Re: Does MCAD/MCSD get you work in the UK?

Discussion in 'MCSD' started by Kline Sphere, Aug 4, 2003.

  1. Kline Sphere

    Kline Sphere Guest

    >Does MCAD/MCSD get you work in the
    >UK? For me the answer appears to be a big fat no!


    Microsoft certification means very little in the UK, even less than
    back in the States.

    Companies quite right seek both technical and business experience
    first. Some companies, such as the company I work for, consider
    business knowledge and experience far more important than technical
    knowledge, as it is far harder to obtain than any technical know how.

    You mentioned 'Recruitment agents' in your post. I never understand
    why on Earth UK companies use them. They are completely and utterly
    useless. My advice would be not to use them either, go direct to
    source, cut out the middle man.
     
    Kline Sphere, Aug 4, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kline Sphere

    Paul Britton Guest

    Yeah, I agree with you that experience is paramount, however there is
    a problem in how to measure its quality and depth. The most efficient
    and consistent frame of reference is through sampling an individual's
    knowledge by testing them, i.e. certification exams. With the newness
    of .NET certification it is more significant, the reality is the
    breadth and depth of knowledge is not out there in large volumes
    compared to other technologies.

    I'm not specifically championing MCAD/MCSD. I believe that it's just
    another benchmark in helping to determine an individual's potential
    for doing a job. Similar to a degree being an indication of an
    individual's ability to learn and digest knowledge, or a driving test
    being a indication of someone's ability to drive a car. It is a part
    of building up a profile of an individual.

    In the UK, the recruitment agent is the main marketplace for
    contract/freelance work. They are a necessary evil. And although I am
    sure there are some decent ones out there, they tend to be one step up
    from door-to-door salesman. However, a door-to-door salesman does know
    the difference between a broom and a mop, whereas a recruitment agent
    would not appreciate any difference between ASP and ASP.NET. They tend
    to be young people with little IT knowledge or experience, working on
    a commission basis, with little perceivable integrity.

    And, unfortunately, it is these people who are the first that a
    work-seeking contractor has to convince. The problem is heightened by
    the fact that it is a buyers market at the moment (even though the UK
    government thinks there is an IT knowledge shortfall and is
    encouraging outsourcing to southern Asia, yet another gripe). To wade
    through the piles of CV's these agents are performing arbitrary
    sifting. But hold on, shouldn't they use MCAD/MCSD certification as a
    means of sifting - well I don't think they do. Either, because they
    don't know what it is (I guess about 80% of them) and the remainder
    don't give it any credence.

    I am not knocking MCAD/MCSD because I have enjoyed doing it. But at
    the moment the perception of its worth is dwarfed by the perception of
    "commercial experience". It really needs to be raised up to point
    where it has some influence in the recruitment decision process.

    Am I alone in this view?

    Paul
     
    Paul Britton, Aug 5, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Kline Sphere

    emg Guest

    I'm speaking from the U.S. here . . .

    There's another thread here which discusses the concepts of a credential as
    proof of capability (Required Certification , Unions . . .)

    But I also look at certs a different way. You might be working in a VB 6
    shop. They have no plans to move to .Net any time soon. However, you train
    and certify anyway. At some point, you manage to convince your supervisor
    to do one or two little projects in .Net. Voila! Commercial Experience!
    It's a lot easier to pull this off when you are not asking your supervisor
    to spend time and money to send you to class and theoretically, your
    certification shortens the learning curve for the "real" project
    considerably.

    I realize this is a circuitous route to .Net experience but sometimes this
    strategy works. Now this doesn't justify spending thousands of $$$ on "boot
    camps" and other training materials. But at least it's a pro-active
    approach to the problem.

    As for working on certs while you're unemployed - - would you be better off
    having done nothing during that time? Again, I'm not talking about spending
    a huge wad of cash on classes, but working at home with some books and the
    internet seems to me to be a very sensible course of action. At minimum it
    gives you something to tell the prospective employer when he asks what
    you've been doing with your time!




    "Paul Britton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Yeah, I agree with you that experience is paramount, however there is
    > a problem in how to measure its quality and depth. The most efficient
    > and consistent frame of reference is through sampling an individual's
    > knowledge by testing them, i.e. certification exams. With the newness
    > of .NET certification it is more significant, the reality is the
    > breadth and depth of knowledge is not out there in large volumes
    > compared to other technologies.
    >
    > I'm not specifically championing MCAD/MCSD. I believe that it's just
    > another benchmark in helping to determine an individual's potential
    > for doing a job. Similar to a degree being an indication of an
    > individual's ability to learn and digest knowledge, or a driving test
    > being a indication of someone's ability to drive a car. It is a part
    > of building up a profile of an individual.
    >
    > In the UK, the recruitment agent is the main marketplace for
    > contract/freelance work. They are a necessary evil. And although I am
    > sure there are some decent ones out there, they tend to be one step up
    > from door-to-door salesman. However, a door-to-door salesman does know
    > the difference between a broom and a mop, whereas a recruitment agent
    > would not appreciate any difference between ASP and ASP.NET. They tend
    > to be young people with little IT knowledge or experience, working on
    > a commission basis, with little perceivable integrity.
    >
    > And, unfortunately, it is these people who are the first that a
    > work-seeking contractor has to convince. The problem is heightened by
    > the fact that it is a buyers market at the moment (even though the UK
    > government thinks there is an IT knowledge shortfall and is
    > encouraging outsourcing to southern Asia, yet another gripe). To wade
    > through the piles of CV's these agents are performing arbitrary
    > sifting. But hold on, shouldn't they use MCAD/MCSD certification as a
    > means of sifting - well I don't think they do. Either, because they
    > don't know what it is (I guess about 80% of them) and the remainder
    > don't give it any credence.
    >
    > I am not knocking MCAD/MCSD because I have enjoyed doing it. But at
    > the moment the perception of its worth is dwarfed by the perception of
    > "commercial experience". It really needs to be raised up to point
    > where it has some influence in the recruitment decision process.
    >
    > Am I alone in this view?
    >
    > Paul
     
    emg, Aug 5, 2003
    #3
  4. Kline Sphere

    Kline Sphere Guest

    >I'm not specifically championing MCAD/MCSD. I believe that it's just
    >another benchmark in helping to determine an individual's potential
    >for doing a job.


    The Microsoft certification has been losing it's worth for years, now
    it's at the point of no return. The reason is simply down to the way
    in which the exams can be passed by anyone, with or without experience
    in IT. Simple look at the brain dump sites and the companies that sell
    the questions and answers.

    So why on Earth should a company take notice of them when their is no
    guarantee whatsoever that the holder actual possesses the required
    understanding.

    >In the UK, the recruitment agent is the main marketplace for
    >contract/freelance work. They are a necessary evil.


    As I said completely ridiculous. When I want a plumber, I don't go to
    'agency' to get one for me at additional cost.

    Maybe UK companies have plenty of money to waste. My experience of
    software devolvement in the UK is that it's a totally shambles, so
    it's no surprise companies continue to waste money.

    On 5 Aug 2003 01:28:09 -0700,
    (Paul Britton) wrote:

    >Yeah, I agree with you that experience is paramount, however there is
    >a problem in how to measure its quality and depth. The most efficient
    >and consistent frame of reference is through sampling an individual's
    >knowledge by testing them, i.e. certification exams. With the newness
    >of .NET certification it is more significant, the reality is the
    >breadth and depth of knowledge is not out there in large volumes
    >compared to other technologies.
    >
    >I'm not specifically championing MCAD/MCSD. I believe that it's just
    >another benchmark in helping to determine an individual's potential
    >for doing a job. Similar to a degree being an indication of an
    >individual's ability to learn and digest knowledge, or a driving test
    >being a indication of someone's ability to drive a car. It is a part
    >of building up a profile of an individual.
    >
    >In the UK, the recruitment agent is the main marketplace for
    >contract/freelance work. They are a necessary evil. And although I am
    >sure there are some decent ones out there, they tend to be one step up
    >from door-to-door salesman. However, a door-to-door salesman does know
    >the difference between a broom and a mop, whereas a recruitment agent
    >would not appreciate any difference between ASP and ASP.NET. They tend
    >to be young people with little IT knowledge or experience, working on
    >a commission basis, with little perceivable integrity.
    >
    >And, unfortunately, it is these people who are the first that a
    >work-seeking contractor has to convince. The problem is heightened by
    >the fact that it is a buyers market at the moment (even though the UK
    >government thinks there is an IT knowledge shortfall and is
    >encouraging outsourcing to southern Asia, yet another gripe). To wade
    >through the piles of CV's these agents are performing arbitrary
    >sifting. But hold on, shouldn't they use MCAD/MCSD certification as a
    >means of sifting - well I don't think they do. Either, because they
    >don't know what it is (I guess about 80% of them) and the remainder
    >don't give it any credence.
    >
    >I am not knocking MCAD/MCSD because I have enjoyed doing it. But at
    >the moment the perception of its worth is dwarfed by the perception of
    >"commercial experience". It really needs to be raised up to point
    >where it has some influence in the recruitment decision process.
    >
    >Am I alone in this view?
    >
    >Paul
     
    Kline Sphere, Aug 5, 2003
    #4
  5. Kline Sphere

    emg Guest

    > >As I said completely ridiculous. When I want a plumber, I don't go to
    'agency' to get one for me at additional cost. < <

    Yes but how many plumbers do you hire each month? The reason US companies
    went to agencies was so they could spend less time reviewing resumes,
    interviewing candidates and negotiating job offers. The agency does a
    certain amount of screening. The screening may be high-quality or
    low-quality (usually low). However the employer is spared the necessity of
    scanning thru the hundreds or thousands of resumes that come flooding in
    when a job is posted. Also, the employer specifies a bill rate and the
    agency knows often they cannot move off that rate. Again, time saved going
    back and forth. The agency handles it all.

    I once heard thru the grapevine of a company that had an open position that
    fit my skillset very well. I sent them a resume and received a polite
    refusal. Six weeks later they hired me thru a recruiter. The HR person was
    convinced that in the long run, the recruiter saved them time and money.
    Their recruiter was the only route into that company.


    "Kline Sphere" <T> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >I'm not specifically championing MCAD/MCSD. I believe that it's just
    > >another benchmark in helping to determine an individual's potential
    > >for doing a job.

    >
    > The Microsoft certification has been losing it's worth for years, now
    > it's at the point of no return. The reason is simply down to the way
    > in which the exams can be passed by anyone, with or without experience
    > in IT. Simple look at the brain dump sites and the companies that sell
    > the questions and answers.
    >
    > So why on Earth should a company take notice of them when their is no
    > guarantee whatsoever that the holder actual possesses the required
    > understanding.
    >
    > >In the UK, the recruitment agent is the main marketplace for
    > >contract/freelance work. They are a necessary evil.

    >
    > As I said completely ridiculous. When I want a plumber, I don't go to
    > 'agency' to get one for me at additional cost.
    >
    > Maybe UK companies have plenty of money to waste. My experience of
    > software devolvement in the UK is that it's a totally shambles, so
    > it's no surprise companies continue to waste money.
    >
    > On 5 Aug 2003 01:28:09 -0700,
    > (Paul Britton) wrote:
    >
    > >Yeah, I agree with you that experience is paramount, however there is
    > >a problem in how to measure its quality and depth. The most efficient
    > >and consistent frame of reference is through sampling an individual's
    > >knowledge by testing them, i.e. certification exams. With the newness
    > >of .NET certification it is more significant, the reality is the
    > >breadth and depth of knowledge is not out there in large volumes
    > >compared to other technologies.
    > >
    > >I'm not specifically championing MCAD/MCSD. I believe that it's just
    > >another benchmark in helping to determine an individual's potential
    > >for doing a job. Similar to a degree being an indication of an
    > >individual's ability to learn and digest knowledge, or a driving test
    > >being a indication of someone's ability to drive a car. It is a part
    > >of building up a profile of an individual.
    > >
    > >In the UK, the recruitment agent is the main marketplace for
    > >contract/freelance work. They are a necessary evil. And although I am
    > >sure there are some decent ones out there, they tend to be one step up
    > >from door-to-door salesman. However, a door-to-door salesman does know
    > >the difference between a broom and a mop, whereas a recruitment agent
    > >would not appreciate any difference between ASP and ASP.NET. They tend
    > >to be young people with little IT knowledge or experience, working on
    > >a commission basis, with little perceivable integrity.
    > >
    > >And, unfortunately, it is these people who are the first that a
    > >work-seeking contractor has to convince. The problem is heightened by
    > >the fact that it is a buyers market at the moment (even though the UK
    > >government thinks there is an IT knowledge shortfall and is
    > >encouraging outsourcing to southern Asia, yet another gripe). To wade
    > >through the piles of CV's these agents are performing arbitrary
    > >sifting. But hold on, shouldn't they use MCAD/MCSD certification as a
    > >means of sifting - well I don't think they do. Either, because they
    > >don't know what it is (I guess about 80% of them) and the remainder
    > >don't give it any credence.
    > >
    > >I am not knocking MCAD/MCSD because I have enjoyed doing it. But at
    > >the moment the perception of its worth is dwarfed by the perception of
    > >"commercial experience". It really needs to be raised up to point
    > >where it has some influence in the recruitment decision process.
    > >
    > >Am I alone in this view?
    > >
    > >Paul

    >
     
    emg, Aug 5, 2003
    #5
  6. Kline Sphere

    Maria Guest

    Agencies CAN work, but it takes effort on both sides.
    A few years back our company used to have a pretty good
    working relationship with one of the UK-wide agencies, for
    hiring contractors. We had a single point of contact
    within the agency and they would conduct interviews with
    the candidates and check their references before taking
    them on their books. If a person turned out to be
    unsuitable after all (yes, it did happen occasionally that
    someone managed to bluff his way in) the pseron would be
    sacked by us and dropped from the agency's list. We would
    make the agency aware of likely projects in the pipeline.
    If we needed someone the agency would only put forward a
    handful of people and they would all be worth considering.
    It saved us a lot of time. Our contact in the agency would
    know 'their' people by name and would keep in touch with
    them during the contract, not just when it was about to
    expire. But all this was couple of years ago, and after
    several mergers/takeovers the HR department in our company
    now has very different procedures.
     
    Maria, Aug 6, 2003
    #6
  7. Kline Sphere

    Tore Bostrup Guest

    The use of recruiters is a matter of practicality and economics. Some
    companies wouldn't dream of using a recruiter, and some companies use them
    almost exclusively. Just because you think it is ridiculous doesn't mean it
    always is, or that everybody agrees with your point of view.

    If I need a plumber, I either have a recommendation that I trust (hiring
    through networking), or I call a company. I don't interview the plumbers.
    In some cases I may obtain multiple estimates, and base my decision on
    those. At other times, I expect that the company I call only employs
    capable plumbers able to handle the task at hand. If not, I will complain,
    have the case remedied, and depending on how the case was resolved, I may
    become an ex-customer and a negative reference for that company.

    If I have used a company that I have been satisfied with in the past, I will
    trust them to send me a plumber that can do the job, regardless of whether
    it is the plumber I dealt with previously.

    The same is true with recruiters. When a company calls on a recruiter, they
    trust that the recruiter will be able to provide them with a capable
    individual. Although the process is a little longer than with the plumbing
    company and may involve interviewing two or three candidates, it can usually
    be done in a matter of a day or two. While there may still be some time
    before the selected candidate can start (existing commitments, current jobs,
    typically about two weeks in the US), the time to compose an advertisement,
    publish it (at least locally, job ads in newspapers typically run only
    Sundays), allowing reasonable time for applicants to respond, receiving and
    reviewing the applications, writing response letters, checking references
    and calling the top candidates for interviews can take a long time. Some
    companies are set up to handle this either through additional overhead in
    HR/personnel departments, or by processes and preexisting templates that
    help in the various tasks. Other companies are not, or they can not afford
    to wait for an extended period before hiring people. In these cases, using
    recruiters make a lot of sense.

    Regards,
    Tore.


    "Kline Sphere" <T> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >I once heard thru the grapevine of a company that had an open position

    that
    > >fit my skillset very well. I sent them a resume and received a polite
    > >refusal. Six weeks later they hired me thru a recruiter. The HR person

    was
    > >convinced that in the long run, the recruiter saved them time and money.
    > >Their recruiter was the only route into that company.

    >
    > Completely and utter ridiculous.
    >
    > When the company I work for look to hire people, they hire the people
    > they believe are best. There is no way the company would trust any
    > part of the selection process to a third party. It is the people that
    > make the company, whether they be IT people or core business
    > professionals. This has nothing to do with costs, simply that the
    > company knows the type of people they want and no recruiter has the
    > same level of experience in our field of business as we do.
    >
    > >Yes but how many plumbers do you hire each month?

    >
    > What does that have to do with it?
    >
    > The company have no need for temporary employees of any description.
    > However, when I was in the UK back in 97, my company tried to hire a
    > interbase expert on temporary contract. They tried several so called
    > 'agencies' and got nowhere, just dozens and dozens of completely
    > unsuitable cv's, clearly the product of a five second search with
    > their 'buzz word' searching tool. In the end they hired a guy from the
    > States to come out help out.
     
    Tore Bostrup, Aug 7, 2003
    #7
  8. Kline Sphere

    Kline Sphere Guest

    >The use of recruiters is a matter of practicality and economics. Some
    >companies wouldn't dream of using a recruiter, and some companies use them
    >almost exclusively. Just because you think it is ridiculous doesn't mean it
    >always is, or that everybody agrees with your point of view.


    Absolutely.

    As I said if companies have money to burn or are too incompetent to go
    about the selection process in full, that's fine. The company I work
    for would never allow a third party to be involved in what amounts to
    the success and prosperity of the core business. Maybe that's why they
    have a very low staff turn around and are unaffected by the so called
    'down turn' in IT.
     
    Kline Sphere, Aug 7, 2003
    #8
  9. Kline Sphere

    Kline Sphere Guest

    >Agencies CAN work, but it takes effort on both sides.
    >A few years back our company used to have a pretty good
    >working relationship with one of the UK-wide agencies, for
    >hiring contractors. We had a single point of contact
    >within the agency and they would conduct interviews with
    >the candidates and check their references before taking
    >them on their books. If a person turned out to be
    >unsuitable after all (yes, it did happen occasionally that
    >someone managed to bluff his way in) the pseron would be
    >sacked by us and dropped from the agency's list. We would
    >make the agency aware of likely projects in the pipeline.
    >If we needed someone the agency would only put forward a
    >handful of people and they would all be worth considering.
    >It saved us a lot of time. Our contact in the agency would
    >know 'their' people by name and would keep in touch with
    >them during the contract, not just when it was about to
    >expire. But all this was couple of years ago, and after
    >several mergers/takeovers the HR department in our company
    >now has very different procedures.


    I would except that for temporary contracts, initially you may need to
    approach an agency. One you have a list of people you are happy with
    you approach those people directly for future work. You don't want to
    keep going back to the agency to get different people which you have
    no idea what they are like, which one assumes would involve some kind
    of interview process.

    Back in the States where my company is based, they have several
    freelancers who are approached when required. The company no these
    people's quantities and certainly don't go through an 'agency' or
    selection process.
     
    Kline Sphere, Aug 7, 2003
    #9
  10. Kline Sphere

    Kline Sphere Guest

    >If I need a plumber, I either have a recommendation that I trust

    Relating that statement back to contract/temporary/freelance, if you
    have a recommendation, you would not go to an agency/recruter, but go
    straight to the source.
     
    Kline Sphere, Aug 7, 2003
    #10
  11. Kline Sphere

    Tore Bostrup Guest

    It goes beyond competency. There are several factors at play when making a
    decision about using recruiters or not. However, as a contractor, it is
    often easier to find contracts through recruiters and brokers than on your
    own. A good recruiter has contacts at multiple companies, and is often
    informed in advance about the comanies' needs. When a good candidate comes
    along, the good recruiter will also present the candidate's qualifications
    to his or her contacts even if there are no immediate openings. Thus, the
    "good" recruiter's recommendation may be the recommendation that the hiring
    manager at least pays enough attention to interview the candidate.

    And I believe the suggestion to contact recruiters was made to someone who
    was looking for opportunities.

    There is no right and wrong answer to this issue. What is right for one
    company can be wrong for another. And there is a big difference betwqeen a
    good recruiter and a bad recruiter.

    Some bad recruiters indiscriminantly distributes all resumes to all
    contacts. This can result in multiple submissions to the same company
    (usually a no-no), expose the candidate to undesirable contacts resulting in
    potential negative consideration for the candidate, and make the client
    companies leery of candidates submitted by the "bad" recruiter(s). And some
    recruiters just aren't very good. Either they don't understand enough of
    what the customer wants, they are unable to judge the candidates, or they
    juust don't have enough clout.

    Regards,
    Tore.


    "Kline Sphere" <T> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >The use of recruiters is a matter of practicality and economics. Some
    > >companies wouldn't dream of using a recruiter, and some companies use

    them
    > >almost exclusively. Just because you think it is ridiculous doesn't mean

    it
    > >always is, or that everybody agrees with your point of view.

    >
    > Absolutely.
    >
    > As I said if companies have money to burn or are too incompetent to go
    > about the selection process in full, that's fine. The company I work
    > for would never allow a third party to be involved in what amounts to
    > the success and prosperity of the core business. Maybe that's why they
    > have a very low staff turn around and are unaffected by the so called
    > 'down turn' in IT.
     
    Tore Bostrup, Aug 8, 2003
    #11
  12. Kline Sphere

    Kline Sphere Guest

    As I keep saying, if companies have money to burn, that's fine!

    It today's business world, companies are trying to cut costs at every
    opportunity they can; one simple way is to cut out 'middle man' when
    doing business (of any kind).

    Surly as a 'contractor' you are good enough to build relationships
    with your client's so as when future work comes long, they know of
    you, who you are and what to expect from you. Thus if you're up to the
    job, surely it's bests (and cheaper) to approach for the company to
    approach you directly rather than go through whole process again,
    taking the chances that go with it?


    On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:10:22 -0400, "Tore Bostrup"
    <newspost_at_bostrup.us> wrote:

    >It goes beyond competency. There are several factors at play when making a
    >decision about using recruiters or not. However, as a contractor, it is
    >often easier to find contracts through recruiters and brokers than on your
    >own. A good recruiter has contacts at multiple companies, and is often
    >informed in advance about the comanies' needs. When a good candidate comes
    >along, the good recruiter will also present the candidate's qualifications
    >to his or her contacts even if there are no immediate openings. Thus, the
    >"good" recruiter's recommendation may be the recommendation that the hiring
    >manager at least pays enough attention to interview the candidate.
    >
    >And I believe the suggestion to contact recruiters was made to someone who
    >was looking for opportunities.
    >
    >There is no right and wrong answer to this issue. What is right for one
    >company can be wrong for another. And there is a big difference betwqeen a
    >good recruiter and a bad recruiter.
    >
    >Some bad recruiters indiscriminantly distributes all resumes to all
    >contacts. This can result in multiple submissions to the same company
    >(usually a no-no), expose the candidate to undesirable contacts resulting in
    >potential negative consideration for the candidate, and make the client
    >companies leery of candidates submitted by the "bad" recruiter(s). And some
    >recruiters just aren't very good. Either they don't understand enough of
    >what the customer wants, they are unable to judge the candidates, or they
    >juust don't have enough clout.
    >
    >Regards,
    >Tore.
    >
    >
    >"Kline Sphere" <T> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> >The use of recruiters is a matter of practicality and economics. Some
    >> >companies wouldn't dream of using a recruiter, and some companies use

    >them
    >> >almost exclusively. Just because you think it is ridiculous doesn't mean

    >it
    >> >always is, or that everybody agrees with your point of view.

    >>
    >> Absolutely.
    >>
    >> As I said if companies have money to burn or are too incompetent to go
    >> about the selection process in full, that's fine. The company I work
    >> for would never allow a third party to be involved in what amounts to
    >> the success and prosperity of the core business. Maybe that's why they
    >> have a very low staff turn around and are unaffected by the so called
    >> 'down turn' in IT.

    >
     
    Kline Sphere, Aug 8, 2003
    #12
  13. Kline Sphere

    David Guest

    >I once heard thru the grapevine of a company that had an open position that
    >fit my skillset very well. I sent them a resume and received a polite
    >refusal. Six weeks later they hired me thru a recruiter.


    I found it the complete opposite. A friend of mine was put forward for
    a role through an agency (in the uk), he also told me about the role,
    so I too sent my CV to the agency. I heard nothing back from the
    agency. When I called them I was told he would call back, he never did
    nor did he reply to my emails, yet the role was still being advertised
    on jobserve.

    My friend never got the role, so I emailed my CV directly to the
    company. I had a call back that afternoon, an interview the next day
    and started the following Monday!

    After I started I mentioned all this to the manager who confessed that
    they were very upset by the service given by all the agencies they had
    used. Now they no longer use agencies, even for non IT positions.

    BTW, my friend now works there as well!
     
    David, Aug 11, 2003
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. biker
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    447
    biker
    Aug 6, 2003
  2. Cenk Butunley
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    409
    Kline Sphere
    Sep 4, 2003
  3. ¬Stephen Hammond
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    489
    Brian A
    Feb 12, 2006
  4. RichG
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    384
    Hermit Dave
    Jan 28, 2004
  5. Sarah Smith
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    656
    Nicky Smith
    Sep 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page