5 ms·

> who reads long comments anyway? I do! It's great that someone is able to see through an emotional response and explicitly address most of the points. I'll tr

> who reads long comments anyway? I do! It's great that someone is able to see through an emotional response and explicitly address most of the points. I'll try doing the same (and also in reverse order). > the Russian way is better because there is a duopoly > in the job-board market, rather than meaningful competition The Russian way is better because the marketplace is more efficient for both sides. If I'm a candidate, I have direct access to more real, existing, non-anonymized vacancies. If I'm a hiring company I have the way to target those looking for jobs. You cover the positive results of that with negative wording ("monopoly"), but in reality it's much less one-sided. Would someone willing to purchase some goods prefer to deal on the phone with people with limited inventories or go directly to something like eBay? Is eBay a monopoly in this case? Answer for both: of course not. > Fourthly, ... Where should you post a Python job? You are describing the very root of the problem and make it sound as if it's something to be proud of. As a hiring company, I can also use a multi-poster too. But now think about a candidate. Where would they go to search for a Python job? Aston Carter? Oxygen Recruitment? Any other scammy-looking firm harvesting their CVs? > Thirdly, ... Is it safe to make him a job offer? Sorry, but for this sort of advice, I'll call my lawyer and my lawyer only. We hired a company specializing in legal services for startups the day we raised funding. > Secondly, ... you'll get a feel for how time-consuming it can be to hire > a single role. When you have 5 to fill, it can become a full-time job. I did it, so I know. You are right, it's a very time-consuming process. When my company grew to four people, subsequent hires were driven by an in-house hiring consultant (former recruiter now doing consulting) working one day a week. Would you argue that a person sitting next to you, being able to talk to hiring person (me) in case of any doubt, speaking on behalf of your company (emailing candidates from @company-mail.com, not @recruiter-company-mail.com) and costing fraction of recruiter cost is better than a recruiter from an outside firm? > Firstly, ... You could see this as introducing > liquidity to the market. Market liquidity is not a good thing in itself. Its only purpose is to reduce spread between bid and ask prices, but by introducing your fee for a bidder you actually increased the spread. You surely can argue that you did a universal good thing for those applicants but you definitely don't bring more efficiency into the market. I understand this conversation is a bit meaningless. It's as if someone would talk to me saying that programming profession is outdated and needs to be replaced with something else. I would refuse to believe that, of course.

peteretep 12y ago
> I understand this conversation is a bit meaningless. > It's as if someone would talk to me saying that > programming profession is outdated and needs to be > replaced with something else. I would refuse to believe > that, of course. The conversation is meaningless because you do not - or will not - read. You are talking to me as if I think the agency model is perfect, where the originating comment specifically stated I thought it needed to be fixed. You are talking to me as if I am primarily a recruiter, where the originating comment mentions that I am in fact primarily a tech guy. I have been programming commercially for longer than you, and I have been a CTO at a company two orders of magnitude larger than yours, and I have had to fill headcount larger than your entire company - a task that would have been impossible without recruiters. You are talking to me as if I see the world through an agency recruitment role, where the originating comment mentions that I have a specialisation in recruitment software. As it happens, many of the world's largest companies (and many of its smaller ones) used the software we built at my last role with their in-house recruitment teams - I was responsible for a software system through which 70% of all job-ads posted in the UK passed. My understanding of recruitment comes through working with recruitment teams from 2 person companies to gigantic multinationals, from personal experience as a hiring manager, from countless times as a technical candidate, and - of course - from the time I spend working as an agent.

peteretep 12y ago

> I understand this conversation is a bit meaningless. > It's as if someone would talk to me saying that > programming profession is outdated and needs to be > replaced with something else. I would refuse to believe > that, of course. The conversation is meaningless because you do not - or will not - read. You are talking to me as if I think the agency model is perfect, where the originating comment specifically stated I thought it needed to be fixed. You are talking to me as if I am primarily a recruiter, where the originating comment mentions that I am in fact primarily a tech guy. I have been programming commercially for longer than you, and I have been a CTO at a company two orders of magnitude larger than yours, and I have had to fill headcount larger than your entire company - a task that would have been impossible without recruiters. You are talking to me as if I see the world through an agency recruitment role, where the originating comment mentions that I have a specialisation in recruitment software. As it happens, many of the world's largest companies (and many of its smaller ones) used the software we built at my last role with their in-house recruitment teams - I was responsible for a software system through which 70% of all job-ads posted in the UK passed. My understanding of recruitment comes through working with recruitment teams from 2 person companies to gigantic multinationals, from personal experience as a hiring manager, from countless times as a technical candidate, and - of course - from the time I spend working as an agent.