Comments on: The Recruiter’s President

By: George Watson

George Watson — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:14:00 +0000

Deborah, are you sure you are a Conservative? Last time I looked, big business was backing the need for more visas and educated immigrant workers, which I don’t consider conservative. Globalization is a big money policy, and very Republican, but Conservatives have traditionally favored isolationism and ‘Americans First’. Conservatism has traditionally meant resisting change, status quo and on a good day, less government. (There is always this schizophrenic gap between having the government make personal decisions and restrict personal freedoms, versus allowing business a free reign. God, it appears, is not a libertarian.)

Seeing through anything in this country is usually a matter of following the dollars, not belonging to a political party. But for better or worse, we have embraced capitalism and dollars rule. Thank God we fight over most of them with votes and not bullets.
Onward and upward,
George

By: Deborah Jones

Deborah Jones — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:35:00 +0000

Everyone familiar with my posts in ERE knows I love a good political discussion, but I’ll attempt to frame my comments around the immigration issue, because it does affect the recruiting market.

The comprehensive immigration reform advocates, whether they be republican or democrat, claim to appease voters on both sides of the aisle and provide a ‘workable’ solution to an impossibly tangled problem. Sounds like a practical thing, but the immigration football is being carried by a quarterback who has an agenda…the agenda of gaining voter blocks and a tax base.

Both dems and reps salivate over this agenda, so the ‘bi-partisan’ word creeps into the debate.

But American Conservatives see through all this and cut to the chase. Keeping skilled and professional talent who are applying for legal immigration to our country on hold until illegals can get consideration under ‘comprehensive reform’ is, in my book, criminal. Supporting a bill that legitimizes illegals while keeping legals and badly needed professionals out of this country is akin to hostage-taking. Unfortunately, none of the current candidates for president will stand up for this point of view and separate the rocks from the beans.

By: Cheryl Johnson

Cheryl Johnson — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:53:00 +0000

George, I agree with your post. Might I add that everytime we elect a new President he hear the same ole change rhetoric. Everytime we elect a new President they make promises left and right which is not in the best interest of this Country. I call it whoring for votes. We have a divided country and middle America isn’t getting represented, in my opinion. We also live in a politically correct time where you can’t call it like it is or it’s ‘hate’. For those who watched the Texas debate, I found it very telling the type of questions the Latino media were asking and how they phrased their questions. There’s a clue here.

By: Patrick Wolfe

Patrick Wolfe — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:14:00 +0000

George-
You started off great about keeping this forum non-political, and then you took the bait. Please keep this forum about recruiting.

A - intent
F - for follow thru

By: Jim Cargill

Jim Cargill — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:05:00 +0000

How does a person extoll the view that this forum should not be for political stumping, then go off on the strongest stumping presentation anyone has made here? It was nothing more than a stump speech aimed at benefitting a single party and platform. Mr. Singh’s article was simply about how to evaluate the likely contenders as they relate to recruiting.

Change? I am 57, and cannot recall a single Presidential wannabe who did not decry the current Washington administration, and vow to change things. What a base and simplistic appeal to the voting sheep. Change? Well how about all three telling us what they are actually going to do before we vote them in on their vague promises?

With 9 months to go, I have not decided whom I will vote for, or even which party will get my vote. Articles like Mr. Singh’s compel me to think, research, and evaluate. Exactly as it was intended…

By: Bill Wager

Bill Wager — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:27:00 +0000

George:
I am moved by your call for change, especially to correct the grievous problems which you will not mention, which must, in fact, be critical because they are not worth mentioning.
Change, in itself, can actually be bad. What if your wife announced that she had ‘changed’ the pot roast recipie? Would you applaud that, even if the change was the addition of a large cup of Drano?

One must ask: change to what?
We don’t just change from something, there must be a ‘to’ as well and that strikes me as the most important part.

We?ve been treated to an astounding amount of empty rhetoric in this campaign. Don?t let em? fool you.

By: Eric Beauford

Eric Beauford — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:05:00 +0000

Wow, for someone who didn’t want this to become a political stumping ground? There is so much to refute here and it is obvious which side of the political aisle you come from. I will just say that I would be embarrassed, if at my convention, we were separated by ‘this race?s’ needs, ‘that race?s’ needs, this ‘gender?s’ needs, this ‘persuasion’ need?s, this ‘economic class?’ needs, etc…What kind of belief system does that create, besides victimhood and ?gimme, gimme?, to solve it?

Wouldn’t it be better if we provided the freedom to our people to pursue their individual God given abilities and talents in order to come together for a common good, bigger than the individual? We did not become the greatest and most prosperous country in the history of man by accident. We should always strive to provide equal opportunity and access for everyone: Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Everyone is not built the same and we all have a role to play in the success. If we can accept that, show respect, and reward accordingly each other’s contributions, to that end, we could promote our unity instead of using diversity to drive us a part. That would be change.

By: Brian Whitfield

Brian Whitfield — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:42:00 +0000

Change? What a romantic word that seems to ‘fire people up’. Just remember, not all change is for the better. Any sort of legislation that is against business, inflationary, or targets ‘the rich’ (ie. contrary to popular opinion, the people that employ people and pay most of the taxes anyway), is probably not good for a recruiter’s pocketbook.

I’m not sure ANY of the current candidates represent a change that is good for recruiters. Be careful at the voting booth.

By: Jim Cargill

Jim Cargill — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:40:00 +0000

Raghav Singh has, again, written an exceptional article which will establish him as a lightning rod for emotional, rather than intelligent, disagreement. There is no other regular-appearing writer on ERE who has the nerve or creativity to introduce and discuss some of the more volatile topics which relate to recruiters. While I do not necessarily agree with all his conclusions, he gets major props for bringing the topic to open discussion.

One topic which we are in complete agreement on is Ms. Clinton’s apparent disdain for the free market system. Her record clearly indicates that she views large business as inherently evil and greedy, with the exception of large law firms, which are inherently good, and magnanimous.

Raghav, keep it up!! You provide some of the best food for thought on this site.

By: Bob Reed

Bob Reed — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:32:00 +0000

I feel that you missed a very important point in the ‘Support for Business’ criteria section as it pertains to Senator Clinton, and Senator Obama. Both have committed (per their websites) to substantially raise the minimum wage in order to make it a ‘living’ wage. Senator Clinton goes as far as to target a federal minimum wage of $9.50 per hour.

This significant increase in the federal minimum wage would certainly have a negative impact on business in general. More importantly, the effect on small businesses, which as you mentioned above are responsible for almost 60% of all jobs, would be even more damaging. A 62% increase in labor costs for small business would force them to either reduce their workforce (resulting in fewer jobs), or to eventually close their business altogether.

Altogether I thought the article was very accurate and thought provoking. However, I just wanted to address this missed point to find out if you agree that Senator Clinton’s and Senator Obama’s plans to raise minimum wage so significantly most certainly brings down their grade for ’support for business’.

By: David Lynn

David Lynn — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:10:00 +0000

Overall, a very good article! Good job of addressing issues that should be of concern to Recruiters and staying with the facts rather than emotional opinion.

The only other thing I would have liked to seen included was (since he is still officially in the race) some evaluation of Mike Huckabee’s FairTax proposal and it’s potential impact on, in particular, the third-party recruiting business.

Thanks, Rajhav, for tackling the subject!

By: Jay Lowry

Jay Lowry — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:04:00 +0000

I really disagree with Righav that the immigration plan laid out by McCain, Obama, and Clinton was a good thing. In fact, having spent most of my career as an engineer, I think just the opposite.

For the first time in my memory, engineers, and other technical talent are poised to be paid as professionals. For the first time, they will not be just be disposable interchangeable parts.

For the good of all of us, our immigration needs to be limited and controlled. Our borders need to be secured, and illegal immigration stopped.

By: Carolyn Hayes

Carolyn Hayes — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:03:00 +0000

What a can of worms! First off, even if I were to only take into account who would be best for my business in my choices for President I couldn’t agree with you on most of this. The best President will be the one who best lifts all the boats in our economy. I figure a thriving economy would be good for recruiters. Also important - a thriving middle class, because a large group of educated professionals with job mobility and lots of jobs to chhoose from makes for a great business climate.
Things like guest workers and the Fair Pay Act? Guest workers don’t affect me that much - and most H1b Visas I have seen work for exploitative consulting firms that do not help the worker, most of my clients are not interested, and I find the constant spam annoying.
Fair Pay - as a woman I see the need for this. As a recruiter I sure hope my clients treat their employees fairly. As for more time to sue employers - the Supreme Court managed to kill EEOC complaints with one case last year. If an act was discriminatory 20 years ago and there are many of them over a long period of time resulting in 1/2 the pay of someone with equal experience there should be standing to sue.
Best for recruiters? Ending the war means more money can go to education and innovation. Helping new environmentally-friendly technology will create new industries who will need skilled employees. Regulating banks and industry correctly would create a fraud-free environment where people can buy and sell homes and feel like their money/assets are safe.
So which candidate will help fix our current problems and make our economy and business thrive in a way to help all of us?

By: Ann Hotchkiss

Ann Hotchkiss — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 01:13:00 +0000

Interesting enough article. As a 5th generation American who has lived in DC, been to a Presidential Inaugural Party (George I), and is active in politics in Georgia (swing voter at 50), I take offense to the supposition that these candidates are not qualified…

The opposite is true. Take the time to be involved and you will begin to recognize the amazing efforts of the American people to create stong parties, entertain diverse values, and select the best possible people. Legislation is not created to employ more lawyers! Enforcement of laws, and fair representation employs lawyers!

In my experience, we are truly blessed by the talent who even choose to run. It is the hardest job on the planet. I vote often and early. Get involved, and see if you can write with such a snide simplicity.
Ann