Thanks — I understand your point about the recording, and I’m not disputing the limitations that come with that. However, I wouldn’t say the call was “meaningless.” The other party has already acknowledged the call and its contents in writing.
Specifically, they stated: “Mr Tobin had clearly decided (deliberately or otherwise) to take XX's words out of context, and chose to make assertions in the Email which did not accurately reflect the details of the Call.” This confirms that specific language was used during the call, even if they dispute how I interpreted it. And while they’re entitled to their view, I don’t believe it’s for them to dictate the context in which those words should be understood — especially when they were directed at me in a professional setting. Context isn’t just about intent; it’s also about impact. I’m raising this not to escalate, but to ensure that the full picture is considered — both what was said and how it was received. Previous invoices were sent to HR, the CTO and COO. When I’m headhunting, I have a tendency to fixate — to look beyond the obvious, to dig deeper, almost like a dog with a bone. I don’t let go easily. I’m applying that same tenacity to this situation. It’s not just about principle; it’s about clarity, fairness, and seeing things through. It has cost me very little. I've found a way to push it into court for very little so far and reserve the right to pursue more claims. They’ve made a clear attempt to wiggle out of their accrued obligations. On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 at 12:30, Ted Mittelstaedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Who drafted the contract between you and HR? Was it YOUR contract that THEY > signed? Or was it THEIR contract that YOU signed? THAT matters a > tremendous amount. > > What your claim all boils down to is, IMHO, did they hire someone you > introduced them to. It does not matter if they are still advertising the > position. If you introed them to a candidate and then they hired that > candidate, for any position at all in their company, they owe you money. > > Now this is where the devil is in the details. The first thing that matters > is the legal principle, known as contra proferentem, essentially means the > benefit of the doubt goes to the party who didn't write the unclear part. > > If you signed their contract, then any unclear parts of the contract, if they > argue them - it goes against them. > > For example they claim you had to recruit in writing - but you have gotten > paid by them in the past for recruiting without doing it in writing. That > means that in writing term in the contract is unclear. If they wrote the > contract they can't now argue that you violated the contract since they were > the ones that made it unclear. That's an obvious contra proferentem example. > > If YOU on the other hand, write the contract and THEY signed it, then they > can successfully claim that this written notice term - that was in YOUR > contract, that YOU wrote - applies. Even if in the past you ignored it. So > you are S.O.L. in your claim. It's a good reminder if you are drafting > contracts for people to sign that you follow your obligations in your > contract, scrupulously. The signers are allowed to bend the rules - you > aren't. > > The next thing is the level of the hiring manager. If they are director > level or above - it matters. > > I'm a director and this is the one thing that makes people even in my own > organization very uncomfortable. I've told my bosses and my underlings that > no matter what the perceived power of the title are inside the company - it > is a whole different ballgame outside the company. The title of Director is > a recognized company officer title. I can make a statement about my employer > and it's official. I can sign a contract even without internal review and my > employer is obligated to it. Nobody has denied it - even though it's obvious > they were probably hoping I didn't know that. LOL. But because I do know > that I act responsibly and don't make official statements about my employer > or sign stuff without internal review. > > If this hiring manager you keep talking about has a director title or above, > then if they engage with you on a candidate, then a whole bunch of unwritten > assumptions now come into play. > > This company could argue for example that a mere manager that talked to you > wasn't internally authorized to obligate the company to pay you for a hire, > regardless of contract terms, and that would probably fly. But not if this > hiring manager was a director. And in most companies mere managers don't > have the power to hire and fire anyway, that's a director level and above > power. > > You can easily argue that any director knows perfectly well what a recruiter > is and knows that if a recruiter refers someone to them they have to pay if > they hire that person. I regularly get emails like this all the time from > headhunters. The email starts out along the lines of "We have this great > candidate blah blah blah" > > If I respond - then I'm engaging with them. If I then am actually stupid > enough to agree to interview someone over zoom or some such - then the courts > assume I know what the pluck I'm doing and I know I'm going to have to pay if > I hire. They could then hit me up with a lawsuit claiming my employer owes > them a pile of money. That's why I delete those emails unread. If I > actually did want to go that route, I'd respond and say "before you start > throwing people at me we need to meet, and have an agreement signed" > > Have you been in communication with any candidate you introduced to them and > found out the candidate had been hired? > > If they are trying to do an end-run around paying you, and are intending on > hiring a candidate you introed them to months in the future - then that's > going to be governed by the terms of your recruitment contract. Most of > these I've seen, the recruiter has boilerplate inserted that says that for a > certain period of time, the company can't hire the candidate. For example > the recruiter intros, they interview, decide to hire, cancel the contract, > then hire the person, then they still are on the hook. But, if the recruiter > intros, they interview, cancel the contract, then 2 years later hire the > person - then they are off the hook. Interviewing, saying he's not right, > then 2 months later hiring him, well that's going to run afoul of your > contract terms with them as well as your contract terms with the candidate, > so now the company is in violation of their contract and the candidate is in > violation of their contract. Double bonus points. All of this is presuming > of course that you had such terms in your contract. If you did not - then > tough cookies. > > As for if it was THEIR contract - who the pluck knows. For all you know > there could be a buried term in there that says you have to pop the cork on a > bottle of champagne, paint yourself pink and run around in public singing > "hail to the queen" if a hire is made. This is why IMHO, recruiter contracts > drafted by the hiring employer are dumb-pluck stupid things for a recruiter > to sign. But that's just my opinion. > > One thing I've learned from experience in business is something like I'd say > 80% of business agreements are never reviewed by the drafters lawyer before > they are signed much less reviewed by the signer's lawyer. Business 101 - if > your going to make someone sign something with teeth - after you draft it, > have a real lawyer review it. Otherwise, only make them sign things you > don't care whether or not they get signed. For example a TON of non-compete > agreements are this way. Company managers write them and never bother > legally reviewing them because mostly they are unenforceable - but too many > employees will honor terms of unenforceable contracts because they don't know > better. > > Cancelling a contract does not relieve you for past obligations incurred > under that contract. It only lets you out of future obligations under that > contract. Assuming of course that you follow the cancellation requirements. > For example if your contract with them said that they had to give you 30 day > notice of cancellation they have to do that. They can't just cancel it > immediately. > > Obviously your lawyer who can read the contract is going to give better > advice than the general legal principles I'm talking about here. > > But, frankly, in most companies when it comes to hiring, HR is nothing more > than a tool of the hiring manager. If the hiring manager really likes > working with you then they tell HR "work with this guy" and HR is going to do > that, if the hiring manager doesn't like working with you he's going to tell > HR "get rid of this guy" and they are going to do that. The tail does not > wag the dog here, HR does not just go to hiring managers and say "here's your > new employee whether you like them or not" All the companies I've ever heard > of where they try that - if the manager is any good at all - they end up > quitting and completely fry the company on the way out - indeed posts, > Glassdoor posts, you name it. Might as well just guarantee that you never > hire another manager worth hiring ever again. Turns out that managers of > companies believe when they are hired to manage - that they get to actually, > you know, manage. Without HR interference. Imagine that. Weird times > aren't they! LOL > > I still say your best bet is contact the manager directly and ask them to > lunch to figure this out. If they decline you have your answer, if they do > meet you and claim HR is in charge of the process, then they are just wanting > a free lunch and willing to blow some air up your hind end to get it. > Conversely, HR could just love you but if the hiring manager does not - then > HR's opinion means nothing. > > As for what was said during the phone call - unless you recorded it - it's > meaningless. But as for recording it, I'll refer you to the following: > > https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_165.540 > > "...Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 (Order for interception of > communications) or 133.726 (Interception of oral communication without order) > or subsections (2) to (8) of this section, a person may not: > (a)Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication > or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means > of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, > mechanical, manual or otherwise, UNLESS consent is given by at least ONE > participant...." > > This statue has been under a LOT of attack. A recent request of the 9th was > to invalidate it as being unconstitutional - and they lost. Yet, they claim > they won - with articles like this: > > https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/05/9th-cir-invalidates-oregons-ban-on-surreptitious-recordings-of-conversations/ > > What is lost in the word salad is that the 9th only affirmed that the statue > prohibited hidden recording of IN PERSON conversations. The state bar > examined this and their opinion is here: > > https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-156.pdf > > In short - HR called you. You could have legally recorded that call without > informing them. Then turned that over to a court and because it's violated > race discrimination laws - you could have gotten a settlement. > > But without a recording - the phone call is meaningless. > > Ted > > -----Original Message----- > From: PLUG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of James Tobin > Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 7:44 AM > To: Portland Linux/Unix Group <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PLUG] Ghosted? > > HR sent an email abruptly terminating my contract and our professional > relationship. This came shortly after I introduced two people to a manager I > had previously recruited for, with whom I’ve had no prior issues. Their > four-page letter cites contract technicalities —specifically, that I had not > received formal written requests from HR to recruit for these roles. However, > the business has historically engaged my recruitment services and hired > candidates without such written authorization, which they are now > retroactively relying on. > If a company doesn't want to work with me, I get it. However, the timing, > reasoning and abrupt nature of this is extremely fishy. Why not provide > feedback on the candidates and/or progress? Is it because they recognise > they are good and as such will no doubt have to pay a recruitment fee if they > start the process and instead believe that they can do a FUGA letter. . . . > It's an interesting one. Could they have just progressed the candidates to > pacify me? If they progressed and just said, thanks James, but Joe Bloggs > isn't quite right, but > thanks. Would I have been OK. . . . ? As I say, one of the > candidates was applicable for a job in Tokyo that is still being advertised > (since December 2024). Infact, that candidate would have been suitable for a > job in any of their country offices (and they have advertised). . . . they > could have created a position for that candidate given their experience and > applicable skills-we are not just talking random Linux, IT skills, but also > financial business skills too as well as customer support and client services. > > Given all of this and the fact that HR appeared to shout at me down the phone > and bring into the conversation my gender, skin color and reference my > company as a one man band I decided to push forward legal proceedings. I > might not necessarily care if someone wants to reference any of that but I > dont think that it was warranted during a conversation with HR when I just > wanted feedback on candidates. . . . > > It all kinda sounds very fishy > > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 at 12:42, Ted Mittelstaedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Have they specifically said they wanted to end the contract? > > > > If your contract specified that they had to give you feedback, and they > > don't like that term in the contract, yet they haven't just sent you notice > > of ending the contract, then they may be attempting to leverage you into > > new terms with the idea that you need them more than they need you. > > > > I've never seen a business relationship last that was inequitable in this > > manner. That is, that one of the parties had little appreciation of value > > for the other party. > > > > Normally, in a vendor/customer relationship, the product is valued by the > > customer, the customer's money is valued by the vendor. Thus it's an > > equitable relationship. If the customer's perceived product value falls > > then they will go to a different vendor. Sometimes the customer is right > > and the new vendor gives higher value sometimes they are wrong and they go > > back to the old vendor. But, the relationship is still based on perceived > > value. > > > > In your case it's not a simple vendor/customer relationship where one > > side just has money the other side just has product. In your case you > > both have product and in a way you both have money. People you refer > > mean money to them (assuming they are well run) > > > > What might be going on is - they like that you can get people they want - > > but this manager your having trouble with NEVER agreed with the prior CTO > > giving you feedback, or leaning on your advice - but - kept his mouth shut, > > assuming that one day, the CTO would exit and he would take over the > > position in which case he could do what he wanted. > > > > When I took over my role I definitely did not care for the way my > > predecessor had handled vendors. In my opinion the vendors had grown > > arrogant, to put it simply. Another way of saying it is the vendors had > > lost respect for my predecessor and was taking him for granted - and he > > either didn't see it, or he saw it and didn't want to do anything about it. > > > > One in particular - the telco vendor - had gotten sloppy, and was telling > > me to buy products that simply wouldn't have worked - they would have been > > a trainwreck. The only thing that saved my hide was my natural suspicions > > of people telling me about tech, and desire and demand to research the > > tech's complexities myself, in person. Something that my predecessor had > > never done, and the vendors weren’t used to it. Looking back I frankly do > > not understand why they didn't do the due diligence needed to make proper > > recommendations other than if they had come in with additional costs after > > the first agreement had been approved, my predecessor would have gone to > > bat defending them and they assumed I was in such awe of them I'd do the > > same. Ultimately, we parted ways and I found a replacement that is far > > better. > > > > I also had another vendor - Connection (formerly PC Connections) that was > > doing basically 100% of our software licensing and 100% of our hardware > > sales. I'm pretty avoidant of the all-eggs-in-one-basket scenario and > > gradually I brought CDW into the fold. Now, I have both those vendors > > supplying part of the software licensing and I've shifted a lot of the > > large hardware purchasing from Connection to CDW because their prices are > > better for some of the things I'm buying, and to Amazon for a lot of the > > small cheap stuff. I know Connection has noticed the drop off as they have > > asked me about it, my response was to assure them we weren’t dropping them. > > But, what can you do - there's really no easy way to tell a vendor "we are > > going to halve our yearly purchasing from you not because you’re a jerk, > > not because your prices are insane, but because it's good business to > > spread the money around to have some redundancy" I don't want them to get > > mad and then give me no discounts and the highest prices because then I > > will just end up with CDW only and be out of the frying pan into the fire. > > But I don't want to give them the whole ball of wax anymore. That > > relationship has settled down and they are happy enough with what they are > > getting from me, and now I have 2 vendors who both know that they aren't > > supplying 100% of my needs and that there's some other vendor I'm using - > > which helps to keep them motivated to undercut the shadow vendor out there. > > So I will get better pricing and better response. > > > > And I had a last vendor - our generator vendor - who was literally charging > > us for yearly servicing and then NOT actually doing such servicing. When I > > figured out that was going on the smartest thing would have been to coldly > > drop him with minimal contact, just send him a letter saying we were going > > elsewhere, period. But l naively decided that once I caught him I'd give > > him another chance - so I called him then sent him a long explicit email > > saying what my investigations had shown in the past, saying I wanted to > > reset the relationship, and my expectations for servicing the generator > > were, including the details (such as checking the oil level, and specifying > > the type of oil needed (Delo, if you are curious) and so forth. All very > > formal. His response was to attempt to blow me up - he complained to my > > boss about how mean I was, etc. No good deed goes unpunished I guess. > > Ultimately it did not work - we did end up dumping him especially when the > > facilities manager was called into investigate and ended up agreeing with > > me (and several timely blackouts where the generator ended up shutting down > > due to a coolant leak that would have not happened had the PM's been done, > > helped) But I still got burned because it took months to be proven out to > > be right and it delayed getting the generator to be reliable for a year. > > Sigh. I learned a good lesson from that - once a snake always a snake - a > > vendor who is basically defrauding you NEVER responds to any attempt to let > > them atone for past misdeeds. They don't WANT to do work and get paid. > > They want to get paid and do no work at all - and nothing you can do is > > going to stimulate them to actually start doing the work. Their end game > > is they will go out with a bang if they can because maybe the planets will > > align and they will burn you enough during their exit that they don't lose > > the contract after all. > > > > I'm explaining all of this as a way of telling you what could be possibly > > going on inside of the organization. Remember your contact with this org > > was via the CTO. Also remember that for sure, several years before the CTO > > exited the role - he KNEW he was planning to exit. When someone in a > > business starts planning in advance for their retirement - or quitting and > > going to a new employer - or some such - they quite often start getting > > very risk adverse. They don't want to rock the boat, they don't want > > anyone complaining. They are the Mr. Nice Guy to everyone. They don't > > want to get fired 6 months or a year before retirement or before their new > > dream job opens up elsewhere or whatever it is that they are looking > > forward to. And everyone under them senses this, and starts chomping at > > the bit for them to get the hell out of the position so they can have a > > shot at it. > > > > If this manager you are dealing with was formerly the underling of the CTO > > and perceived that you were focused 100% on the CTO and not paying any > > attention to anything he said that could be another issue. I call this the > > "rude to the wait staff" syndrome. If you are a woman and a man asks you > > out you watch how he treats the wait staff - who is subservient to him > > during the date - if he is a jerk to them, then he's GOING to be a jerk to > > you - you cut your losses and GTFO. I'm assuming you were always > > solicitous and kind to your CTO's underlings so this wouldn't apply. > > > > Now, the fact is, a good manager like the former CTO should have been > > mentoring his underlings and including them in the decision making process > > so vendors like yourself would establish relationships with them - but many > > managers don't understand mentoring at all. And if the CTO was planning an > > exit - he wouldn't be able to mentor anyway because anyone under him he > > would try to mentor would at the back of their mind be thinking "just let > > the windbag yak away, he's gonna be gone in a year" > > > > There's very few people I know who are able to remain vibrant, alive, > > stimulating, encouraging, advocating risk takers 6 months before a planned > > exit like quitting. You might even say the ones who can successfully pull > > it off are psycopaths. My guess is your CTO transmitted a ton of stuff > > some of which he maybe didn't want to, to the underlings who knew him the > > best, such as this manager. Now that he's out of the picture, this manager > > wants a complete reset of the relationship with you - but is afraid to > > broach it, both for fear of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, or > > the feeling that he isn't yet secure in his position, and that you might > > react in an unexpected way that could damage his position. > > > > I think you are overanalyzing this. > > > > Basically you are in a common situation as a vendor. The guard has changed > > - and no matter how much value you gave the customer - your going to have > > to start all over again with the new guard. The new guard isn't going to > > give an ounce of value to what you gave the old guard. They aren't asking > > what did you do for me yesterday they are asking what can you do for me > > today. They aren't loyal to you or the prior business relationship because > > they regard it as your relationship with the prior person who is now out > > the door - not your relationship with their organization. > > > > What I would do in your shoes is invite the new manager to lunch, and say > > something along the lines of "I'm getting the sense that you never really > > agreed with how your predecessor worked with me" or something along those > > lines. It's human nature for a new manager to diss their predecessor - so > > he might actually warm a bit to that kind of a question and you can then > > figure out what is really bothering him. Then all you need to do is figure > > out if you want to work in the parameters he wants you to work in. > > > > Ted > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: PLUG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of James Tobin > > Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 2:09 AM > > To: Portland Linux/Unix Group <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PLUG] Ghosted? > > > > I'm actually the headhunter. If an employer chooses to terminate a contract > > with me, so be it. Although it's never happened before. > > > > However, in this particular case, the decision appears both abrupt and > > highly suspicious. My relationship with the former CTO stems from a prior > > working relationship at the company from which this new entity was spun > > out. I’ve been in recruitment and IT (including telecoms: > > IVRs, ASR, development/db etc and even domain names) since the late 1990s, > > working globally, and I’ve seen a wide range of situations. I was once > > asked to recruit a Meridian PBX engineer for a bank too (picking up on your > > previous email). Anyway, the former CTO valued my input—my opinions, > > suggestions, and broader consultative approach. In contrast, based on my > > experience with the manager that may now wield more power, it seems they > > may prefer working with recruiters who simply push resumes rather than > > offer strategic guidance or insights (not headhunters). > > > > What’s unusual here is that the employer is now attempting to weaponize > > specific contract terms—terms they have historically neither enforced nor > > followed—to justify their refusal to provide feedback on candidates I’ve > > introduced, even after those candidates met with a hiring manager I’ve > > previously recruited for. One such term states that my firm may only > > recruit for roles formally requested in writing. > > However, in multiple prior instances—including with this same manager—no > > written job descriptions or formal requests were ever provided, and yet the > > process proceeded without issue. > > > > My candidate-to-offer ratios speak for themselves—rarely do I need to > > introduce more than three candidates for a given role before one receives > > an offer. That level of precision doesn't happen by chance. > > > > My thoughts are that the candidates I introduced were highly relevant, and > > that HR (or the parent company or the company itself) may now be leaning > > toward an in-house recruitment strategy. There’s a possibility they’re > > hesitant to engage with my candidates out of concern that, if one—if not > > both—are seen as strong fits, it could lead to a placement fee. > > > > I am relying on the following clause from the contract: > > > > "Term: The Agreement shall be effective upon the Effective Date and > > shall continue until terminated by either party in writing. The expiry > > or earlier termination of this Agreement shall not affect or prejudice > > (a) the rights, obligations or liabilities of either party which have > > accrued prior to such expiry or termination; or (b) the operation of any > > provision of this Agreement which is expressed to survive, or which from > > its nature or context is intended to survive, such expiry or termination." > > > > This clause makes clear that the Agreement’s expiry or termination does not > > affect any rights or obligations that have accrued prior to termination. > > Given the employer’s historical conduct under this Agreement, they have > > accrued obligations—such as providing feedback or progressing candidates > > introduced before termination—that remain enforceable despite the > > contract’s end. > > > > Furthermore, under the principle of equitable estoppel, the employer should > > be prevented from denying these accrued obligations. Their prior conduct > > led me to reasonably rely on their cooperation and feedback, and it would > > be unjust for them to now refuse to fulfill these obligations after > > benefiting from the relationship. > > > > > > On Sun, 3 Aug 2025 at 18:41, Ted Mittelstaedt <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hmmmmm. > > > > > > 4 pages back - unless it's 4 pages of lawyerese boilerplate that is just > > > copied and pasted - is unusual. > > > > > > There is a term in business for that type of response - we call it a > > > "F U Go Away" letter" Sometimes known in the vernacular as a F.O.A.D. > > > letter. ("and die" are the last 2 words) > > > > > > Most of the time, FUGA letters are a waste of time. Why? Because the > > > business had to pay someone at the business for their time to compose 4 > > > pages of FUGA. > > > > > > One of the cardinal rules of business is - you don't expend effort > > > severing contacts with any business associate, unless there is a cost to > > > maintaining that contact that is greater than the cost to severing it. > > > > > > If I get a call from a salesperson selling something that I buy - but > > > don't need at that moment - I tell them "I buy those but sorry I not > > > interested at the moment" but I don't block them or expend any effort at > > > all to block them. > > > > > > If I get a call from a salesperson selling something that there's not a > > > snowball's chance in hell I'll ever buy for my employer - I tell them > > > "sorry but we simply never buy that stuff" but once more, I don't expend > > > any effort to block them. > > > > > > I assume if they are a successful entity that if they are the first type, > > > I'll end up in a tickler file if they are the second type, they value > > > their time and will not want to waste further time on me and thus cross > > > me off the list. If the first type maybe I'll get another call every 6 > > > months or so. Maybe one day in the future I WILL be buying and then they > > > can send me a quote or something. > > > > > > Recruiters are salespeople in case you didn't know - they sell access to > > > talent. > > > > > > Anyway, it's only if they start wasting their own time - such as with > > > excessive, repeated contacts if the first type or contacts at all with > > > the second type, that I would spend my time attempting to block them or > > > telling them never to call me again and so on. Because, at that time, I > > > know they are not successful, they have no value, their own time is > > > worthless - which is why they are willing to waste it on me. Because my > > > time is valuable I now have to weigh whether it's worth spending my time > > > on effort to make them quit wasting my time, or whether I can just > > > continue saying "no" and hanging up on them. In other words, which > > > option is going to cost more of my time. > > > > > > For the 10 minutes I might spend yelling FUGA at them to never call me > > > again or threatening to report them if they call again, I could probably > > > answer the phone say "no" and hang up around 20 times. If I discern they > > > are normal, I will assume they will give up after about 6-7 calls, if I > > > assume they have heads of solid bone then I'll have to spend the 10 > > > minutes screaming FUGA at them in hopes that this will get them to quit > > > wasting my time. > > > > > > Understand that screaming at them isn't an emotional reaction - it's a > > > logical choice. It's just business. And in business, time is money and > > > successful businesspeople understand this. > > > > > > This is a lesson that I had to learn, myself. The reality is, that an > > > emotional response to anything in business costs money - so you better > > > make sure that it's something worth spending money on. Screaming with > > > joy "we got the contract" and running around the office like a chicken > > > with it's head cut off is emotional but very worth the money and there's > > > certainly no risk. Politely giving a salesperson 5 minutes to pitch you > > > for something you don't need now but might need in the future - that's > > > probably worth the money although it's also a risk. FUGA on the other > > > hand is almost never worth the money or risk. > > > > > > Now, as for your question: > > > > > > I don't know how much time the recruitment firm has spent on this > > > employer but if the recruitment firm is following good business practices > > > then they haven't spent much time after getting a "no" > > > > > > Sending a 1 page letter to a "no" response doesn't take much time. > > > It's likely mostly a form letter anyway. And you can include the > > > usual thank you for your time deciding to say no, which some of the > > > more antique fossils in business seem to hold in high regard. (that > > > is, they are the my s don't stink types and you must slavishly thank > > > me for spending my 5 seconds telling you to get lost - sort of like > > > the "thank you sir may I have another" scene in Animal House) > > > > > > So doing that is in general good business. Even with the fossils who you > > > may end up having to deal with in the future some time. > > > > > > But a 4 page FUGA response is an indication that the employer - who has > > > already said no, apparently, is to use the expression - a piss-poor > > > businessperson. That is because they are willing to spend the $$$ on 30 > > > minutes or more of their time writing a FUGA when their option was to > > > spend 1 minute responding with "sorry we can't help you" > > > > > > This is completely setting aside that the content of 4 pages that boils > > > down to one word - no - is almost certainly emotionally driven, and > > > therefore a rich goldmine for an employment lawyer to dig into. That's > > > where the risk part comes in. The second cardinal rule of business is > > > you never take risks where the reward isn't worth the effort to take the > > > risk. The reward for creating a usable electric light bulb was > > > phenomenal so Edison was willing to take a giant risk by throwing > > > millions of todays dollars at it with zero guarantee it would ever be > > > anything other than a laboratory curiosity. The reward for making a > > > recruiter go away and stay away with high risk FUGA letter - pretty low. > > > Thus, a very very poor business decision. > > > > > > The only reason any decent businessperson would possibly write a FUGA > > > letter is if the recruiter had already wasted a lot of their time > > > continuing to pester them and the employer felt spending that time > > > writing a FUGA letter was going to take less of their time than being > > > continually pestered. > > > > > > So, my advice to this hypothetical situation - hypothetical since you > > > have not supplied names of either the employer or recruiter - is that you > > > have 1 of 2 things going on here. > > > > > > Either the recruiter is being an idiot and has pushed the employer to > > > write a FUGA letter - or the employer is a terrible businessperson who is > > > likely to go bankrupt because they are spending all their time writing > > > FUGA letters than actually, ya know, making money? > > > > > > Your choice. I would advise looking at the entire transaction to suss > > > out what actually happened. It might just be that the employer is > > > fabulously successful in which case I'd have to wonder about the > > > recruiter - or the employer is swinging from opportunity from opportunity > > > like a monkey in a tree barely staying above the crocodiles, in which > > > case the candidate certainly dodged a bullet. > > > > > > Ted > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: PLUG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of James > > > Tobin > > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 8:08 AM > > > To: Portland Linux/Unix Group <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [PLUG] Ghosted? > > > > > > How do you mean backwards Oregon? ;-) > > > > > > The recruitment firm has written a one-page letter to the employer but > > > the employer has sent a 4 page reply back. The employer's letter also > > > states that they have no obligation or reason to provide feedback, engage > > > in further communication, or follow up on the candidate(s) introduced. > > > They have gone so far as to write a four page letter defending their > > > position in response to the recruitment firms-one page letter. Does the > > > employer's stance not sound fishy to people? The recruitment firm did > > > attempt to speak with the HR person that cancelled the contract too. > > > They refused to comment on the suitability of the individuals introduced. > > > Instead, they remarked on the recruitment consultants' presumed skin > > > color and gender, and made a remark about the recruitment firm being a > > > 'one-man band'. . . > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 at 15:53, Ted Mittelstaedt <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The main thing on the list is the potential liability. This is why > > > > rejection letters are extremely short and they never call on a > > > > rejection. You never know if your talking to a lawyer who is trying to > > > > build a case against you by developing a pattern on your rejections. > > > > This is why certain topics even inside of companies concerning hiring > > > > are completely taboo. The few times I've heard any manager even utter > > > > any of the "protected class" words EOO words, (race sex religion etc. > > > > etc.) they have been reprimanded and the thought of putting anything > > > > like that in an internal email is unbelievable. A manager who did that > > > > would certainly be close to being fired. > > > > > > > > The rest of the stuff isn't that important - there's plenty of managers > > > > and HR people out there who don't mind spending calories on rejects. > > > > If someone asked me point blank how they came off in the interview I'd > > > > tell them - and in fact, if you are in an interview and you sense that > > > > it's gone sideways or that it's not a fit, I encourage you to ask what > > > > do you think of me? I did that once and they told me point blank that > > > > my last paycheck stub (which I had bought, as insurance) was higher > > > > than what they were planning on offering. That was one of those > > > > positions advertised without a pay scale back in "the olden days". I > > > > think they got "schooled" that day. But that's what you get when you > > > > advertise a position without a pay range. > > > > > > > > And I'm also very skilled at answering the phone and giving the caller > > > > 5 seconds no more to explain what they are calling about and if I > > > > decide it's not worth my time to listen to their pitch I politely say > > > > "not interested" and hang up. Even when they are in the middle of > > > > their "I appreciate it but there's one more thing you should consider" > > > > foot-in-the-door spiel. That's an executive skill any good manager has > > > > to develop. They aren't being abrupt, they just recognize there's no > > > > more value to the call so they end it to quit wasting their time and > > > > yours. > > > > > > > > As for tuning an LLM, they can turn the most glowing Resume/application > > > > in that's as tuned as possible to get it past all the filters if they > > > > want. I'd actually consider that a plus in a candidate that they > > > > figured out the rat's maze to defeat the robot overlord. (Although I > > > > personally would never use LLM to filter and I've explained why already > > > > that a good manager would not) But securing the interview is just the > > > > first step you still got to prove yourself in the interview. And > > > > there's no point in putting a huge amount of effort into securing > > > > interviews and none into the actual interview process. Unless your > > > > goal is to sort of collect interviews like medals. > > > > > > > > The automated tools make rejecting candidates take very little effort. > > > > The candidate applies online, puts their contact info in online, if > > > > they aren't greenflagged and forwarded for a screening interview (ie: a > > > > phone call from HR asking "are you a real person or not") the rejection > > > > comes back automatically - with no activity on a prospect after a few > > > > weeks the software just closes the file and issues the rejection > > > > automatically. > > > > > > > > "There is whole industry of asking job candidates to generate resumes > > > > for training or for sale - essentially for free, just by advertising a > > > > job opportunity." > > > > > > > > I assure you, nobody does this anymore. > > > > > > > > The number 1 reason is as follows: > > > > > > > > https://www.hrdive.com/news/pay-transparency-law-tracker-states-th > > > > at -r equire-employers-to-post-pay-range-or-wage-range/622542/ > > > > > > > > Notice that backwards Oregon is NOT on the list. I encourage you to > > > > write your representative on this issue. > > > > > > > > Back in the bad old days, when nobody advertised pay scales, the only > > > > way a company HR department could do research on market rate was by > > > > offering fake job opportunities. Then during the screening interview > > > > they would say "this job is offering a range of X-Y" and see if the > > > > candidate said OK. If they did, that was too high. The next candidate > > > > they screened they would lower the offer. And they would keep doing > > > > this until they started getting candidates saying "that's too low" > > > > > > > > But today, there's a whole list of states that require disclosed pay > > > > scales by law. And trust me, ANY employer in any of those states who > > > > lists a job and does NOT do that - they WILL get reported - by hundreds > > > > of job seekers. And the state employment divisions just LOVE fining > > > > employers for this kind of stuff. > > > > > > > > So, to do a market pay study nowadays is really easy you just look at > > > > the listings in those states and toss the border markers and you have > > > > your scale. And for the Fortune 500 they often are drawing upper staff > > > > who they WILL pay relocation for and they don't know where their > > > > candidates might be coming from and they simply don't want the hassle. > > > > A company like Walmart for example is in all 50 states if they > > > > advertise a manager position in Oregon for sure candidates in > > > > Washington State are going to see it and even if they could squeak by > > > > the law by not putting a pay scale in and claiming it was an Oregon > > > > advertisement - they will incur the ire of State of Washington's labor > > > > department who can easily make trouble for their Washington operations > > > > (hmm, it's been a while since we've inspected your Vancouver > > > > operations) So once enough states started passing these disclosure > > > > laws, the large corps caved in and started putting pay scales on ALL > > > > their positions - which of course put tremendous pressure on the small > > > > Mom and Pop operations to disclose THEIR pay scales since if your going > > > > to pay Indeed to list a job your wasting your money if nobody applies - > > > > and nobody will apply if you are the only employer in the list that > > > > isn't listing a pay range in your job posting. > > > > > > > > Your still going to see the occasional posting lacking a pay scale but > > > > only someone looking for their first job should be applying for those. > > > > > > > > This is one of the areas that young folks have a huge advantage over > > > > what us old codgers had to deal with. > > > > > > > > Ted > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: PLUG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > > > > [email protected] > > > > Sent: Monday, July 28, 2025 6:40 AM > > > > To: Portland Linux/Unix Group <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: Re: [PLUG] Ghosted? > > > > > > > > I think Tomas summed it up perfectly, while also addressing a few > > > > things about job searching that I was aware of(It's been a while since > > > > I had to hire). > > > > Thanks | おおきに / ありがとう | Kiitos | Merci | Gracias | Obrigada | > > > > Grazie > > > > | > > > > 谢谢 | Danke | Wado | спасибо, > > > > 賢進ジェンナ「Kenshin, Jenna」 > > > > > > > > "You should be as alive as you can until you're totally dead!" - > > > > Dylan Moran > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2025年7月27日 13:22 差出人: [email protected]: > > > > > > > > > I can think of a few reasons: > > > > > * There is no value in spending any calories on rejected > > > > > candidates > > > > > * Potential liability > > > > > * Potential for extra arguments, hassle and follow up > > > > > * It is proprietary knowledge, many applications are generated > > > > > and almost all are screened by a LLM - so giving feedback would > > > > > let the generating LLM/human to tune for success. > > > > > * Work load - they maybe rejecting many candidates for a few > > > > > positions. Not necessarily because of a particular reason > > > > > * There is whole industry of asking job candidates to generate > > > > > resumes for training or for sale - essentially for free, just by > > > > > advertising a job opportunity. > > > > > > > > > > Applying/searching for a job is no fun, especially on saturated > > > > > labor market, that is for sure. > > > > > > > > > > -T > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025, 17:59 James Tobin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Why do you think that is? > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 at 21:55, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Yes, but I also know that employers in the U.S. generally > > > > >> > don't want to > > > > >> admit why an applicant was refused or passed on. > > > > >> > Thanks | おおきに / ありがとう | Kiitos | Merci | Gracias | Obrigada | > > > > >> > Grazie | > > > > >> 谢谢 | Danke | Wado | спасибо, > > > > >> > 賢進ジェンナ「Kenshin, Jenna」 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > "You should be as alive as you can until you're totally dead!" > > > > >> > - Dylan > > > > >> Moran > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > 2025年7月25日 11:57 差出人: [email protected]: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Hi, if you were represented by a recruiter (headhunter, > > > > >> > > recruitment consultant, agent, or whatever they prefer to > > > > >> > > call > > > > >> > > themselves) for a potential job with an employer, would you > > > > >> > > expect them to do everything possible to get feedback on > > > > >> > > your resume, skills, experience, overall application, and > > > > >> > > suitability directly from the employer after you'd been > > > > >> > > presented? > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
