atw: Re: WARNING: Recruiter advertisements are ONLY trawling for resumes for tender responses!
- From: "Christine Kent" <cmkentau@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:58:29 +1000
My understanding, Howard, is that they DO count the informal vote, and a while
back when there were still some idealists left on the planet, we could get some
pretty high percentages of informal votes. If anyone gave a damn, we could all
vote informal. At some point, the numbers would get high enough to cause a
crisis of some kind that we could take advantage of to bring about change.
But ho hum, we’re all too lazy, too compliant, too bored, too defeated, too
old, too engaged with facebook and reality TV – too anything else that allows
us to ignore the essential principals of decency and honesty.
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Howard Silcock
Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2012 5:59 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: WARNING: Recruiter advertisements are ONLY trawling for
resumes for tender responses!
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 <mailto: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] 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:
