TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Along with the 'postmark' criteria, I think that there should also be some sort of standard naming convention for jobs that companies post to Dice and Monster.
My Honda story had yet one more twist.
After Honda tossed my resume because they thought that I was rate shopping, another recruiter called me. After the initial pleasantries, she described what sounded exactly like the Honda job description. Our conversation went something like this:
"Does that sound like something that would interest you?"
Thank you, but I've already been submitted to Honda."
"How can that be? This job posting doesn't open until next Monday. Are you sure you were submitted for *this* job?"
Well, gee, you got me. The words that just came out of your mouth are word for word what's written on the Dice website, so I'm pretty sure.
The problem is that there is no identifying information beyond the job title, which is usually 'Tech Writer.' The recruiter from XYZ company calls the position XYZ-TW-003. The recruiter from Bob's Recruiting calls it BR-DS-123.
Then there's the calls I get from recruiters who ask. "You were already submitted for this position? When? Maybe there's still time to get you in."
Ned Bedinger wrote:
<<But I'm not quite sure why the employer can't just go with the first
agency that submits a candidate. Presumably, the employer clears the deck
as a simple expedient. Everyone loses their sunk costs and everyone is to
blame for not avoiding the problem. But why not use some sort of 'postmark'
criteria?
What is the recruiter's perspective when a second agency submits you for a
different job at the same employer? Should we be tracking all opportunities
with an employer through one recruiter to optimize our chances around work
already done?>>
For the first comment in this paragraph, I think the answer is: business is
so uncertain and the resumes so many for each job that any little quirk
eliminates people. Some quirks are legitimate red flags. Others are: "I just
don't have time to figure out what this is." Those are eliminated because it
takes time and effort to read between the lines. That is not an issue at my
firm, but it is with some client companies, particularly with HR
departments, who have more on their plate than technical writer resumes.
Also factor in that many of them are asking recruiting companies for people
to fill skills without actually understanding what they are seeking; they've
just been told to find people with certain skills. Postmarking is a step
they really don't "have" to take.
ROBOHELP X5: Featuring Word 2003 support, Content Management, Multi-Author
support, PDF and XML support and much more!
TRY IT TODAY at http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrl
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT: New! Document review system for Word and FrameMaker
authors. Automatic browser-based drafts with unlimited reviewers. Full
online discussions -- no Web server needed! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
