Recruiters 14

Here’s another Tale from the Recruiter Side: I received an email from one for a contract “Jr. Technical User Documentation Writer”. The fact that I have nothing in any online profile that would support the idea that I’d be a junior writer isn’t what’s noteworthy. Nor is the job location being in a suburb of Sacramento the rather odd part.

No, it’s the recruiter’s email address, which was linda@XXXrecruit.com. But the actual email had a signature block indicating that his/her name is “Suresh. B”, with an email address that doesn’t include “Linda”.

Now, for years when I’ve called various tech support lines & got reps in Bangalore I’ve noticed that they often have noms de phone, such as Ted or Tiffany. Like that’s going to disguise the fact that your accent is straight out of Bollywood. But this is a first—do they think that you’ll be more likely to open an email if it has a Valley Girl name in the email address? Or that it’ll make any phone conversations more intelligible?

Got health?

Here’s something that came my way that takes my mind off the Dalí painting that dealing with recruiters constitutes. It’s a four-minute video presentation of how the world has changed in the areas of health and wealth over the past 200 years.

A couple of things that are interesting to me: the cataclysm of the 1914-1918 war and the influenza pandemic of 1917-1919 causes a visible dip in the global health-wealth continuum. This is the conflagration that 97% of Americans are unaware of.

The second is the (again) obvious effect of colonialism: you’ll notice that the nations of Africa and much of Asia don’t move into the healthy-wealthy quadrant until about 20 years after being cut loose from their imperial masters.

Overall, it’s an example of graphics, for once, being used to actually aid the transfer of information instead of substitute for it.

Recruiters 13

Further to my experience last week with the two recruiters offering the same four-line “opportunity” for me to sign up to, you’ll recall I sent them both a request for more information, which I needed to be able to evaluate the prospect.

Shruti, who sent me the same email twice, never bothered to reply. Santy did respond…but I’m none the wiser. Viz.:

“Hi [Bas Bleu],
“I don’t have much job description from the client . they need a Front line product manager - owns a particular product line, but doesn't necessarily set strategyMust have: Experience with Enterprise and SaaS software product offerings is requiredFamiliarity with Energy domain a major plus

“Warm Regards,
“Santy”

So, the exact same 34 words that s/he sent me on Friday, formatted marginally differently.

I replied that, since this is what s/he had given me originally I still can’t evaluate whether I’m a fit. I did say that if more information (= an actual, you know, JD) comes in, I’d be interested in seeing it. But I know I’ve just flown off the Santy radar screen, the way I did for Shruti’s on Friday.

I understand that when I tell them I need information to make an informed decision about whether I’m a match for a job I’m not speaking any language they understand. For them, there is no “match” or “mismatch”; there’s only a score or no-score. Theirs is strictly a game of quantity, not quality; & that model obviously works for them.

But not for me. So it’s a good thing that I’m not counting on anyone with “recruiter” in his/her title to do anything useful.

The 411 on 911

In case you’ve ever wondered about the emergency communications system, there’s a web site that collates items about it. It’s called 911 Wackos.

Some folks call 911 for strange reasons.
Some folks get into trouble after a 911 call.
Sometimes the 911 operators get into trouble.

The incidents aren’t all in the US, but of the ones that are, it seems a lot of them take place in Florida.

Dunno what to make of that.

Recruiters 12

Well, this is a new one on me—an unsolicited email arrived yesterday in the queue of the email account I use for career correspondence, allegedly from a humanoid recruiter. Here’s the gist:

“Hi there,

“My name is [Name Redacted, because some people Google themselves on the Web & actually find & comment on my posts], and I am a Senior Recruiter here at Taleo.

“I've seen your resume within our database and thought that you might have the skills and experience for this dynamic opportunity based in Dublin, CA.
“After reviewing the attached position description, the first step is to review and reply to the questions below.

“These responses will allow the hiring manager to obtain a nice "snapshot" of your background prior to our follow-up call to discuss your responses.
I will be setting up that call so let me know your availability for the next week.

“If you could attach your resume to the reply email, that would be great!
Thanks again,
[Name Redacted]”

Now, here’s what I think is comment-worthy:

1. I haven’t applied to anything at Taleo itself; I’ve only used their web application to submit applications to companies that subscribe to the software. I haven’t found it to be particularly user/applicant-friendly, but I recognize that this is to some degree a function of the way the subscribing companies have configured it to meet their own arcane screen-them-out requirements, so I’m not holding a grudge against them.

2. This means that Taleo has set up an algorithm to scrape out information from the applications that candidates have submitted to Taleo’s clients, which kind of creeps me out.

3. I of course can’t tell if [Name Redacted] is real, or whether this is a system-disgorged email—it does have a humanoid email address, & there’s a signature block that also has a phone number. But I would not put it past companies to have the corporate equivalent of dial-a-prayer contact details, since they’re much more concerned about not being bothered by applicants than they are about connecting with candidates.

4. If [Name Redacted] is real & really sent this email, I’m not impressed by the idea that he’s working at 1330 on a Sunday. It doesn’t speak to a corporate culture that values the old work-life balance.

5. I’m wondering what Taleo’s algorithm saw in my profile, or what process {Name Redacted] (if he’s a humanoid) followed to send me the email, as the position is for an Alliances Operations Manager, a function I have never performed in my long career of just about everything except pro basketball player & Sherpa. I believe my CV has the words “alliance partners” in one place, with reference to work I did supporting sales teams. How could that possibly kick out my profile in a search for persons with actual, you know, prior experience?

6. However, old [Name Redacted] (or his algo) certainly seems confident about the match—he’s already demanding I give him times for a screening phone call next week.

7. The questions I’m meant to review & respond to would definitely screen me out before any phone call—the very first one asks: “After reviewing the position description, what ‘fit’ do you see between this particular role & your skills & experience?” Uh, not really a whole lot. The third one asks how many years of experience in partner/alliance roles; & the seventh wants to know if I’ve made presentations to senior & executive level management on alliance opportunities or strategies.

I make it a point to blow off as few humanoids as possible, even recruiters who don’t seem to have a firm grasp on the plot, so I’ll reply with something. My challenge is to find the kindest way to say, “check your software calibration, because I’m not really in the same time zone as the requirements for this position.”

Why couldn’t it have been an unsolicited inquiry for a product manager, or for an international change management professional?

Recruiters 11

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.