Re:There are NO JOBS! (Score 1)

* The recruiting agent has no idea what the job is, puts in an ad that does not specify required skills, doesn't know what is in the ad itself, and they server "a very useful purpose".

They serve a most useful purpose by cut a shortlist of many down to a shortlist of 5. I have no idea about the ad in question, but the concept IT recruiters in general don't have any clues about IT is ludicrous.
Do you have a clue about your job? Yes? surprisingly enough, so do they.

* You are paying managers an effective rate of $1000/day. That is an effective salary of $365,000/yr. And, yet you are too busy being an hiring manager to review resumes, preferring to leave it to the hiring agent described above. Tell me, how much are you offering to pay?

Hell no. $1000 a day is what I charge a customer for them. At least. Its salary plus lots of costs plus a hefty markup. Salary typically makes up 30-45% of a charge out rate. Having a manager reading 50 CVs costs the organisation what we could be charging them out at. Its a concept called opportunity cost.

* The agent did not specify "Mac OS/X" as a needed skill and didn't know that OS/X little more than a version of UNIX. You should have done a better job hiring a recruiting agent, one that knows how to recruit for a technical position.

I'm sure Steve Jobs agrees with you about MacOS. However my customers don't necessarily. UNIX on a CV could mean any damn thing. I needed Mac OSX.

* "You're asking me for a job, please don't tell me its my fault for not guessing when you said UNIX you meant Mac OSX". No it is your fault for not specifing in the ad that Mac OS/X was a required skill, not reading the CV, not reading the cover letter, and in general not doing your job as a hiring manager.

Dude, you go read 50 CVs, or more, 30 or 40 times a year. The hiring guy didn't read this guys CV cos it didn't make it past the very necessary filter. Who knows what the Ad actually said, but regardless, I don't owe him a job. You appear to be suggesting its my problem I didn't hire him, but it's his. He's trying to sell himself to my company, and his advertising didn't get the job done.
The responsiblity is on the wanna be employee. I hired the guy who did have MacOSX on his CV. His marketing got him an interview.

You may be able to teach anyone to be a LAN tech, but will they be a good LAN tech? Probably not.

Once they have experience, quite probably they will be, if they like the work. *smile*Whereas I'm sure you were a genius from day one, but lots of other people get taught their trade and then become good at it after doing it for sometime.

Your attitude of "Anyone can be trained to do that job" is part of the problem. You pay like it is true. If that were true, you would just go out and hire anyone off the street and train them.

If that includes hiring technical college grads straight out of finishing year, then, hell, we do that all the time. We pay quite well, but thats another debate.

As it is, you don't do that. You try to hire someone that can actually do the job.

Nope, we try to hire someone who has the aptitude. And the right attitude.

On the other hand, your job as you describe it: "Give employment agent some requirement, read the CVs they send, interview the people with the nicest CV and hire the ones you like." Anyone can do that.

I read every inch of the CVs that make it to me, and we put the candidates through several interview, technical, business, we even psych test them, poor things. But sure - if two guys come out more or less the same, I will hire the one I like. Who wants to work with people you don't like so much? Its a shame, but its quite a typical response you try to make: "how dare my personality have an impact on a job hire decision!".
Decision making processes are by their very nature influenced by emotion.