Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Employers Trolling for Current Employee Resumes?

Cliff posted more than 8 years ago | from the if-you-put-yourself-out-there-you're-at-risk dept.

229

powderhound asks: "Recently, my employer started looking for new employees and started to find the resumes of current employees on the job Web sites. I've heard that management was not pleased. In the old days, before Web job sites, you could job hunt with relative certainty that your current employer would not find out until you gave notice. Now, any employer wishing to check on their employee's desire to find a new job need only sign up on the job Web sites and start trolling. How do we, as employees looking to change jobs, protect ourselves from possible discovery, and even worse, retribution? What have you done to protect yourself? Do you think employers are trolling job sites for their own employees?"

cancel ×

229 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I never take mine down (1)

theNetImp (190602) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275073)

I don't allow mine to be visible unless I have contacted an employer through that site. I usually make first contact. Unless I am already unemployed.

Re:I never take mine down (5, Insightful)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275924)

Even if you do allow others to see it, it makes sense to simply never take it down (and always keep it up to date--so it is ready if you ever do need it). This way if your employer sees it, you can simply explain that your resume is always there (it will be there a week after you got your job and 3 years after you got your job) so it does not mean you are actively searching for a better opportunity. This could also serve to make them realize that they still have to compete with you on the labor market since your open resume could prompt a better offer even though you are not actively seeking it.

Of course, you can take all of that as a grain of salt because, while I do in fact have a resume, I'm just finishing my first year at the University of Chicago and nobody wants to give me a job anyway.

Perhaps a little obvious, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275074)

... perhaps you could try, uh, not uploading your resume to these sites?

The Real Problem (5, Insightful)

Medgur (172679) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275075)

The real problem is that your employers didn't recognise their employee's discontent and ambition. Rather than opening a discussion to improve the quality of their employment they chose to become displeased. It's no wonder they're experiencing employee retention issues, they have an aggressive and hostile methodology in dealing with their employees.

Move on, move on.

Re:The Real Problem (5, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275117)

The real problem is actually that his management probably didn't consider that the people may just have their resumes out there to see what's going on... Testing the waters. It doesn't have to mean that they actually are actively seeking to leave. They got upset because they expect loyalty, so innocent explanations escaped them. It really would be best if managers realized that they were in a business relationship with their employees, and nothing more. Just keep that relationship mutually beneficial and you don't have to worry about your employees leaving.

Re:The Real Problem (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275196)

Just as employers can many times drop employees on a whim, depending on laws of course, employees can change employers as well. It is a two-way street, any manager expecting it to be a one-way street is fooling themselves. Still, I wonder if it is legal to fire someone just for having looked for alternate employment options. Maybe it is legal, but that would be one scary hostile workplace.

Re:The Real Problem (3, Interesting)

SeeMyNuts! (955740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275295)

"It is a two-way street, any manager expecting it to be a one-way street is fooling themselves."

It is a two-way street, but management has a big SUV that takes up both lanes.

I live in a rural area, and it has been known for the grapevine to "black list" certain people at potential employers, outside of official channels. When I lived in an urban area, it is common to find that most employers are equally crappy. It is very common for companies to want to pay practially nothing. Being a independent contractor could be great, but even that is highly volatile. The grass is always greener and all that.

"Still, I wonder if it is legal to fire someone just for having looked for alternate employment options."

IIRC, in some states it is legal, such as South Carolina ("will to work" or "right to work", I don't remember exactly).

Really rewarding and enjoyable workplaces are not particularly common. I worked briefly for one Fortune 500--but family run--company, and it was a great place to work (ample training, good benefits, etc.). Too bad it was in a part of the country I didn't want to live in.

right to work (2, Informative)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275519)

a 'right to work' state, is simply one that cannot have closed shops. in some states, if a workplace has a union then an employee must join that union to hold their job. in a right to work state, you can work for an employer and choose not to join the union. to my knowledge it has nothing to do with grounds for termination.
 
i do know that in AZ, which is a right to work state (but like i said i don't think the issues are connected) an employer can terminate someone for pretty much any reason (outside discrimination or something else illegal) but they have to pay part of the persons unemployment unless they can prove that person was fired for some good reason.

Re:The Real Problem (1)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275787)

I think you mean "at will" employment - basically, if you turn up for work, you deem to be accepting the terms of employment, and if you don't, it means you no longer want the job. Conversely, by letting you work or telling you not to, means whether you have a job to go to.

Disclaimer: I'm from the UK where permanent employees have a reasonable measure of protection and one-months notice period is common, and contractors usually have at least a week's notice. Such notice period is usually mutual and contractually binding. However, I have worked for Uk division of USA companies and been quite surprised by my overseas' colleagues' contracts!

Re:The Real Problem (5, Interesting)

umbrellasd (876984) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275265)

It really would be best if managers realized that they were in a business relationship with their employees, and nothing more. Just keep that relationship mutually beneficial and you don't have to worry about your employees leaving.
I see things somewhat differently. What I see in the industry is a definite trend toward companies caring much less about their employees. Employees are "resources" to be "utilized" in a "cost-effective" manner. The hypocrisy is that when an employee does the natural thing and protects themself by treating their employer in a similar fashion, employers get angry.

What they really want is the most cost-effective relationship possible. And that just may be slavery. There are laws against outright slavery, but "economic" slavery is not outlawed by any means. Most world economies thrive and require it.

So spend, spend, spend little consumerbots!

Re:The Real Problem (4, Insightful)

RomulusNR (29439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275708)

It really would be best if managers realized that they were in a business relationship with their employees, and nothing more.

Despite how impersonal and dysfunctional that would be, I would actually tolerate that amicably. The problem, of course, is that it tends to tip the hand in favor of the employee at inconvenient times, which employers don't want. Workers are expected to be infinitely local to their employers, while employers simply don't return that loyalty.

The tendency is not towards an equitable or balanced employer-employee relationship, which the phrase "business relationship" would tend to suggest. The tendency is towards top-down control and imbalance of that relationship. YMMV, and your company might not have gotten there -- yet, or maybe luckily never. But very few companies go from an anti-employee environment to an equitable one without some sort of revoltive event (unionizing, buyout, etc.)

I agree -- far, far too many companies have no interest or concern regarding employee morale. They either appeal to a very unconvincing "good of the company" mentality, or use fear of termination -- or sometimes neither, using absolutely nothing to encourage workers -- to maintain or aggravate the demoralized status quo.

Of course, what doesn't help is that employers and employees both know (or think) that employers can always get more obedient, cheaper labor, fairly easily; and both also know (or think) that generally, employees cannot get more accomodating, more lucrative employment without risk.

So the employer-employee relationship is simply not an amicable, equitable business relationship, but something much more silently adversarial, where employers fight for the cheapest, most productive labor, and employees struggle for the best benefits and pay.

Say what you will -- organization of labor is probably the only thing that can actually make that relationship at all like a business relationship.

Re:The Real Problem (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276336)

They got upset because they expect loyalty, so innocent explanations escaped them. It really would be best if managers realized that they were in a business relationship with their employees, and nothing more. Just keep that relationship mutually beneficial and you don't have to worry about your employees leaving.

The thing is, that's not how business works. Just like when it comes to sales, you want to sell for the most and produce for the cheapest, when it comes to employment you want to produce the most and pay the least. Just like Microsoft isn't giving away Windows licenses for 20$, employers aren't going to give you a free $10,000 raise just to mutually share the benefit (between producers and consumers, employers and employees respectively). Or at least to the degree they do, it's because it serves the business. They'll always be circling the lower edge of "What can we get away with paying?". The manager's job is to keep you in the company despite that, by any means to his disposal. It all boils down to this, that making you feel illoyal for leaving is a damn lot cheaper than paying you enough so you don't want to leave.

Re:The Real Problem (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275129)

I dated an HR director for a few years and it gave me a huge insight into what HR does in the modern corporation. HR's job is to basically protect the corporation from any employee liability. This typically means they file away every little thing they think might be useful if they ever need cause for termination, to contest your claims to unemployment, to contest any claims for workman's comp -- basically to cover their ass. You would be amazed at what is in your HR file. ;) Anything after that is just extra.

Now I'm not saying its like that EVERYwhere, but in most large corporations, and many small ones, HR is not your friend. This is really sad because years ago it was just the opposite. EA obviously has a poor HR department. ;)

Re:The Real Problem (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275197)

Look down, look down, upon your fellow man...

Re:The Real Problem (2, Informative)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275908)

At my first job, which was with, at the time, the 2nd largest software company in the world, managers were not allowed to put anything, absolutely NOTHING, positive in the annual performance reviews. So for every employee there was a written record of nothing but negative comments. I figured at the time it was sparked by wrongful termination suits filed by ex-employees, and the company was just trying to prep for them. Still, it didn't exactly do wonders for morale.

Re:The Real Problem (1)

lpcustom (579886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275186)

Exactly my first thought when I saw this headline. If the employer would make a better work environment they wouldn't see their employee's resume on a job search site. Cause and effect.

Re:The Real Problem (1)

Corbets (169101) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275636)

Well, that's hardly fair either. Another problem would be that the employee chose to go job hunting instead of opening a dialogue to improve the quality o his/her employment with their boss. It's no wonder the manager would want to fire him/her - if he/she is incapable expressing simple things like dissatisfaction with their current situation, then maybe he/she is not the sort of person that you want working for your company.

The street always goes both ways. Move on, move on.

Re:The Real Problem (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275842)

Another problem would be that the employee chose to go job hunting instead of opening a dialogue to improve the quality o his/her employment with their boss.

Better make sure that you have a new job ready before opening such a dialogue - after all, it suggests that things aren't perfect as is, and therefore, that the management might not be perfect. They may not react to such challenge for their ego in a rational manner. Or they might react very rationally, figure out that this employee is growing a spine, and quickly replace him with a new spineless one, easy to exploit for profit.

It's no wonder the manager would want to fire him/her - if he/she is incapable expressing simple things like dissatisfaction with their current situation, then maybe he/she is not the sort of person that you want working for your company.

But it's just the opposite. People who silently take anything are the dream employees of many corporations. They can be made to work overtime with no pay, they can be made to give up their vacations, they can be made to work to death - literally - and they never demand a pay rise. It's the people who stand up for themselves that are not going to die for shareholder value, so to get that value up, you need to fire them and replace them with the first type.

Twisted logic, and even more twisted values, but it's the kind of behavior capitalism rewards. Profits at any price, and obstacles are for terminating.

Re:The Real Problem (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276014)

Better make sure that you have a new job ready before opening such a dialogue - after all, it suggests that things aren't perfect as is, and therefore, that the management might not be perfect. They may not react to such challenge for their ego in a rational manner. Or they might react very rationally, figure out that this employee is growing a spine, and quickly replace him with a new spineless one, easy to exploit for profit.

You are assuming that it's easier for the employer to find a similarily qualified employee than it is for the employee to find a new job. That may or may not be true, it depends a lot on your education, experience and where you work.

It also ignores the fact that *all* employees are less effective the first few months (depending on the job), there's training-issues. In general the employer pays for most of this training.

I started working for my current employer 3 months ago. Theres no doubt that the first 2 months I failed to pull my own weigth. (as do everyone, it's expected) This month will probably be the first one where I actually contribute more than I cost. If I where to quit tomorrow, that would be a much more bad deal for my employer than for me -- afterall *I* got paid for the 3 months.

Furthermore we've been actively looking for new programmers for months (Need to know sql, HTML, programming, bonus if you've got experience with dynamic websites, coldfusion, php or similar), in several countries (Norway, Sweden, Germany mainly) (If this sounds like you and you'd consider working in Stavanger, Norway, seriously, drop a mail to eivind@inbusiness.no). With only limited luck.

Guess what ? We're actually treated like human beings. We're actually involved in decisions that matter to us. We're actually trusted to make our own decisions on technical matters (i.e. a boss that knows his limist, what a concept!).

Re:The Real Problem (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276071)

You are assuming that it's easier for the employer to find a similarily qualified employee than it is for the employee to find a new job. That may or may not be true, it depends a lot on your education, experience and where you work.

No, I'm assuming that it makes more financial sense to hire a new employee than to give the current one a rise, or deal with whatever his problem is.

Or the employer could simply increase the workload of the remaining employees, not hire anyone, and give the savings to the management as bonuses for work well done.

It also ignores the fact that *all* employees are less effective the first few months (depending on the job), there's training-issues. In general the employer pays for most of this training.

No worries, just make the rest of the employees pick up the slack.

Furthermore we've been actively looking for new programmers for months (Need to know sql, HTML, programming, bonus if you've got experience with dynamic websites, coldfusion, php or similar), in several countries (Norway, Sweden, Germany mainly) (If this sounds like you and you'd consider working in Stavanger, Norway, seriously, drop a mail to eivind@inbusiness.no). With only limited luck.

I have no formal education in any of those things, but I thought myself HTML with W3C's website, PHP with PHP's website, SQL with PostrgreSQL's documentation and various programming languages - Python, Java, C - with their websites kind help (except C, which I learned from Nethack's source code).

Of course, as a result, my skills have huge holes - I've learned things as I've needed them, without knowing if something is the correct way of doing things. Still don't quite have a handle on C's string manipulation functions, despite doing experimentation on Linux kernel.

Guess what ? We're actually treated like human beings. We're actually involved in decisions that matter to us. We're actually trusted to make our own decisions on technical matters (i.e. a boss that knows his limist, what a concept!).

Then I congratulate you for having a good employer, but the basis of this discussion was having a not-so-good one.

Re:The Real Problem (2, Insightful)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275905)

Sociopathic, is what it is. No other rational explaination for why everyone else's employee's resumes should be searchable and their's shouldn't.

Web? (-1, Offtopic)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275088)

Is Web a proper noun? And isn't the word "website"?

Re:Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275110)

yes.
no.

Re:Web? (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275240)

Tell that to the Information Superhighway.

no name? (4, Informative)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275092)

Don't include your real name?

Mod parent back up, mods are on crack! (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275521)

How is this redudant, it is directly to the point and nobody else said it first. I would have posted the same thing if it hadn't been here. You can always explain to employers when contacted why you did what you did.

After all, almost every employer will respect it if you don't want your current employer contacted and it is understood why you wouldn't want that.

Re:Mod parent back up, mods are on crack! (2, Insightful)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275938)

The problem is when they look at the resume and they say "hey, this person says they are currently working for us but we have no record of them in the system" and they they contact you and discover who you really are (since your contact info probobly matches the info your company has on you).

Easy. (2, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275093)

Don't post your resume on a job site.

Most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web anyway. They post a listing and wait for the applicants to come to them. Also, the old way of finding a job is still the best. Use your network of contacts, or find a reputable headhunter (ask around. 1 headhunter in 100 isn't a schmuck, and somebody you know probably knows which one it is).

If your resume isn't out there in the public sense, you don't have to worry about your employer finding it. If posting your resume is all you're doing to find a job, you certainly don't have to worry about getting hired either.

Re:Easy. (2, Insightful)

screevo (701820) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275171)

I got my current job from a job website. A lot of people I know have gotten sweet gigs from Monster. I don't know why you would imply that job websites aren't useful.

Re:Easy. (2, Interesting)

cervo (626632) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275201)

Many recruiters both internal to big companies and external staffing companies DO search monster. A lot of them will just spam mail you with job offers in fields other than your own or to jobs in areas that you do not want to transfer to. Nevertheless, some of them will contact you and are in with the local companies. I found my first job through this method, and a really great recruiter is helping me now to find another. Furthermore several big companies have contacted me through their recruiters farming my resume from monster. I think that I am about to get a job from one of these companies as well, but only time will tell. Without putting my resume out there I would not have any of these opportunities.

Re:Easy. (2, Interesting)

livewire98801 (916940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276142)

Its amazing how every time I update my resume, I get dozens of people that think I would make a great Insurance salesman, even though all of my experience is in tech support and one gig at RadioShack. I get offers from Monster and CareerBuilder, but none of them are useful to me. I'm not sure that making it hidden wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Re:Easy. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275324)

I got one job off of a Monster.com listing. That was years ago, however. Recently, when I tried them again, I just got a ton of nonsense from head hunters searching on keywords and e-mailing anything that even remotely matches, where "remotely" makes Pluto's orbit look like an o-ring for my lawnmower.

Re:Easy. (1)

dacohen (655955) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275391)

Intriguing thought... They post and wait for applicants to come in? Maybe the bad ones do. Recruiters make thier commision on getting applicants jobs. Any thing they can do to increase the flow of applicants will increase thier revenue. Furthermore, if you talk to a recruiter (at least a good executive recruiter) they have a large rolodex of names, and go back to thier candidates repeatedly, because getting someone a job gets them paid. Places like Hotjobs, Dice, TheLadders, Monster etc, all have extremely large numbers of recruiters around looking at databases everyday, trying to find candidates. And that reputable headhunter, guess what, he's not altruistic. He's trying to find you a job for the same reason all the other ones are. He wants to get paid. Also, hunting for jobs is hard enough, if you dont do everything you can, including putting your resume on sites like the ones above, then you are doing yourself a disservice.

post it here :-) (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275427)

Needed:

You think that binary executable files are human readable, at least with some help from a hex editor. You think binary net protocols (like X11,IAX2,SMB...) are human readable. You like to break things. You live in the USA.

Re:post it here :-) (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276251)

Is that last part negotiable? :)

Re:Easy. (3, Insightful)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275463)


Most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web anyway. They post a listing and wait for the applicants to come to them.

I respectfully disagree. If you send your resume and application to a job posting, you are competing with the 100 other applicants that did the same. Whereas, if a recruiter finds your resume online and likes you enough to contact you, they are already sold enough to initiate the human level of contact.

I have always gotten much further in the interview process when it was initiated by the recruiter instead of the other way around.

And to that end, I almost always keep my resume online--I just only update it when I'm more actively looking. If an employer found that offensive, they should sign a contract with me that binds me for life. Until I get that, I'm going to more or less continue looking, or considering offers, perpetually.

Re:Easy. (4, Insightful)

jhoger (519683) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275526)

Even easier, if you've got the stones for it: be a man.

Think of employment as an economist does: it is a kind of marketplace in which you sell your labor. Any time you don't sell is your leisure time. Every day you go to work you are deciding to sell some of your labor to a particular employer.

On an ongoing basis you work, and on that basis you employer incurs a liability TO YOU. When they write out the check, they pay off that acrued liability. In fact, you are extending them credit terms of two weeks, basically. Oh, and they also usually incur a vacation liability to you. That is the extent of who owes who.

Employment is almost always at will. So beyond the acrued payroll and vacation time and possibly contractual obligations, nobody owes anybody anything really. You are free to go. They are free to let you go.

Your employer understands that there is a marketplace in which you can sell your services. Your resume on a web site is completely natural when you understand the economics of the situation. They may "not be happy" but who cares? If an employer would actually fire you for being in the job market there's a serious problem anyway. Are they afraid you're underpaid? Are they afraid you're unhappy? Frankly, any time would be a great time for them to fix that. The fact is that if a better offer comes along the rational choice is to go elsewhere, and they should know that.

Bottom line is, don't be a wuss. There are always other jobs.

In fact, I think everyone would be better off as contractors. Then the reality of the situation would be understood more clearly by both sides.

-- John.

Re:Easy. (3, Interesting)

plover (150551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275622)

Most employers don't hire by searching resumes on the web anyway.

Ummm...the HR person responsible for bringing me job applicants to interview seems to spend his life trolling monster.com. And I work for one of the largest private employers in my state.

The amazing thing is that he brings me very few "duds". Most of the people who make it this far really seem to be as sharp as their resumes claim, and I'd say I've given him a thumbs up on over 75% of them. Not that we've hired them all, but the ones we have gotten have been really good.

Re:Easy. (3, Informative)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276135)

Not sure how you feel about monster, but one benefit they do offer is that they can hide both your name and your current employers name(though the job description is still there if you want it of course) to all employers if you make your resume searchable. The employers who like your resume then can use monster to contact you and you can send the "unprotected" resume from there.

According to an Employment Advocate I know... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275107)

...If you are thinking of "moving on", do not ask your current employer to match any offer made by anybody else: the reasoning being that even though they may consider you worth paying a little more to keep right now, they'll also consider you disloyal and a potential future problem. It's a fast track to being marginalised and finding your name at the top of the down-sizing list. Either take the new job, or silently stick with your existing postion.

parachutes help if you accept a counter offer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275511)

this can be remedied by adding a parachute to your
contract as they match your pay

Re:According to an Employment Advocate I know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15276087)

I always thought that you shouldn't do that either, but I have a friend who has just gone from strength to strength by doing the above repeatedly. He moves when a better position comes up, and has actually moved back to the company he just left when they approach him with a better offer.

He does brilliant work, and generally contracts (and he's pretty confident) so I guess there's a lucky exception to every rule :)

Mindset (4, Insightful)

miyako (632510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275115)

I should preface this comment with the fact that I'm only 22, and barely in the "real world" myself- so remember that although I may have no idea of what I'm talking about from experience, I think what I'm going to infer does make sense- and perhaps someone who has seen more of the world can validate or invalidate my ideas. That said, here goes:
Before the advent of sites such as Monster.com, etc. job hunting was a fairly active pursuit. It involved looking at potentially interested companies- sending in your resume to them, etc. Now days, job "hunting" can be much more benign. The fact is that it's quite reasonable to be perfectly content with ones job, and not actively seeking a new employer, but still to have your resume online 'incase something better comes along'. In fact, I would be that many of the people who's resumes were posted on Monster.com had posted them there before they got their current position.
It seems that the optimal solution is really to just get Managers/HR drones to realize this and to not associate running across someones resume online with the idea that they are actively searching for new employment.
If HR still doesn't like it (especially if where you work is an 'At Will' employment place), then I would politely inform them that- if they are worried about you leaving then they should consider negotiating a contract for your exclusive employement, and if you are able to find mutually acceptable terms, then you will remove your resume.

Re:Mindset (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275338)

If HR still doesn't like it (especially if where you work is an 'At Will' employment place), then I would politely inform them that- if they are worried about you leaving then they should consider negotiating a contract for your exclusive employement, and if you are able to find mutually acceptable terms, then you will remove your resume.

If you're gonna negotiate like that, you better make sure that you mind your p's and q's. Don't take long lunches, don't come in late, DO stay longer to get projects done, bust your ass, make sure you can prove you're a valuable asset. It's never good, IMO, to give an employer an ultamatem, unless you're on your way out or you have done a good enough job to win.

Re:Mindset (2, Insightful)

miyako (632510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275494)

I'm not sure I would consider the situation an ultimatum exactly. It's more like:
As an employee, you are selling your time, knowledge and skills to the company to do some job in exchange for a salary or hourly wadge, plus usually some benefits. The way it works at most jobs is, at any time for pretty much any reason, your employer can say "well, we dont need you any more, clear out your desk and go home. We'll put your last check in the mail."
In fact, the basis of "at will" employement is that either party is able to terminate the agreement for employement at any time.
In such a situation, it is not equitable for the employer to have the power to end that employment agreement at any time without the employee having the same opportunity. As having another job is largely a factor in being able to reasonably terminate your current employment agreement, an employer asking an employee to not have their resume available for other interested parties is functionally equivilent to them removing your ability to terminate your at will employment at any time, while they retain that right.
What I am suggesting is that, if your employer wishes you to terminate that right, then for the arrangement to remain equitable, you should have mutual assurance that, if they effectively ask you to end the right to terminate your employment at will, then they themselves should give up that right. The employer may then decide that you are valuable enough that they wish to enter into such an agreement, or they may not decide that. The point is that there remains a balance of power in the employment agreement.
As for being a valuable asset to the company, I would say that if you do not feel that you are a valuable asset to the company, then you should be considering another job anyway. Self actualization is an important part of overall happyness, and for many people that invovles a feeling of usefullness, value, and accomplishment at work.
In the end, you might still end up in a position where an employer just gets rid of you and hires someone else, but in the long run I think that people that take such a stance are likely to find themselves in more satisfying positions with more respectful companies. If everyone takes such a stance, it might even be a small stride in helping to level out the vastly out-of-balance relationship between businesses and employees that currently exists. All that it takes, really, is to have the right mindset. Remember that as a worker you are not a drone or a cog in a machine, but a talented individual who is selling their talents to help the orginization acheive it's goals.

Re:Mindset (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275635)

For being a youngling of only twenty two years, you're pretty bright. I wouldn't give HR an ultimatum, though, because once you're hired they're irrelevant. An HR department that other departments who to hire and fire, is an HR company that's grossly overstepping its bounds.

HR once told my boss that they were concerned about a certain telecommuting employee. They didn't like telecommuting, and were concerned that she wasn't really working. Since she happened to be THE most productive employee in engineering, he told HR to bugger off and CC'd the VP in the email. :-)

Solution (3, Insightful)

catwh0re (540371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275118)

A feasible solution is to not add your current employer to your resume.

Then if you're current employer comes across your resume, you can dismiss it with "it's from when I was looking before this job". The obvious flaw is that if you've been in your job for a great number of years, then it's not a very solid story (or an adequet resume for that matter.)

Alternatively keep your resume on an external website, (which can always be current), it allows you to monitor and traffic who visits your resume, as well as say, block the IP range of your current employer/their chosen recruitment company.

Re:Solution (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275373)

If they are bothering to go to your external website rather than just looking on Monster.com, etc, then they almost certainly did a Google search for your name... your website is right there in the google cache.

Re:Solution (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275439)

If they are bothering to go to your external website rather than just looking on Monster.com, etc, then they almost certainly did a Google search for your name... your website is right there in the google cache.

That's fine -- make it so that the page says, "I'm no longer looking. If you found this as a result of a search on google or something, looking for a resume, their information is out of date. Hopefully, it will refresh eventually."

Doesn't help at all if the HR department checks from home though!

Re:Solution (1)

nugneant (553683) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276084)

"Hopefully, it will refresh eventually."

== "Hopefully, I'll get fired from this job soon"?

Stupid question (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275495)

I thought a lot of job sites would allow you to hide your name from your profile so they wouldn't see it even if they found your resume. Of course, that would mean hiding your phone # (or them calling without a name), but they can still contact you. Now, an employer could still put two and two together, but they likelihood would be a lot smaller.

On Posting Resumes to a Website (3, Informative)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275119)

There are unscrupulous employment agencies out there that will do the following:

1. Collect resumes posted to the Web on common job sites.

2. Submit them to employers with their contact information replacing yours.

3. Not tell you about it unless they get a bite.

4. Contact you about the job if they do get a bite, but not tell you any of the above.

Personally, I don't like the idea of any old person having access to my resume. It's too much information to give out anonymously. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a "passive" way to get a job. You have to go through the work of contacting people, by mail or Email yourself, rather that tossing your resume out there and hoping for a bite. This isn't the 90's after all, the job market sucks. (Sigh... I remember companies giving away Palms just for accepting an interview. Oh well, I made out pretty well myself, until the crash...)

Re:On Posting Resumes to a Website (1)

forrie (695122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275310)

Ugh! I feel your pain.

I've been getting contacts from people who barely speak english about positions that really don't match my profile, in places I would not work (far away).

One of them, consult-ics.com, contacted me about a contract with Verizon, and insisted I must provide my SSN before my resume could be submitted.

And let's not forget the spidering that grabs these addresses - I have a special address for my resume that is getting spammed, that address only exists on monster.com.

Go figure.

Free Market. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275137)

"How do we, as employees looking to change jobs, protect ourselves from possible discovery, and even worse, retribution?"

Free market. You can sell yourself with the same degree of freedom that he shops for employees.

Offer to curtail your freedom, if he curtails his. Bet he'll not bite.

Re:Free Market. (1)

Shazow (263582) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275189)

You can sell yourself with the same degree of freedom that he shops for employees.

Offer to curtail your freedom, if he curtails his. Bet he'll not bite.

Difference is most people can only handle one full time job. While employers can handle many full time employees. They're studs like that. :P

What I'd probably do is keep my resume and such on my own portfolio-style website, which will be around regardless whether I'm employed or unemployed. It's more passive that way.

- shazow

Re:Free Market. (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275214)

Yeah, the corporation has a much bigger gun pointed at your head than you do at it's.

Re:Free Market. (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275678)

They may have more "control" over your employement than you do, but if you're smart you'll make yourself valuable to them so they won't go shopping for an employee elsewhere. It's not a gun, it's mutual association.

You are the seller in this situation, so it behooves you to make your employment valuable to them. You need to stand out from the generic corporate pukes around you. As long as you're just another employee, you can be replaced by just another employee. If they don't know you are valuable, you need to let them know. This is going to take people skills on your part. Don't list just what you did on your status reports, list how you helped the company. Talk to your boss about what you do. Talk to his boss as well.

Re:Free Market. (1)

livewire98801 (916940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276171)

Quote from somewhere - "Do not make yourself irreplaceable, for you cannot be promoted if you do."

they should assume I'm looking at other jobs (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275169)

after all, I have to look out for myself, so I will always be looking.

Employers are willing to fire you at any minute so they shouldn't expect any loyalty from you.

Re:they should assume I'm looking at other jobs (1)

Ian Action (836876) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275470)

Uh, why was this modded troll?

Re:they should assume I'm looking at other jobs (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275697)

because slashdot moderators are on crack

Use privacy options (5, Informative)

ghee22 (781277) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275182)

Careerbuilder, Dice.com, Monster.com all have privacy options. One I use goes is similar to this: "keep my resume searchable but hide my name, phone number, email address, and my current employer's name"

So how do future employers contact you? They use the contact job seeker option on the website, such as Dice.com, and Dice would then forward the email to you. It is then up to you unveil your identity when replying back to the employer.

What you can do to further your privacy is use a new email address that doesn't have your name in it to inquire more about the job opportunity.

Good luck!

Re:Use privacy options (1)

forrie (695122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275287)

Ah, but the problem with the monster.com-reponder is that unscrupulous idiots (a/k/a "Employers") abuse this process by sending "work from home!" emails and other crap, to which Monster does not respond (they get paid to allow this).

In fact, I think I have a few slightly saracstic responses from them about this - one of them, suggesting if I don't like it, I can cancel my account. [insert colorful metaphor about what I think of them here]

The end result, for me, is that I refuse email from Monster's letters process, with an error message asking them to direct messages through their ISP - that way, I can block and/or complain about spam.

It's a catch 22.

I guess the alternative is to sign up for another email account and have those messages routed there - but that really doesn't address the problems involved.

Easy (2, Interesting)

Konster (252488) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275195)

The easy way to defuse the situation before it ever starts is to post the resumes of your company's leadership...then leak a little blurb to the local rag from a payphone...with any luck scandal will engulf your workplace allowing you to do whatever you want.

Trolling? (5, Funny)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275207)

Umm, isn't the word 'trawling?'

Then again, I'd love to mod my employer down...

Re:Trolling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275339)

no

Re:Trolling? (1)

styrotech (136124) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275382)

Nope, trolling works

http://bennettmarine.com/rigging_trolling.html [bennettmarine.com]

Although in reality it was the employee trolling for bites on their resume - they just caught a big nasty fish they weren't intending to.

Re:Trolling? (1)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276089)

Fair enough. That seems to be a more localised usage of the word then. Or at least, not commonly used in my locality!

Even worse, it seems that the term as applied to so many, erm, provocative posts on /. actually derives from the fishing term. dictd does it again!

Semi-relevent story (4, Interesting)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275232)

Well, it's not entirely related to this story, but I figured I'd share a little experience I had. In Feb of 2004, I was laid off. I was in the middle of creating some artwork that I was posting on a web-forum for others to watch the progress on. So, the goal of that piece became to make it ready to throw on my demo reel so I could seek work. I even named a couple of places I was gunning for. Unfortunately, it didn't look as though I was going to finish that piece as soon as I would have like, so I left the thread there and moved on to other stuff.

One year and 3 days later, happily employed, I found a little time one night to resume that piece. Once satisified, I posted the image. Unfortunately, I had forgotten to set my alarm that night. I overslept the next day. When I finally arrived at work, my boss was real happy to see me. You see, this forum I was posting artwork to was the exact same forum that he discovered me with. He read these February posts about gunning for a job at these two other places and became concerned. That, coupled with my lateness to work, gave his imagination a lot to work with. By the time I got there,though, he had discovered the YEAR of the post, and a good laugh was had by all.

There's no real moral to this story unless you seek it. It's just my own little anecdotal evidence that one should be careful about what he or she says on the net. This may seem like common sense, but it is funny how these little things can nip you in the rear. In my case, it was totally accidental.

This probably isn't all that relevent to the story. It might have been a more useful post in another story recently about somebody getting in trouble at work over something found in a search engine. No offense taken if this is considered off-topic, but yeah, employeers can see you on the net. Behave.

Re:Semi-relevent story (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275456)

I like stories :)

Re:Semi-relevent story (3, Interesting)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275621)

I once received a phone call from a headhunter at work while my boss was in my cube. I had no interest in leaving the company at the time, so I hung up on him. I said something like, "geez I wish these headhunters would stop calling."

Boss: "That was a call from a headhunter?"

Me: "Yeah."

I ended up with a hefty $5k raise as a retention incentive. w00t!

employment and owning people (1)

drDugan (219551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275281)

this "problem" is more a result of the mentality of what employment really means. employer / employee relationships are another example of a relationship typically structured as dominance and heirarchy -- which (across society) are breaking down because of increased ease in mass communication. when enough people figure out what's going on - they don't want to play this game.

Re:employment and owning people (1)

morryveer (870752) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275434)

In other words, companies believe they own your ass.

Re:employment and owning people (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275904)

Seems a lot of places want you to put yourself in dire financial straits so you can't afford to leave. Some even come right out and say so. Most are a little more subtle.

At one job after I'd been there a year, my boss called me into his office to tell me that he'd observed I hadn't bought a new car. He said that was bad, because if I wasn't making car payments, I could leave them anytime. I know a real estate agent who got the same line from her boss. She should "motivate" herself by buying an expensive new car so she'd have to work her ass off to pay for it. Plus, the shiny new car would impress customers. All the agents were pushed to do that. Made for a cutthroat real estate agency. At another job, a coworker told me he was a "better" employee than I was because he HAD to have the job. Unlike myself, he had a baby and a huge home mortgage. He made sure management knew that too. And middle management would set the example by doing it to themselves, as well. One manager would start pissing contests about who had most crushing credit card debts. And they praised themselves for helping the economy with their spending. They were perturbed and jealous that to all appearances I was behaving in a financially responsible manner. Told me I was being un-American for not spending. Scary when the servants praise indentured servitude.

Re:employment and owning people (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276045)

They were perturbed and jealous that to all appearances I was behaving in a financially responsible manner. Told me I was being un-American for not spending. Scary when the servants praise indentured servitude.

Not really, it is a perfectly normal psychological defense mechanism to pretend that everything's fine even when it isn't. Especially when the society is sending constant signals telling you that working to death is expected, and that money is more important than people.

Such people are simply following capitalistic ideology to its logical conclusion: you are worth what you spend.

unionise (0)

scum-e-bag (211846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275288)

form a union

Re:unionise (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275688)

Then the company doesn't own you, the union does. All a union does is make you a generic commodity employee. You end up less employable, and thus you become dependent upon the union. You're just traded boiling for frying, you're ass gets burned either way.

Re:unionise (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275888)

Saying unions are bad is rather uninformed, and trollish.

Unions where really needed 30+ years ago due to work conditions, people where dieing. Now that we have safety issues that are under government control, safety can normally be a non-union concept.

Whats left is working hours, benefits (medical), and pay.

I would love to see laws governing working hours, people die at hospitals due to overworked doctors and lack of nursing. How many hours should someone work a week, 60, 80? Or maybe only 30. When people have more free time it increases economic trade and a better quality of life.

Now America has no national medical system, and companies cant sustain the insane profit margins without cutting medical or retirement benefits to its employees. This is the sad part, you can give up pay for benefits, but this should only be used for emergencies, not to help the share holders profit every other year.

If companies can pay less they will, walmart is the perfect example. Walmart skirts benefits with low hours, and normally pay the lowest wages allowed. The only reason we have a middle class in America is due to unions, most unions are construction/trade based, the backbone of most societies.

America is highly anti-labor friendly they have busted unions with the help of local governments.

Now I'm talking about unions for masses, not high end professional engineering contractors. There will always be a market to pay high wages for the highly skilled, well, unless it can be offshored.

Re:unionise (1)

Eivind (15695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276048)

Money ain't everything. I wonder when the general American will understand that.

I live and work as a programmer in Norway. In general the pay for high-paying jobs is lower than US, low-paying jobs are paid better, so the net effect is that there's less of a difference between flipping burgers and say programming.

With a 3-4 year university education, you'll start out as a programmer making something like $65K/year, which I understand is fairly moderate by US standards. And ontop of that you'll probably pay more taxes than you would in the US (probably in the 25-30% range on an income like that, assuming you're single or your partner works too)

But here's the thing;

  • That university-education was free.
  • Access to the top-education is determined solely by your results. (i.e you get no credit for having a rich father, nor do you have any disadvantage if you come from a home consisting of a single unemployed mother)
  • About 1/3rd the living-costs during your studies was paid by the state. The other 2/3rds was given as an interest-free loan that you pay back after you start working (if you become unemployed the loan stays interest-free until you land a job)
  • There's universal healthcare for everyone staying legally in Norway for more than a year.
  • Employers have a different (as in better) attitude, the safety nets make people less scared of losing their jobs, which makes them accept less crap, which conditions the employers to not attempt the crap in the first place.

There's more benefits, more than I can count. To me there's no way in hell I'd give that all up in exchange for say $10K more in pay.

I've lived in germany, which is more US-like in these respects, and the work-life there is not in any way shape and form comparable to the one here. I could name 10 different things that employers of friends of me in Germany got away with that here would not even result in a "No.", it'd result in laugther. Followed by resigning the following day unless the braindead boss withdrew the proposal. (the more clueful bosses would understand this and not even consider offering such a proposal)

Oh yeah, there's 4 times more unionised workers in Norway than in Germany. Accident ? You decide. (and if you're a programmer knowing sql, html, dynamic webpages and perhaps even one or more of coldfusion, php, zope or similar web-languages drop me a line at eivind@inbusiness.no and try it out for yourself, we're hiring.)

I think the word you are looking for is (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275364)

trawling.

Re:I think the word you are looking for is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15276237)

Trawling would probably be a better word to use since just looking through sites doesn't involve any "bait", but that trolling [wikipedia.org] is still reasonably appropriate and I'm sure it is what they meant to say.

What's the big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275393)

So what if your employer knows you are looking for a new job? Maybe it will open a dialog with them as to why you are unhappy. I had my resume on one of the big "job" sites and was contacted by them about a position and took a job with them. Several years later I used their site (and my boss knew my resume was active) and found a very good new job. They couldn't fire me just because my resume was on their site. Actually, when they found out my resume was on the site it did indeed open up a very good dialog with my boss and he tried to make my job more interesting and better my situation. I ended up leaving anyway, but there was never of issue of them getting back at me.

Been there, done that - ish... (2, Interesting)

dJCL (183345) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275402)

I had been looking for a new job at my last employer for about 6 months before I left(every employee knew, except the owner, and it was because of his personality that I wanted to leave).

One of the huge tech firms in Ottawa was having a career fair(Cognos) and I decided to wander over to see if they needed any techs. While waiting in line I got interviewed by the local paper(the Citizen) and my quote was included in the article along with my name. Of course this gets back to my boss about 2 weeks later, via one of his clients who recognized my name(never found out who, don't really care).

Boss could not do anything, it was on my time(weekend) and my personal business. It pissed him off, but if he did _anything_ it would have put him in a very bad situation. Firing me would have been without cause, I was already in the lowest job in the company, (with coresponding pay) and I basically could not be touched for it.

As in this case, maybe your boss should be wondering why so many of their employees are looking to get out.

Now, I have a new job, and a 25% increase in pay. I really love the part where I hit my yearly review at my old job and they gave me 0% pay raise! When I left that company they had to hire three people to replace me.

I'll stop ranting now, enjoy!

Re:Been there, done that - ish... (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275566)

As in this case, maybe your boss should be wondering why so many of their employees are looking to get out.

Precisely.

I can see how an employer would be offended at an employee idly looking at other potential jobs if we had, say, the old Japanese job-for-life system... but when an employer can toss you out on your ear with little notice, why shouldn't the reverse be true?

Re:Been there, done that - ish... (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275753)

haha. Similar story for me in parts. I was doing IT work for a company and constantly got ragged on for not being professional and not being able to live up to their high standards so instead of taking it, I changed jobs to a programmer. To make things short, they hired three guys to 'replace' me one after the next, the network's in shambles, and the fall-guy just got canned.

Lesson to the Managers out there: Just because we're not always 'professional' many of us can get the job done. The new guy made substantially more than I did and performed exceedingly below. I don't even have to exagerate. It was a fact =)

contacting references (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15275492)

Perhaps off-topic, but I think related enough that this is an opportune time to seek feedback...

I recently accepted a job offer from a well-known company, and the hiring process included the normal listing of references and them being called.

However, since I accepted the job, all of my references have been contacted by my recruiter, asking if they would also care to apply for work there.

A number of my references are naturally not in the same field as I, but are management or some other unrelated professional field, so their ability to serve a function for this outfit is pretty remote. And it's embarrassing for me to have essentially signed up folks for spam, who were doing me a favor.

Is that kind of contact out of bounds?

I could care less... (2, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275585)

I have my resume posted on all the major job search sites and on my personal website. If the company I'm working for wants to make hay about my resume being available online, I'll tell them what I told the last guy: I'll find a better job, make more money, and be happy at your expense because you let a productive employee walk out the door. I'm not even hiding the fact that I'm laying down the legal groundwork to start a part-time consulting business that I'll take full-time in five years. Your career is your responsibility. If you let your job hold you back, you have no one to blame but yourself.

My boss (5, Funny)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275609)

My boss usually asks me where I'm sending my resume and if they have any management positions open...

If your job is decent... (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275767)

...assure your present employers that you will allow them to match any offers you might get from anyone else. That way they don't have to lose you unless they actually can't afford you. If they don't understand why you might be looking to improve your position--you don't want to be working there, and you should step up your job search!

Of course, if you hate your job, and wouldn't stay there even if they matched other offers, then you've got a problem. But again, you should step up your job search.

And if you're actually afraid of retribution just because you've got your resume out there...it's time to devote every spare waking moment to your job search!

Screw 'em (2, Insightful)

Keen Anthony (762006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15275811)

There is one truly universal rule governing employment in the United States, the "at-will" doctrine [wikipedia.org] . Just as your employer is free to fire you at anytime minus a contractual obligation, you are free to quit your employment at anytime minus a contractual obligation. There are only a few laws at Federal level protecting you against wrongful termination or harassment with the purpose of forcing you to quit, and those few laws are related mostly to whistle-blowing and discrimination based on race, gender, and disability. At state level, most state laws merely echo Federal laws, but with additional punishments. Depending on your jurisdiction and the level of the retaliation, you could have a wrongful termination lawsuit if you are forced out.

But seriously, that's not what's truly important. If you're pretty sure your employer will retaliate against you for having a wandering eye; then you need to start sending that resume out to even more places because chances are, your work environment is not very good, and you're likely not very happy where you are.

Of course, you might understandably not want to injure your employer, but in certain circumstances, I wouldn't even bother concealing the fact that I am looking for new employment, such as if my employer:

- runs the company like a private kingdom, and you'll need to marry into the royal family in order to get a promotion...

- buys high-priced luxury toys for himself, then screams at your entire division for turning down the thermostat or allegedly stealing sugar packets and coffee...

- has created an uncertain work environment where all your goals are short-term and involve just getting to the end of the day without getting fired or laid off...

Finding new work is a lot easier than reviving that part of you that has died inside after putting up with a mentally tortuous workplace.

Make up your mind (1, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276034)

After all the deal goes both ways. Would you be happy if you find out that your manager behind you back has been advertising your job on monsterboard?

No? Then why should your employer be pleased that you are looking to replace him?

Do onto other as you wish to be done onto yourselve. Or something like that.

For whatever this may mean you and your employer have a relationship. You both expect certain things of each other. The employer expects you to turn up each day and that he can plan his business counting on the fact that you are there. You on the other hand count on the fact that your employer will keep paying you the agreed salary so you can plan your live around a steady income.

If you don't think you own your employer some loyalty then you shouldn't expect any back and ofcourse vice versa.

Now either of you may decice that it is time to end it. That is fine. The decent thing is to make it clear. Again, do to others as you want to be done onto. If you don't want to find your desk packed up when you arrive for work in the morning then you can't say "Oh I quit with the months notice and I got a month worth of vacation time that I am going to use now and today is a half day."

First you should decide if it is over or if with some adjustments you are willing to continue (again this goes for both parties). If not then you should be clear and open about it. Let the amount of time of notice that you give reflect how badly it has gone wrong. If you feel totally screwed over then by all means, 1 month notice. But if it just a feeling of wanting something else give the other sometime. You don't want to be fired on the spot and your employer don't want to loose you on the spot.

But IF you decide to leave do it. Then you shouldn't be afraid they find out because you already made up your mind.

But if your just testing the water with your resume on monsterboard then that offcourse gets a negative reaction. Again how would you react if you find that your employer has your job listed there just to test the waters?

What is good for the gander is good for the goose.

well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15276106)

You really have to be careful. I've been in the situation where I was looking for a job in the same industry and the employer I was looking at called the president if my then current employer (before I accepted the position) and gave them the "heads up." Obviously this is very disconcerting. The bottom line is this: If you are looking, be sure you are serious that you are leaving your current job!

Today's word is "Trawling" (2, Informative)

nagora (177841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276164)

"Trolling" is Internet slang for trying to prompt a reaction using a (probably insincere) controversial stance. "Trawling" means to carefully go through something, often with a net, looking for some hidden resource or information.

If your boss wants to troll job websites then let him/her; s/he will eventually get banned and then you can post your CV without trouble.

TWW

Re:Today's word is "Trawling" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15276268)

Trawling is probably the better term here but your explanations are a little off.

Trawling and trolling are both fishing terms. Trawling involves dragging a net through the water to catch fish. Trolling involves dragging baited lines through the water to catch fish.

Both terms are used by analogy outside of fishing. "Trolling" applies where some bait is used, e.g. your example of trolling for responses in an internet discussion or for purposes of this article, if the employer was posting enticing offers to "catch" the employees looking for other jobs. "Trawling" applies where you are sifting for your objective without using bait.

In this case, the employer was probably merely sifting through the resumes without doing anything to attract emplyees to him, so "trawling" is more appropriate than "trolling", but to miss the origin of both terms in fishing is to miss the shading of meaning between the two terms.

My last experience. (1)

WgT2 (591074) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276201)

Mind you, this is somewhat specialized in that I live in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex and my specialization is in Linux)

My last job hunting experience entailed finishing a contract position, changing my resume on a job website to visible, and then getting lots of great offers: I didn't initiate contact any of them with the excetion of one (but that was at the end of last year).

My point is this: while you cannot readily change your job skills, lots of employers do not want to be bothered with being contacted with people they 'think' they are qualified for the job. Instead, they would rather find your resume and contact you.

For you to take advantage of this method would mean you being unemployed and it would mean your job skills would need to be in demand for your down time to be short.

If that's not a viable option, then you might just have to do it the old fashioned way: put on a suit, dust off your resume, and hit the pavement with your resume.

I was an HR Recruiter. WAS. (5, Interesting)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276236)

Last semester I interned at a computer consulting firm as a human resources recruiting assistant. The job was far from what I wanted to do, but I was in a specialzed political program and they felt that getting the CS major away from the keyboard would be more in line with that. I did learn a lot that I would not have learned if I were in a software development role, but I am certainly NOT an HR person. Bear with me, this is all very important for job seekers and does tie into the topic.

Anyway heres how it goes when a company doesn't do all/any of its own HR. They have a list, sometimes exclusive other times not, of HR/Consulting firms that they send job requests to. Those requests specify the length of the contract, the salary range, a brief (VERY) job description, and desired skills. It then became my bosses job to hand me that piece of paper from which I had to parse out a monster (we ONLY used monster for some reason) search string and start calling people.

First off we had an implied policy that we didn't bother with confidential resumes. Send an email and then leave it. Our response rate from those was exceedingly low, single-digit percentages.

We did have an easier time than many consulting contracting firms because nearly all of our contracts were temp-to-perm and my employer had farily good benefits. The way that works is a new hire was an employee of ours for 3 to 6 months, recieving pay and benefits from us while working for our client. At the end of that term, if the client was happy the client could then hire that employee on as thier own without paying us a finders fee. My employer got a (significant) cut, our clients got good people, and good people got full time, permanent jobs.

That sounds all well and good but human resources is not some place I can work and feel good about it. I had to look at a resume, review the stated skills in comparision to the desired skills, look at the employment history and see if/how those skills were actually used, and if that matched then I made a call (resumes with phone numbers get priority, because we can get you right away) and talked to the candidate to see if they were really interested.

Now I get to take a job description that was less than a paragraph with some notes/comments from my boss and tell (NEVER sell) the candidate about the position. Then if they were interested I had to ask questions and see if this person really had what we wanted for the job. It was hard because my boss (and by implication our clients) had very specific requriements, there was no room for 'I think this guy would be good' I had to take the vagaries of resumes and HR talk and salary requirements and quantify them. My coworkers (Hi Jeff, Julie, Lee, and Steve!) were great people and could handle that. It is very difficult.

Now coming back to the point, when we saw a resume of on of our people. We DID NOT CARE. If anything it was a good guide, as I'm reading the first few parts of the resume "Oh wow this guy would be perfect....because he is already doing (job) for (client).". I usually printed those out and used them as examples to compare to other resumes.

If you are looking for something better and not serious about going to a new job, you are wasting my time and yours. If you are "seeing whats out there" then you are a liability, it looks bad for us when an employee quits in the middle of a contract, it wastes my time, it wastes our clients time, and it shows an apalling lack of responsibility on your part. We were not hiring short-term contractors who were looking for adventure and new jobs every 3 months, we were looking for reliable, competent, full-time, well paid, permanent employees. If you want to see whats out there tell us when we call, we'll tell you what is out there, but we have other shit to do. Don't sit there chatting us up.

If you honestly are looking for a new job then I offer you the following advice. If you have an itemized list of skills, programming languages, apps etc. on your resume you need to be able to tell me how long you have used it, when you used it, and cite that when describing your previous positions. If you maky the recruiters job easier then your chances of getting a job are better. The downside to that is, in the environment where I worked, we really didn't have the leeway to help someone change to a new career/job role. Our clients came to us to find people who could walk in on day 1 and know what was going on and start in on the task. If they wanted to train someone they'd hire themselves. I tried a few times to go with my gut and reccomend people who I thought would be good for a job for a second interview, but it NEVER worked out. Immensely dissatisfying for all involved.

If you won't listen to me then why should I listen to you? "This is a 6 month contract that will become a //permanent// position..." "OH I'm not interested in contract work, only full-time...", I still have the 5 minute spiel explaining what contract->perm means. It bloody well means you get a permananent job you asshat.

In short listen at least as much as you speak. Ask questions. If you're going to balk at a term or position be nice about it. I have 15 other positons on my desk, you might be ok for one of those unless you piss me off.

Take all of this with a brick of salt. I was a CS student, in a political immersion program (for my minor), working in HR (a field I knew nothing about), for a boss that thought much differently than I did (I still respect her for what she does, I just don't particularly like her).

I really hope that in bending my NDA I was able to help someone looking for an employee or someone looking for an employer to tune up thier job description or thier resume.

Re:I was an HR Recruiter. WAS. (0, Troll)

alfs boner (963844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276352)

You know that covert "jacking off" gesture that people make, when some loser is rambling on and on about uninteresting shit? Yeah... I just wanted to chime in and let you know that your story was not interesting at all.

Jesus, 500 paragraphs about a summer job...

They sure do, but we do it to them as well. (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276253)

I have been privy to a few discussions about "problem" employees. A few times it was mentioned that they found the employee's resume online. My question has always been, if we are allowed to post job listings then why are we not allowing our employees to do similar?

One thing a lot of us do is chase down the employment offerings our company posts. See, its a game because the postings are hidden by going through consulting and contracting firms. By close examination of the needs and general area given we can all pretty much determine which job postings are ours.

As for getting fired for posting an online resume? We haven't done so nor has it been threatened. What is not allowed is surfing the job sites while at work and we actually have had people do that. None were fired for that reason but it never ceases to amaze me how such highly skilled people can be so dense as to not know we monitor all internet traffic.

It really comes down to your employer. How do you think your boss and his boss would react to your posting? If your like me and have a good boss then it probably is safe. Now if your boss or anyone in the chain is hostile towards you or others, or has made it known that they don't "appreciate" employees posting resumes then take that as a hint. Use job placement (read consulting/contracting) companies. Not only will you find a job faster but it is far safer when your trying to leave an unpleasant situation. From the recent hires we have had I can say without a doubt that their posting of their resumes did not get them a job, what got them a job was scouring the job postings and sending their resumes to the firms doing the hiring. A few never even looked online, they simply used placement companies and similar to get to us.

Always know the situation before opening the door.

Quid pro quo (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15276291)

Hire and fire is a two edged blade. What kind of loyality do you expect from a worker who sees his peers come and go?

It's a matter of give and take. Yes, my resume is up there. Actually, no, I'm not looking for a job. But if someone comes along, pays more, offers more benefits and a more interesting job... How about my job here when someone applies with a better qualification who demands less? Would you fire me?

This is exactly what happened to me when I got my current job. I was working for a large German corporation with a turnover time of about 3 MONTHS in the team. You can imagine how productive we were when the average person stays for 3 MONTHS. I had my resume up on a job recruitment site. My current boss saw it, invited me for an interview, offered more pay, better conditions and a more interesting job. Off I went.

Yes, my resume is still up there. But to get me out of my current job, you'd have to offer a damn lot. More money alone won't buy me. You have to offer at the very least a very interesting job, a good working atmosphere, more or less free timing, 25 days of paid vacation, good healthcare plan, retirement plan and a few other social goodies and so on. 'cause that's what I got now.

And my current employer knows that.

Bottom line: You can expect your employees to treat you like you treat them. If their resume on a job hunting page seems intimidating to you, you're doing something wrong. Not your employee.

Experience from the other side of the pond... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15276314)

After 10 years work experience in London, mostly within the financial sector, I have learnt (sometimes the hard way) several lessons about this and other recruitment issues.

1. It is common for agencies here to ask lots of questions, usually on the premise of "getting to understand your experience and background". This is used to lower your guard, then they will subtly ask about specific details, such as the manager's name, department name, size of team, if they are recruiting/cutting back. Basically, pumping you for information, so they can then sell one of their other candidates into your old position.

Lesson: discuss in broad terms, but never give names of colleagues, managers, teams. The HR department of your new company will contact your old company for a reference, not the agency; the agency just wants a new contact to sell to, which is a guaranteed way to annoy your old boss/colleagues.

2. If you post a CV anywhere on the internet, or even send via email, remove any information that can help to identify you without your consent. Examples beyond the obvious "Personal Details" section include company names, as it is not that hard for people to relate a person, with a specific job title to a specific company at a known time. Add a generic phone number (pay as you go mobile) and generic email account, so they can contact you, and you then decide if you wish to proceed.

Lesson:

3. Reputation is all important. As the career progresses, you will start to get referrals, from past colleagues for example. The financial sector is a decidedly close area at the best of times, and it is very easy to find someone who knows someone who can provide off the record, informal references.

Lesson: Always leave with a professional exit, and make sure if you want to continue working in that same sector, or even IT, that you maintain a good reputation.

4. The bigger the company, the more useless the HR dept. All the companies I have worked at have huge, global HR departments, and are frankly as useless as a chocolate teapot. If you want to bypass the usual agency route for recruitment, but don't want your personal details to end up lost in some filing cabinet or generic jobs email account such as 'jobs@huge_global_corp.com' then you need to have some inside help.

Lesson: Use your contacts, find someone you know either directly, or indirectly who can put your name/CV forward to the recruiting manager.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>