[sf-lug] Fwd:Re:Job: DevOps/Sysadmin/Linux contractor (Verizon Wireless client) in Walnut Creek... etc. ...

[Michael Paoli]

> From: aaronco36 <aaronco36 at SDF.ORG>
> Subject: [sf-lug] Fwd:Re:Job: DevOps/Sysadmin/Linux contractor  
> (Verizon Wireless client) in Walnut Creek... etc.
> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 06:06:40 +0000 (UTC)

> Todd Hawley <celticdm at gmail.com> wrote at [1]
>
>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:06 AM Justin Noor <justinnoor.io at
>>> gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Those are some pretty high expectations for a temp worker. No
>>> pun intended.

I suppose the "high" is relative.
If one *only* looks at the "Required qualifications", fairly significant,
but not super high, ... and (quite) debatable as to "high".

"temp"? ... relative.  I've contracting here (Verizon / Verizon Wireless)
well over 3 years now (and what's the average time for someone in a tech/IT
position ... and as a contractor for such?).

>> Probably why it's through a recruiter. :p
Nope, ... not through recruiter.

> OTOH, perhaps this job ad _really was_ submitted by someone in  
> Verizon[Wireless]'s HR Dept rather than through a recruiter (and BTW,

Yes, someone in Verizon[Wireless]'s - me (I'd passed it to Jim
per:
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
Over a week later, it hadn't yet been posted not had I received a
response.  I sent Jim a reminder - he posted my reminder email (which
included the original).
And not HR Dept. (nor recruiter).

It:
http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/2018q4/013514.html
is slightly older description, as I alluded to here:
http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/2018q4/013517.html
and there I also mentioned reposting newer would be quite
redundant (especially to same list/forum, in close timeframe,
and list's policy, etc.).
But if one really wants to see newer description, have a peek here:
http://lists.svlug.org/archives/jobs/2018-November/001065.html

Also, the older was mostly written by a former manager.  It may have
received some minor tweaks from feedback from myself and some peers ...
and I reformatted it (from, yuck, Microsoft Word) to ASCII,
it may have received some slight adjustments to make it bit more current,
and there was also some minor munging to comply with SF-LUG's required
format (e.g. not more than 5 paragraphs - so stripped out some whitespace).
The newer (posted elselist(s)) was a major rewrite - mostly by myself, but
also with some input from peers in and associated with the group.

> is Verizon's "suckiness" as per ref [2] possibly still appicable 10  
> years later?)

Suckiness?  Probably varies significantly by individual person/time/
location, etc.  Can't say I've had a whole lot of interactions with
Verizon (other than contracting here).  Feel free to research and/or
draw one's own conclusions (I see quite a variety of reports/data
and notably from unbiased sources).  Oh, and if it counts for anything,
primary app our group here supports ...
ranked #22 (I presume this is by downloads/installs, rather than ratings,
as they don't appear to be sorted by rating) for Andriod in Goggle Play
store among free communication apps:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/category/COMMUNICATION/collection/topselling_free
and on the reviews, it's 4.6 out of 5 stars, so, nothin' to shake a stick
at (and that's from well over half a million ratings).
Verizon ... also big company, so degree of suckiness and/or lack
thereof may vary across different parts, locations, times, etc.
Anyway, your mileage will vary.  ;-)


> IMHO, 3rd party recruiting firms tend to do a much better task of  
> writing job descriptions that will net the greatest number of

Eh, IMHO varies a lot - mostly depending upon the firm and/or person
doing the (re)writing and what (lack of) quality they got of original
description.  I seem to find lower-quality agencies/recruiters are
mostly match any and all keywords they can find, and "throw it at
the wall" - if there's a chance in heck the client might swallow it,
submit the candidate, and cast a wide net in snagging potential
candidates.  Towards the other end, I find the better/best, work well with
customer to determine needs/requirements, reasonably well screen candidates
for suitable fit, and submits candidates they deem reasonably likely to be
an actual fit - and also well take feedback on candidates submitted to
work to continually refine what candidates they seek and submit (and also
which they don't submit).  In (far too) many cases, what manager *really*
wants and will hire, doesn't (to varying degrees) particularly match up to
what they *say*/communicate that they want.  So, better agencies/recruiters
will figure out the discrepancies and adjust their recruiting/submissions
to suitably match to what the manager will actually hire (that tends to
often be missing if manager recruits directly - so it is a "value add"
opportunity for agencies).

And yes, some (e.g. agencies) suck.  E.g. dealt with one not all that long
ago that obviously didn't check their candidates worth beans ... one they
submitted had a plagiarized resume!  No value add there (and heck, have,
over the years, dealt with some agencies even worse than that!).
"Of course", at the other extreme, some are highly excellent.
Quality varies ... shop around - and applies both from client and
customer side of things.  (One also doesn't want to be represented by
an organization that pushes cr*p).

> qualified temp job applicants for themselves than do the primary  
> companies' HR departments they represent.

When agencies are involved, who is responsible for what bits of
the process can vary greatly.  Sometimes some do a lot of double
coverage (which can be thorough, but a bit wasteful and also a bit
annoying for candidates).  Sometimes some bits slip through the
cracks.  8-O

> IIRC, there was actually such a job posting from a primary discussed  
> on one of the Bay Area Linux mailing-lists within the last dozen or  
> so years, which described the desired candidate as having something  
> like 15 or more years of hands-on experience with one or more Linux  
> distributions and one or more shells in addition to bash. Which is  
> ironic because in 2005, going back "15 or more years of hands-on  
> experience" would have required candidates to have that hands-on  
> experience just before or soon after Linus Torvalds started

> I recall one particular job ad of "high expectations for a temp  
> worker" in the Aughts (Y2K-2010) with _at least_ something like the  
> following mandatory job reqs:

Well, do keep in mind what's "required" vs. additional "preferred", etc.
A well written description will not overstate what's (minimally) required.
"preferred" / "wish list" - that can be a laundry wish of "we'd like to
also have" ... but 'ya generally ain't gonna get *everything* that's on
one's wish/Christmas list.  So, you list, wish, hope, ... and make some
reasonable decisions based upon what one can actually find.

And yep, have certainly seen the "impossible" job descriptions ...
One I remember Sun Microsystems joking about in a keynote, years ago, when
Java was brand-spanking-new to the public and being announced, ... they
also needed more Java engineers for their development ...
"Java Engineers wanted - with over 5 years experience on Java" ... yeah,
right, that's what Sun *wanted* to hire, ... but which of course didn't
exist yet nor would it for years.

I remember also, a recruiter I highly respected and had worked with (did
*excellent* placements/matching (alas, went on to much bigger things, so
not doing the "recruiting" thing anymore - but still in the field)), once
upon a time forwarded a requisition/job description to me - not asking if
I was interested in it, but just for my *feedback* of what I thought of the
description/requisition.  My feedback was something roughly like
(paraphrasing from memory):  "Well, there are about 6 to perhaps 12 at most,
folks on the planet that match what that's asking for.  Probably all of them
that want to be employed are likely happily employed, at best maybe one or
two might be interested in some (other) opportunity or otherwise pried away
from their current interests/projects/employment.  And, with the
somewhat odd very specific mix, and also very high level requirements on
the skills required, the chances of having them actually see such opening,
is about nill, so just about zero chance of recruiting and hiring what
that described.".  And that recruiter was, to me on my feedback,
basically, "Yeah, thanks, ... that's kind'a the impression I got - wanted
to confirm.  Thanks."  -  I think from there they went back to customer to
work with them to reform/adjust their "specifications" on the candidate they
were seeking (like adjusting to more reasonably match reality).