atw: Re: WARNING: Recruiter advertisements are ONLY trawling for resumes for tender responses!
- From: Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:58:57 +1000
Well, it's interesting to know that voting informally isn't against the
law. But I can't for the life of me see why anyone would choose to do so,
much less encourage others to. I suppose if you were doing it while
promoting other ways to get things done in society, there could conceivably
be some sense to the action. But do you seriously imagine the scrutineers
are going to give a micro-second's attention to slogans you write on the
ballot paper? They don't even count the informal votes, so I could hardly
imagine a more ineffective way of trying to make a point.
Howard
On 15 August 2012 17:30, John Snow <JSNOW@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It is compulsory to go and get your presence registered on the day, and
> possibly to put your paper in the box. But it definitely not against the
> law to vote informally (as I often do with the comment “No choice, no
> vote”). I asked the Electoral office about this, and they were quite clear
> (though this is some years back now).****
>
> ** **
>
> They were less clear on my question as to whether I was breaking the law
> by encouraging others to vote informally, but doubted that it was. They
> directed me to certain parts of the act, but I couldn’t make much sense of
> it.****
>
> ****
>
> Regards,****
>
> John Snow ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Howard Silcock
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 15 August 2012 4:32 PM
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: WARNING: Recruiter advertisements are ONLY trawling
> for resumes for tender responses!****
>
> ** **
>
> Are you sure it's true that the law doesn't say that voting is compulsory?
> It's certainly true that *in practice *you can get away with registering
> to vote, then throwing away or defacing or destroying your ballot paper.
> But the Electoral Commission clearly states that voting is compulsory.
> There may be limits to what will be done to enforce the law, but that
> doesn't change the law.****
>
> ****
>
> Howard****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 15 August 2012 15:49, Stephen Nason <snason@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:****
>
> There is no law compelling us to vote. The law compels us to attend a
> polling station on election day.****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ----- Original Message ----- ****
>
> *From:* Howard Silcock <howard.silcock@xxxxxxxxx> ****
>
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ****
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 15 August 2012 3:42 PM****
>
> *Subject:* atw: Re: WARNING: Recruiter advertisements are ONLY trawling
> for resumes for tender responses!****
>
> ** **
>
> Bob T asked Warren: do you vote for politicians at elections? ****
>
> Er, sorry, I don't quite see where you're going with this, Bob. According
> to the way it's supposed to work, there's not much choice about that.
> You're legally required to vote and politicians are what's on offer. I
> wonder what would happen if the Electoral Commission pursued you for not
> voting and you explained that you wanted to vote for a minister of
> religion, not a politician...****
>
> Howard****
>
> ** **
>
> On 15 August 2012 15:10, Bob Trussler <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:****
>
> Warren,
> Wow, that is certainly more than two cents worth!
>
> A personal question - do you vote for politicians at elections?
>
> Bob T ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> On 15 August 2012 15:02, Warren Lewington <wjlewington@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Yes, nice counter points Bede. ****
>
> ****
>
> The recruitment agent from late yesterday has called me twice since, both
> times to sincerely apologise. And my word yes, this episode has cost the
> recruitment agency far more than it cost me. They now have to work damned
> hard to restore trust, and faith in them to me, not to mention the costs of
> paying the agent and adverts and so on. And, they certainly see my skills
> have value. And that is nice to know. But I digress towards egomania…****
>
> ****
>
> This morning the lady conveyed apologies from her contact within the
> bidding company. The person there too, had been misled. ****
>
> ****
>
> There are two issues here. ****
>
> ****
>
> One is doing your research. My major gripe is that with further digging on
> the two occasions in the last few days, the true picture would have been
> very clear. I don’t need to go there anymore.****
>
> ****
>
> The second goes back to honesty and ethical dealings in business. Sure,
> there is the Trade Practices Act, where grey areas abound of course. Bede,
> you are absolutely right, my resume as a commodity in that situation MIGHT
> get me the work. Typically the bid companies never offer the job to you
> when they win it – they don’t even call. ****
>
> ****
>
> More than that though, it was the FACT that I was lied to about the
> existent role as advertised. Someone knew they needed resume information.
> Someone made the decision to say there was a legitimate role available,
> somewhere in the feeding trough. Someone knew that they would get resumes
> worth including in the bid by saying there was a job available – but they
> knew there was not. That deception got them resumes. ****
>
> ****
>
> Our society works because for centuries our ancestors built a cultural
> system around morality and honesty. The justice system we have built our
> society upon requires a commitment from everyone to maintain and live by
> the standards of honesty and morality our ancestors fought and died for.
> The Australian Constitution was written relying on the fact that our
> society enshrined fundamental understandings of the Westminster,
> Judeo-Christian system of morality and honesty. “Tell the truth” is one of
> them – even if it doesn’t make you look all that good.****
>
> ****
>
> If we simply let people behave amorally (making decisions based on what is
> right for them at the time) within the constructs we have been ancestrally
> provided then we are going to erode all that we have been given, and others
> have sacrificially defended. If you want to live in a community that says
> “Its right if I think it is right and it benefits me to do it this way
> now;” then we are going to have a big fail on our hands… By saying “it’s
> the way it is; just swim with it” you are letting people get away with
> deceit and lying.****
>
> ****
>
> Where does it end? It ends with losing fundamental rights. Someone doing
> something because it suits them at the time may not be illegal, but that
> does not make it right according to fundamental tenets of honesty and
> integrity. ****
>
> ****
>
> Solzhenitsyn said we must question everything those in authority do –
> otherwise they will take our right to question away. ****
>
> ****
>
> By highlighting the problems we can actually make an effort to prevent the
> slide down a very slippery slope. It is up to us all to demand expected,
> acceptable standards of honesty and integrity from everyone else in
> society. United we stand, divided we fall. Do unto others as you would have
> them do unto you. I don’t like being used by deception. Do any of you?****
>
> ****
>
> My further two cents worth. ****
>
> Warren.****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *SUNTER Bede
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 15 August 2012 00:37****
>
>
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: WARNING: Recruiter advertisements are ONLY trawling
> for resumes for tender responses!****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> No, let's make sure it keeps going.****
>
> Like Christine says, get with the script. So, agencies are resume hunting
> ... who cares? Just send it to them. Who knows when that bingo moment will
> occur and you land the job?****
>
> ****
>
> The problem of agencies' mis-specifying roles and suddenly terminating
> recruitment are a bit different -- this stuffs people around. But hey,
> these are the seas we swim in. Do you think agents have better nothing to
> do with their time than stuff tech writers around? Are recruitment agents
> sometimes out of their depth? Yes! just get over it. They are being stuffed
> around themselves by government departments and corporations who know they
> need something but don't know what it is; are prone to sudden funding cuts,
> restructures by stealth and general uncertainty.****
>
> ****
>
> Be part of the solution.****
>
> ****
>
> Bede****
>
> ****
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Michelle Hallett
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 14 August 2012 8:20 PM
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: WARNING: Recruiter advertisements are ONLY trawling
> for resumes for tender responses!****
>
> So it’s everywhere. Let’s just accept it. That’ll make sure it stops****
>
> Michelle****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Bill Parker
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 14 August 2012 6:35 PM
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: WARNING: Recruiter advertisements are ONLY trawling
> for resumes for tender responses!****
>
> ****
>
> Its everywhere. I was advised of a FIFO TW job at Cape Lambert (WA north
> west). I applied and got no reply. Much later I was talking to another TW
> who was bemoaning the way TWs are treated. She said she had taken a job at
> Cape Lambert… turned out to be doing office cleaning mostly, with an
> occasional document re-write.****
>
> ****
>
> Bill****
>
> On 14/08/2012, at 2:55 PM, Michelle Hallett wrote:****
>
> ****
>
> I support Warren. The sort of behaviour he describes sucks.****
>
> Michelle****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ] *On Behalf Of *Warren Lewington
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 14 August 2012 4:27 PM
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: WARNING: Recruiter advertisements are ONLY trawling for
> resumes for tender responses!****
>
> ****
>
> Hi all.****
>
> ****
>
> A large number of the contract roles being posted at the moment are not
> genuine. I have found this out after stupidly sending resumes off - and on
> one occasion after specifically asking if the role has been funded and
> authorised. To which question, the answer was “yes.” Twice in the last 24
> hours I have later been called and told that the “role” I applied for is a
> tender response and they (those placing the bid) want to use my resume as
> part of the bid.****
>
> ****
>
> Well. I think if all you want is a resume for the off chance you might win
> a tender bid then you should damn well say it in the advertisements and
> more, you should be paying for it. I spend a lot of time updating my
> resume, which reflects the skills I have taken years of effort, energy, and
> graft to develop.****
>
> ****
>
> So for me, in this respect, the resume is a product or commodity of
> considerable value, and should be treated as such.****
>
> ****
>
> SO YOU SHOULD BLOODY WELL PAY FOR IT. Especially if you win the bid, and
> don’t choose to use the people whose resumes you took and put into the bid
> – and I know that happens – I have worked in a bidding department for John
> Holland...****
>
> ****
>
> To follow that up, I have today (15:50 actually) called the ACCC to ask
> about the false advertising regulatory framework and have been told that
> (basically) if there is no monetary exchange (commercial or otherwise) then
> the advertisements and unethical behaviour such as we are seeing from the
> recruiters is out of the ACCCs capability to act against. Well, I bet the
> recruiters must know that already. ****
>
> ****
>
> I think this sort of behaviour is beyond dishonest. It demonstrates to me
> the lack of trust that recruiters and their cronies higher up the food
> chains have rightfully earned. I also think that the recruiters on the list
> should be ashamed of your own industry. You need to shape yourselves up.
> You cannot deny or defend yourselves in the face of such miserable hyena
> like ethical behaviour.****
>
> ****
>
> If you are having trouble understanding honesty, ethics, and integrity;
> then perhaps you should talk to a local minister, imam, priest or rabbi;
> they can assist you with a moral compass. I can give you several names if
> you want them.****
>
> ****
>
> Unimpressed.****
>
> Warren Lewington…****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Before printing, please consider the environment****
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only
> to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may
> contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is
> waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime
> Services (RMS) is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this
> e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of
> the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you
> receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system
> and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this
> e-mail if you are not the intended recipient.****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> --
> Bob Trussler****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> --
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
> sender by reply email. Please note that any views or opinions presented in
> this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
> those of BCC AdSystems. Finally, the recipient should check this email and
> any attachments for the presence of viruses. BCC AdSystems accepts no
> liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
Other related posts:
