I am keeping the Seven Wonders of the Week alive but I need your help! I picked out six of the top discussions and wanted to ask what you think #7 should be. What discussion should I add to the list? Let me know what you think by posting a comment below.
Interesting…this was actually a topic of discussion at this month’s ERE happy hour in Atlanta. Matt Faskamp wants to know if his company can save costs by using only one job board subscription instead of two. Do Monster and CareerBuilder really have unique visitors? Mike Jenkins says you only need one but not to forget to add Yahoo! Hot Jobs to that list. He recommends looking at your companies’ specific needs (i.e., international capabilities, board that provides more candidates for critical positions, user feedback, and capabilities of your ATS). Chandra Bodapati is the first to recommend Internet search instead. Kristin Gissaro and Sam Morse agree that Matt might want to take a different approach and turn toward niche boards and social networking sites. Kelly Dingee wisely advises Matt to run stats from his ATS and ask candidates what they use. She has personally had success with all three big boards…it depends on the reqs. She agrees with others that Matt should consider niche boards, Internet search, and social networking sites. Good luck, Matt. Let us know what you decide to do!
This topic first posted by Maureen Sharib on July 15 continues to dominate the ERE discussion boards a week later. Maureen addresses the “biggest boogeyman” in today’s campaigns…outsourcing. More specifically Maureen argues that U.S. companies are motivated to outsource their call centers because of worker productivity and efficiency not necessarily lower costs. One reason might be that these employees receive a defined career path with opportunities not available for U.S. call centers. T Tallis believes that “part of the problem is unions.” Charles Hillman disagrees, defending unions, and focusing on the negative impact outsourcing has on American workers, families, and the economy. Amanda Blazo can sympathize with both sides having managed operations for two offshore Internet research centers. Whether offshoring or not, Amanda says it boils down to the fact that “some companies do certain jobs better than others.” I am not sure Jeff Weidner would agree; he believes these efficiencies are a result of the low cost-to-hire allowing for more employees to work on one job. Mike Johnson refers to a study by Booz Allen Hamilton and Duke University reminding us that “off-shoring high-skilled functions does not replace jobs offshore.” Joshua Letourneau also refers to an article he wrote that “takes a deeper dive into the globalization and commoditization of names sourcing today,” including issues with telephone name generation training and competition. Deborah Jones agrees with Amanda that outsourcing is not outrageous but natural since these centers in the Philippines and India offer more opportunitites and agrees with T Tallis that unions are to blame. She draws a parallel to the automotive industry. Maureen Sharib shares the news the GM has cut health care benefits for its employees. Joshua Letourneau and Paul Davenport empathize with employees but defend GM’s position. Joshua reminds us that “the point of a publicly traded company is to create shareholder value — nothing more, nothing less.”
The conversation has continued to heat up this week…you might want to check it out!
Sam Medalie includes Research Business Analysts, Administrative Assistants, Accounting/Finance Executives, and Sales Representatives/Business Development on his list from CNBC.com. I questioned these jobs since I have read several articles stating Energy, Environment, Health Care, Education, and Security are the five recession-resilient industries. Sam was clear when arguing that the jobs on his list are necessary for companies to grow, not going anywhere, and can help drive revenue. David Rees questioned the list of five industries, particularly security and energy. Energy — because in the 1980’s the price of oil in Alaska was so low and families had to relocate. Security — because it is too broad of a topic. “The common denominator is that demand for those services is less volatile and based on needs that we have very little control over.”
Article Continues Below
Take A First Look at Our Upcoming Release: Hiretual’s Diversity Analytics & Insights
I wanted to know if corporate recruiters care more about OFCCP compliance than TPRs. If so, why? Manoj Tiwari is not a recruiter but understands this debate from an OFCCP compliance point of view. According to Manoj, corporations are responsible for compliance so it doesn’t matter WHO does the hiring; it just matters that it follows the guidelines. The cost to the organization is huge, both financially and in branding and reputation. “Not necessarily a good practice but TPRs are not affected beyond losing one business and hardly ever mentioned anywhere in the media or public forum.” OFCCP also is not concerned with where you collect the data as long as it is documented. I also posted this discussion on the Fordyce Letter.
Shawn Schantz works in the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device industry and wants to rebrand the recruiting model for niche recruiters instead of generalists. Does anyone have advice? Nick Cobb warns recruiters that they are expendable and when moving to this model, the best thing a recruiter can do is to “know everything about every industry and description they can” in order to survive. Kevin O’Malley warns Shawn to inform his recruiters that change is around the corner and that recruiters could suffer from boredom as niche recruiters and leave the company. Steve Myers is more optimistic. He supports this model but suggests a strong marketing plan to back it up. According to Steve, Shawn should not be concerned with hiring recruiters because “newbies” are easier to train. Bob Thompson agrees. I’m curious to see how this plays out…
Katie Bielke left a full-time position for a large staffing company, moved to a contract position for a small staffing company, and now wants to go independent. Does she need to get funding or can she start right away. Katie rethought this post and before anyone responded, decided that she did need to plan first but wanted to hear feedback and advice. Pam Claughton recommended 6 to 12 months of saved living expenses first so Katie can focus on the business without stressing out about cashflow. Joseph Ray agrees and advises Katie to take her time when investing in her website, ATS, job boards, and computer expenses. Becoming independent is “more complicated than most expect.” Sam McCord had success going independent with no additional funds and sought guidance from trainers like Doug Beabout, an attorney, CPA, and business consultant. Good luck, Katie!