House of Representatives repealed the healthcare reform bill, Britain’s Tory government announced plans to change a basic foundation of England’s National Health Service (NHS). Both efforts are supposed to save money for the respective governments.
It’s not entirely clear to me what, exactly, is changing in the NHS—something about putting the process of “commissioning” specialist care in the hands of General Practitioners (what we’d call Primary Care Physicians), instead of having these decisions made by commissions. I’m also not sure how effective the proposed changes are going to be, since—while the reform is meant to streamline the process and of course cut down on personnel costs—it turns out that the majority of the middle managers you’d have supposed would be eliminated are simply going to work in other areas of the system. And, BTW, this change applies only to England; I dunno what’s going on in Wales, Scotland or Ulster.
Messing with the NHS has been the political third rail in the UK that breaking Medicare is over here. No Congressmoron wants to face the prospect of the AARP storming his/her offices; and the NHS has been a basic tenet of British social contract since 1945. It was the most visible representation of HM Government’s acknowledgement that everyone in the country had sacrificed for the victory against the Axis, and that everyone was entitled to broad, basic services.
My sense, after living there several years, was that it was probably a brave new world and a fabulous system in the 1950s, but that it hadn’t progressed much in technology or approach since then, even at the turn of the century. Friends of mine there even now wait for specialist services for weeks and have to take whatever appointment the specialists graciously deign to offer them, or wait further weeks. That’s the price you pay for “free” healthcare. It’s like a nationwide HMO.
Of course, here we’re faced with the problems of expensive care, accessible only to those with money or good insurance, with insurance rates racing medical costs for the stratosphere.
I don’t know which is worse: open access to antiquated healthcare or cutting edge care available only to the moneyed.
But at least the Brits can now seek medical treatment across the EU. Not an accident, I think, that the rules for this were clarified on the day PM David Cameron announced the NHS reform.
It’s not entirely clear to me what, exactly, is changing in the NHS—something about putting the process of “commissioning” specialist care in the hands of General Practitioners (what we’d call Primary Care Physicians), instead of having these decisions made by commissions. I’m also not sure how effective the proposed changes are going to be, since—while the reform is meant to streamline the process and of course cut down on personnel costs—it turns out that the majority of the middle managers you’d have supposed would be eliminated are simply going to work in other areas of the system. And, BTW, this change applies only to England; I dunno what’s going on in Wales, Scotland or Ulster.
Messing with the NHS has been the political third rail in the UK that breaking Medicare is over here. No Congressmoron wants to face the prospect of the AARP storming his/her offices; and the NHS has been a basic tenet of British social contract since 1945. It was the most visible representation of HM Government’s acknowledgement that everyone in the country had sacrificed for the victory against the Axis, and that everyone was entitled to broad, basic services.
My sense, after living there several years, was that it was probably a brave new world and a fabulous system in the 1950s, but that it hadn’t progressed much in technology or approach since then, even at the turn of the century. Friends of mine there even now wait for specialist services for weeks and have to take whatever appointment the specialists graciously deign to offer them, or wait further weeks. That’s the price you pay for “free” healthcare. It’s like a nationwide HMO.
Of course, here we’re faced with the problems of expensive care, accessible only to those with money or good insurance, with insurance rates racing medical costs for the stratosphere.
I don’t know which is worse: open access to antiquated healthcare or cutting edge care available only to the moneyed.
But at least the Brits can now seek medical treatment across the EU. Not an accident, I think, that the rules for this were clarified on the day PM David Cameron announced the NHS reform.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
At the movies
According to the WSJ, this is the future of American cinema: dinner at the movie.
Now, I’m just talking through my hat, here, but I simply can’t think it’s a good idea to layer on even more noise & disturbance to the film-watching experience. Ordering, serving, busing—it’s a lot of to-do to be going on while you’re trying to follow what’s on the screen. Plus the distracting lighting so you can see what you’re eating.
Moreover, it's bad enough wading through the previous showing's spilled popcorn or nachos; I don't want to think about linguine with shrimp & garlic.
I haven’t experienced this—there were some Gold Class Cinemas in Seattle, but the $29 entry fee discouraged me—but my recollections of dinner theatre, actual eat-at-your-seat-in-the-theatre-while-the-actors-are-performing, was that both the food & the acting were second rate, as thought they thought that between the two of them it would amount to value for money.
I know that the movie’s the movie regardless of the food, but I’m just not seeing it.
Now a full bar, on the other hand, has definite possibilities.
Now, I’m just talking through my hat, here, but I simply can’t think it’s a good idea to layer on even more noise & disturbance to the film-watching experience. Ordering, serving, busing—it’s a lot of to-do to be going on while you’re trying to follow what’s on the screen. Plus the distracting lighting so you can see what you’re eating.
Moreover, it's bad enough wading through the previous showing's spilled popcorn or nachos; I don't want to think about linguine with shrimp & garlic.
I haven’t experienced this—there were some Gold Class Cinemas in Seattle, but the $29 entry fee discouraged me—but my recollections of dinner theatre, actual eat-at-your-seat-in-the-theatre-while-the-actors-are-performing, was that both the food & the acting were second rate, as thought they thought that between the two of them it would amount to value for money.
I know that the movie’s the movie regardless of the food, but I’m just not seeing it.
Now a full bar, on the other hand, has definite possibilities.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Recruiters 10
For the New Year I present to you a classic example of Recruitment communication:
“Hi,
Hope you are doing great. We are having following requirement from client. If you are interested in this position, please send me the resume along with the following information.
Full Name:
Contact No. :
Email ID:
Work authorization Status:
Current Location:
Relocation:
Availability:
Rate/hr:
Title: Communications Consultant (Marketing, PLM)
Location: Brea, CA (near LA).
Duration: 3-6 months with definite extension"
This is typical of their pick-up line—urgent requirement for [function you most likely are unfamiliar with] in [location in same state but 500 miles away]; send info ASAP so I can fling it at the client, along with 47 others.
This does have one extra quirk: the duration. Doesn’t “definite extension” negate the “3-6 months”?
Well, I pity the fool expecting clarity out of recruiters.
“Hi,
Hope you are doing great. We are having following requirement from client. If you are interested in this position, please send me the resume along with the following information.
Full Name:
Contact No. :
Email ID:
Work authorization Status:
Current Location:
Relocation:
Availability:
Rate/hr:
Title: Communications Consultant (Marketing, PLM)
Location: Brea, CA (near LA).
Duration: 3-6 months with definite extension"
This is typical of their pick-up line—urgent requirement for [function you most likely are unfamiliar with] in [location in same state but 500 miles away]; send info ASAP so I can fling it at the client, along with 47 others.
This does have one extra quirk: the duration. Doesn’t “definite extension” negate the “3-6 months”?
Well, I pity the fool expecting clarity out of recruiters.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Reading 2010
In 2010 I read 94 books. That’s about an average number; I’m more of a reader than your common or garden American. And I didn’t use an electronic reader; I did it the old-fashioned way, because I like turning the pages of a book, and no one’s solved that problem of being able to see anything on a screen when you’re in the sun.
Thirty-one of the books came from the library; the rest I own (or, at least, I did at the time of reading). Only 20 were fiction; I’m just not huge on made-up stuff. Of those, 17 were mysteries, mostly police procedurals. I also re-read The Hobbit, and finally got around to the Just So Stories and Schindler’s List.
Well, there was also Purgatorio, translated by Jean Hollander and Robert Hollander. I’m not sure whether that counts as fiction or career advice. Mmm, probably not the latter; that would be Inferno.
Most of the non-fiction is history—history and biography. One of the memorable ones was Marion Meade’s Dorothy Parker: What Fresh Hell Is This? Not only is the subject fascinating, but Meade did her justice with her own writing. At the opposite end was Anaïs: The Erotic Life of Anaïs Nin, by Noel Riley Fitch. Fitch is more interested in her extremely tiresome device of writing in the present tense than she is in a full bio of her subject.
The book that infuriated me the most was A.J.P. Taylor’s The Origins of the Second World War, in which he proved to be a pompous apologist for Hitler. Apparently Der Fuehrer didn’t really want to go to war, but was forced into it by the mistakes of other countries’ leaders. Hard to fathom what planet Taylor was living on throughout the 20th century.
And one of the real treats was The Black-Out Book. This is a collection of games, quizzes, brain-teasers and puzzles compiled to occupy British families during WWII, when there was a shortage of toys and an abundance of nights indoors waiting for German bombers. It’s remarkably stimulating 70 years on, although kids with a 140-character attention span probably wouldn’t find it fun, as none of the activities involves a lighted screen or batteries.
I should have got this post up a couple of weeks ago, but kept putting it off. So I’m starting out the New Year by reading Procrastination: Why You Do It, What to Do About It NOW.
Thirty-one of the books came from the library; the rest I own (or, at least, I did at the time of reading). Only 20 were fiction; I’m just not huge on made-up stuff. Of those, 17 were mysteries, mostly police procedurals. I also re-read The Hobbit, and finally got around to the Just So Stories and Schindler’s List.
Well, there was also Purgatorio, translated by Jean Hollander and Robert Hollander. I’m not sure whether that counts as fiction or career advice. Mmm, probably not the latter; that would be Inferno.
Most of the non-fiction is history—history and biography. One of the memorable ones was Marion Meade’s Dorothy Parker: What Fresh Hell Is This? Not only is the subject fascinating, but Meade did her justice with her own writing. At the opposite end was Anaïs: The Erotic Life of Anaïs Nin, by Noel Riley Fitch. Fitch is more interested in her extremely tiresome device of writing in the present tense than she is in a full bio of her subject.
The book that infuriated me the most was A.J.P. Taylor’s The Origins of the Second World War, in which he proved to be a pompous apologist for Hitler. Apparently Der Fuehrer didn’t really want to go to war, but was forced into it by the mistakes of other countries’ leaders. Hard to fathom what planet Taylor was living on throughout the 20th century.
And one of the real treats was The Black-Out Book. This is a collection of games, quizzes, brain-teasers and puzzles compiled to occupy British families during WWII, when there was a shortage of toys and an abundance of nights indoors waiting for German bombers. It’s remarkably stimulating 70 years on, although kids with a 140-character attention span probably wouldn’t find it fun, as none of the activities involves a lighted screen or batteries.
I should have got this post up a couple of weeks ago, but kept putting it off. So I’m starting out the New Year by reading Procrastination: Why You Do It, What to Do About It NOW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)