I've noticed a new sort of ad popping up lately. Instead of the dreary old "MUST have 5 years this, MUST have 5 years that, MUST have...", I'm seeing ads that target entry-level applicants with 1-2 years of experience. There are disclaimers on salary expectations, but the language is no longer pompous and arrogant, and leaves open the possibility that that they'd even consider more experienced people - so long as they'd work for entry-level wages. Still, it's something new and may indicate that things are beginning to turn up to the extent that freezes and offshoring are no longer sufficient to meet local corporate needs - that the desicion has been made to start adding local people. Anyone else seeing this kind of stuff?
Customer surveys are for companies who didn't pay proper attention to begin with.
Yes, I have. Last week I posted something of the sort, saying that some jobs for Boston on Monster were not requiring 5 years. It has continued for the past week: among the jobs for senior developers, there are jobs for just developers and those don't require a 5 yrs. experience on anything. And there are a handful of new positions almost everyday also, which was not happening before.
I haven't noticed anything like this in the Phoenix area. But then again, I don't trust Monster or use it. CarerrBuilder.com for Phoenix still mostly shows advanced level openings. Same for FlipDog.com I did get the M$ email today saying that by this time next year the certs for their 6.0 products will retire. Hopefully the HR people of the world will understand that Java is essentially C# and not try to force M$ products as requirements for entry level positions... Hopefully..
Well, I haven't been looking that hard. I've been preparing for the SCBCD certification test and sort of letting the recruiters come to me... Right now I'm waiting for the decision on a senior Weblogic EJB position, probably get it monday. I've been submitted at a software house in the financial district (I live in London). Gonna take a hit on the pay, but at least all the jobs are senior ones. The base on one of the jobs is about 70% of what I had, but it's out in the country and living costs should be lower. The other is right in town at about 85% what I was making. So the drop in salaries is no lie.
Just an aside on Alfred E. Neuman's "gonna take a hit on the pay" remark. About 3 times in the last 2 years I've seen attempts to drive local payscales down to about 60%, Another one is in progress right now, but the others washed out. So I wouldn't be to quick to discount. And now for something completely different This was just posted locally. I know the recruiter in question - she's spent the last 2 years not communicating with me after she discovered that I had only 19 of the 20 items on the employer's laundry list and wasn't willing to lie to make it 20. Here goes:
Excellent (Senior) Java Developer We are NOT looking for a walking, talking laundry list of technology acronyms. Rather we are looking for an excellent, enthusiastic and accomplished (Senior) Java developer seeking to design, build, test and deliver high-performance software. ... If you have a reasonable subset of �
(It's still a laundry list, but note the phrase REASONABLE SUBSET! ... While we do not expect you to know every skill related to the job, we do expect you to know everything that you say you know. The technical interview will be rigorous.
The "We are NOT looking for a walking talking laundry list of acronyms" section is repeated. I'm deducing several things from this ad. 1. Pressure is on to actually hire people to get this (2-year+ old) project actually moving. 2. They hired people who claimed to have all 20 items on their laundry list and discovered that it didn't do any good anyway. I.e.: a lot of these excellently "qualified" hires had lied and posessed less actual skills experience than I do. In the mean time, my opinion of the corporation concerned has deteriorated (thanks to their previous arrogance) to the point that at a minimum I'll be looking to see what else is opening up now - including at their competitors - before I rush to apply there. [ June 29, 2003: Message edited by: Tim Holloway ]
Joined: Mar 30, 2003
Just an aside on Alfred E. Neuman's "gonna take a hit on the pay" remark. About 3 times in the last 2 years I've seen attempts to drive local payscales down to about 60%, Another one is in progress right now, but the others washed out. So I wouldn't be to quick to discount.
Thanks for the advice, Tim. I've been thinking about that too. Fact is I think the wages got a bit overblown in 2000, so 85-90% might be acceptable. I'm leery about the 70% one because I figure I'd lose about �1000 a month after taxes and claw back maybe �500 from lower rent and food costs. OTOH I have nothing right now, and this could be an opportunity to mold a small IT department my way from the start.