3 ms·
The article essentially claims that OpenToWork is generally considered to be a negative indicator among hiring managers: If you're looking for a job, it's bette
by the_pwner224 4y ago
The article essentially claims that OpenToWork is generally considered to be a negative indicator among hiring managers: If you're looking for a job, it's better to not mark yourself as open to work, otherwise HMs will judge you negatively.
Is that actually a view that many/most hiring managers have?
That seems completely insane to me. My view was that OpenToWork == please feel free to contact me about new opportunities, I'm willing to switch jobs or take on contract work. But a number of HN commenters here appear to have the viewpoint that OpenToWork == you're an incompetent buffoon who has been utterly unable to get anyone to hire you, so I'm not even going to consider you for this position. Wtf? Yes, all the incompetent buffoons will be permanently OpenToWork, but I really don't think it's reasonable to make that assumption in the opposite direction.
- jldugger 4y ago"I refuse to join any club that would have _me_ as a member" energy
- listenallyall 4y agoI'd sum up that train of thought like this... A recruiter who comes back to the hiring manager with "this person is a superstar at [competitor] and we can steal them away" is a more persuasive argument, as well as a feather-in-the-cap for the recruiter, as opposed to, "this person is, well, Open To Work at the present time." At the very least, in the first case, you have to move quickly, which is desirable to the recruiter. Or another way: imagine visiting a foreign city and there is an extremely busy restaurant and a mostly empty one. You're likely to go to the busy one first and ask if it's possible to get a table... the hostess says "normally no, but we just had a cancellation and its yours right now." Score! A story you'll tell all your friends. Getting a table at the empty restaurant... ehhh, whatever.