LinkedIn's Forthcoming Analytics Tool May Boost Job Poaching (techtarget.com) 85
dcblogs writes: LinkedIn has developed a new analytics platform that should make it easier to poach job candidates. It will use its vast database of nearly 600 million profiles to help recruiters find pockets of talent, know the attrition rate and glean competitive data. The platform, due in September, was discussed at a recent HR conference. One attendee asked a LinkedIn official: "Does that set up an environment for poaching talent?" And then she immediately answered her own question. "I think the answer is yes. And so why would I sign off on that?" In response to the attendees' question, Eric Owski, the head of product for Talent Insights at LinkedIn, said there was nothing wrong with making this data available. The LinkedIn team concluded that "the world is becoming more transparent," and "very sophisticated teams at large companies were able to figure out a lot of the calculations that we're making available in this product," he said. "We think by packaging it up nicely, it levels the playing field," Owski said. "We feel like we're on safe ground."
Re:I already have a job (Score:4, Funny)
earning $50,000 ... in Silicon Valley
IOW, you have TWO shopping carts parked in front of your tent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And Al Gore rhythm?
He, and guilty feet, ain't got no rhythm.
Re: (Score:1)
I've been hearing that for the last 20+ years. However, I'm not a programmer. I'm just the local grunt at the help desk, desktop support or data center. Local grunts are not from India.
This is creimer. Where are the creimertards? Oh, wait. It's an AC comment that's not searchable and requires reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:1)
You should get a job as an I.T. Closet Cleaner [youtu.be], and wear a family friendly Goat C [amzn.to] shirt.
This is creimer. Where are the creimertards? Oh, wait. It's an AC comment that's not searchable and requires reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong cremer, Since you posted an amazon referrer link and did not label it as such, I've reported you to amazon for ToS violations.
Still no result from Amazon after reporting creimer for a year? Your understanding of the TOS is probably flawed.
Nobody owns me. (Score:2, Insightful)
If I want to leave for a better job, it is my right. My employer does not own me, and these days, the employer has probably not paid for training or made any other investment in me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the employer has probably not paid for training or made any other investment in me.
Years ago it was common for employers to invest in training because they could require the employee to agree to either continue to work for X years, or reimburse the company for the cost of the training if they quit early.
Today, those agreements are illegal. So why should a company invest in you if they don't know if they can recoup the cost?
The change in the law was to "protect employees". But the result was lower skills, lower productivity, lower pay, hurting employees, hurting companies, and hurting th
Re: (Score:3)
Keep spouting the corporate line. Your betters will see what a good slave you are and reward you.
Any minute now.
Re:Nobody owns me. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Today, those agreements are illegal. So why should a company invest in you if they don't know if they can recoup the cost?"
Because they think of the consequences of *not* training you?
They can have a productive worker that *may* go, or a inefficient worker that *will* stay.
Re:Nobody owns me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago it was common for employers to invest in training because they could require the employee to agree to either continue to work for X years, or reimburse the company for the cost of the training if they quit early.
I have had people complain to me that they had been sent on courses in which they had no interest and been asked to pay for them when they left.
An employer should make valued employees want to stay by making working for them attractive. A good wage, pleasant environment, being sent on courses all help to make the employer attractive.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see both sides. There may be classes/training that is necessary to achieve a promotion that comes with a raise; if so, perhaps such is fair. But, yes, in general, I do not see it as appropriate to shackle an employee with fake debt to keep his or her job -- I can see how that could be horrendously gamed.
Re: (Score:2)
One of my first employers was an honest guy. He told me my job was to sell my services to the highest bidder.
Sounds Like A Good Thing (Score:2)
For solid employees, anyway. Poaching generally requires a company to make a better offer; this sounds like it'll let good employees know when they're underpaid and get them an offer closer to what they're worth.
Less of a good deal for employers, of course, and deadwood will continue to be paid what they're worth (or not) as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
deadwood will continue to be paid what they're worth (or not) as well.
I don't think so. Employers will start gaming this as soon as it goes live, by writing glowing endorsements for their deadwood employees in the hope that someone else poaches them. That way they can get rid of them without paying severance.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Which is why a known rat in the organization is useful. You feed her the disinformation, she passes it on to her contact and collects a reference fee.
Works from the other side too, if shes ratting to management and you're a coworker.
Knowledge is power, don't let her know your on to her or the disinformation channel is burned.
Also coworkers...I will never hesitate to give a glowing rec to an airthief...it will burn a headhunter and help me get rid of wastes of space (who drag everybody down). Al
I'm pretty happy with this, now. Not before (Score:4, Interesting)
At this stage of my career, I'm happy to have recruiters have better tools to know when to contact me and when NOT to. I'm pretty happy with my job, I love working from home. I also see the handwriting on the wall as my employer moves jobs overseas. So I'm aware that while I like my job now, I'll probably have to entertain offers before too long. Anything that better matches the offers to my skills and requirements is good, in my opinion.
A few years ago, I was significantly underpaid. It was advantageous for me to have potential employers offer what I'm worth, rather than making an offer based on my current salary at the time. Had they known my salary, my take-home probably wouldn't have doubled the last two times I switched jobs.
* Yes they always *ask* what your current salary is. You can answer "I'm looking for ...", because that's what they really.want to know - "how much will we have to pay you?"
PS I always ask about the budget first (Score:4, Informative)
PS to my footnote - whenever a third-party recruiter calls me, I always ask about the budget for the position very early in the conversation. The recruiter won't be offended, and it saves them time as well as saving me time and if it's not in the range I'm looking for. If it IS in the right range, I have a good starting point for negotiation.
External recruiters don't want to lowball you (Score:4, Interesting)
That California law is fine and all, but personally I don't have much need for it.
External recruiters typically get 10% of the employee's first-year salary, so they don't want to low ball candidates. They want to get as many people hired as they can each month, at the highest salaries. They know what the salary range is, because that determines their commission, and have no reason to hide that information. Hiding it would reduce their success rate by spending time on candidates who won't take the position.
The vast majority of recruiters I hear from are external, so when I ask, they tell me the salary range before I ever talk to anyone from the company that is hiring.
The recruiter is done before negotiation starts (Score:2)
The real estate agent tells you the asking price and the current going rates for the neighborhood up front.
Like a real estate agent would be wasting their time showing you houses you won't buy, a recruiter would be wasting their time and credibility messing around if they know the job isn't in your range, so they have no reason to mislead you. They'd be better off even referring you to a different recruiter to find you a job you'll want, because yes they get paid when you take the job.
Unlike a real estate a
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you, until you said the recruiters have credibility.
Lol, with companies (Score:2)
That's funny. They DO need to have some credibility with the companies who hire them. Would you keep using a recruiter who routinely sends you junk candidates that aren't close to be a fit for the job?
Charming, as always... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that I'd ever suspect that HR sees us a prey animals who are owned by our feudal overlords or anything; that sort of negativity just isn't in keeping with company values.
Re: (Score:2)
I know of directors who consider "recruiting bright graduates is like trapping wild animals" or that "bright graduates just need a kick in the right direction". Or they call their technical experts "webheads" or "renderheads".
Re: Charming, as always... (Score:1)
To be fair, recent college grads need to be housebroken, and have at least since the late 90's. Plenty of talent, creativity and energy, but tend to mess all over the place and bite when confronted with actually finishing a project.
Re: (Score:2)
Not disagreeing but so do most managers, and it's worse. They usually have decades long habits of crapping all over the place.
Re: (Score:2)
I spent several months in my last role (which was tangential / partial management) trying to convince the other managers at my level and above me, to stop damn well referring to the staff as "resources" it was so dehumanising. They were just tools.
I ended up failing to be honest, I never adopted the term myself but it's just too ingrained and these guys weren't even HR. Management think is pretty crap in regards to staff.
Is "poaching" bad (Score:1)
What's wrong with a job market with liquidity? Make as much information about resources available and let the market for those resources sort it out. Bad for HR, good for workers as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, _never_ accept counters.
Not only should they have paid you, before, but consider the two options after: 1. Your a new employee, with a nice high basis for all future raises. or 2. Your a disloyal old employee, who just 'extorted' a huge raise. Who do you think will get better raises and opportunities in the future?
I once accepted a counter, just don't do it. NEVER, not for twice the money.
GDPR implications ? (Score:3)
This is use of personal data. Has linked in sought permission to use the data in this way and then share it with recruiters ?
Don't link with recruiters (Score:4, Insightful)
If a recruiter is that keen to make contact they can send an InMail. They only get a limited number of InMail credits in a month so it acts as a deterrent unless they have something of high relevance. Responding to the InMail returns the credit so I don't do that either unless the recruiter actually works for the hiring firm. Anything that devalues LinkedIn is a good thing as far as I am concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
I generally ignore that too because I consider recruiter
Overestimating Recruiters. (Score:3)
Their "poaching" is my better job offer! (Score:2)
If this analytics tool lives up to its promise, it would seem to offer more and better opportunities for ME the employee.
Employers have been slowly eroding benefits for decades, because it "costs too much." Many of them forget that when you reduce costs somewhere, there are unintended consequences.
This tool sounds like a good thing to me!
Poaching? (Score:2)
Can you say... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who would you sue? People provide information about themselves voluntarily. Are you saying that employers should sue their employees for letting LinkedIn know where they worked and what skills they have?
I doubt it (Score:2)
I get dozens of calls weekly from cold-call recruiters who find my name on linkedin or indeed or whatever. Apparently they're incapable of reading anything else, since I get calls for:
-- positions requiring active clearance, when my CV clearly says I don't.
-- positions for SQL, network maintenance, embedded software, etc., for which I have nothing even close listed.
-- insurance sales positions
-- customer package pickup window positions (really)
For the record, I'm a physicist w/ optics and radar experience,
Re: (Score:2)
See, I keep hearing this "I'm always getting called" from other people and it just boggles my mind, because it's so different from my experience. I have a pretty fleshed-out public LinkedIn profile. Some stuff in GitHub (though 95% of my commits are in our enterprise gitlab). I've been doing this for quite a while (3-digit slashdot ID), but can cover a lot of modern hip buzzwords (Kubernetes, ElasticSearch, etc). And I get a recruiter e-mail about once a quarter, maybe, and a cold call generally less tha
Confused. (Score:2)
What exactly is the objection to providing people with better information?
Isn't it the people who decide what to do about that information?
Last time I checked part of the point of a 'free market' included the idea that you had better be paying your employees enough (including intangables) that they are not so miserable doing their jobs that they feel like they need a different one. If someone makes them a better offer, that is the employers fault and those who offer better salaries should expect the better