Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/26/2005 7:28:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 7:30:39 PM EDT by sterling18]
How many of you us it?

How many of you got a job on it?

How many employer's use them? Does yours?

I was wondering if it's worth putting my resume` up on it.

Let me know what you think.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 8:34:44 AM EDT
btt
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 8:35:42 AM EDT
I have hired and have been hired through monster.com.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 8:37:55 AM EDT
Internet resume posting and job hunting has got me 1 interview and 3 phone calls in 9 months.

One call was for a position to run a nursing home for 33k a year.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 8:39:10 AM EDT
I've hired all of the people for my department via Monster.com.

It's expensive for me to list there, but I get a ton of resumes to choose from.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 8:50:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/27/2005 8:50:31 AM EDT by Hedonist]
The best staff members I have hired were through Mon$ter.com.

Make sure you check references; people have a habit of embellishing their past.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 9:04:58 AM EDT
Thanks for everyone's reply so far.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 9:06:26 AM EDT
I'm currently past my first and working on my second interview with a company that recruited me from my Monster posting.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 9:08:38 AM EDT
I have had a resume on there for almost a year, no one has looked at it as of last week.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 9:13:08 AM EDT
Monster.com?...

www.seark.net/~jlove/ags.htm

Billionaire's Gun Control Role Is Debated
Middle-of-the-Road Advocacy and Infusion of Cash Stir Controversy on All Sides

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 29, 2001; Page A10

Last summer, Andrew McKelvey decided he knew how to break the impasse that has dogged the
gun control debate: Acknowledge Americans' right to own guns, but say that these rights come
with responsibilities.

If he had been an ordinary gadfly, McKelvey might have gone unnoticed. But as the owner of
Monster.com,
the job search Web site, the billionaire New York businessman used his wealth to
position himself at the center of the gun control movement -- and to emerge as its dominant
force.

The ascension of his advocacy group, Americans for Gun Safety, has altered the national debate
over guns. At a moment when the steam has seemingly gone out of congressional efforts to enact
tougher gun control laws, McKelvey's supporters hail him as a potential savior who can attract a
broader constituency to their cause.

Many longtime advocates of tougher gun control laws, however, charge that his endorsement of
gun ownership is dooming the gun control movement by watering down its message.

No one questions McKelvey's influence. His group's $3 million advertising campaign in
Colorado and Oregon helped propel to victory in November ballot initiatives seeking
background checks at gun shows. His staff is now helping craft a new gun show proposal on the
federal level that Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) plan to
unveil within a matter of weeks.

A political novice, McKelvey, 66, used his personal fortune to assemble a formidable political
network that gave him access to policymakers and made his organization a critical contributor to
state gun control groups. He hired top officials from the Clinton administration and Republican
congressional aides, picking Jonathan Cowan, who was Andrew M. Cuomo's chief of staff at the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, as his group's president. He commissioned
polls from Democrats Mark Mellman and Mark Penn as well as from Republican John Zogby,
and also hired GOP image-maker Greg Stevens to film issue advertisements on the group's
behalf.

McKelvey, who marvels at his sudden access to national leaders -- "I'm about as apolitical as it
comes. I don't know anybody" -- says his group is simply being pragmatic. "I try to work on
things in which we can have some results," he says.

A plainspoken man, he dismisses the notion some hold that a searing personal experience drew
him into the debate over gun violence. "They want to know, 'Did you have a brother shot?' The
answer is 'no,' " he says. "All these kids just kept getting shot in schools."

His group's drive to pass measures requiring gun show background checks in Colorado and
Oregon bore all the hallmarks of a traditional campaign. In Oregon, the group paid for a
half-million phone calls and a quarter-million pieces of direct mail to voters, in addition to
running television advertisements featuring McCain's support for the initiative.

McKelvey compared the McCain ads his group ran in Colorado and Oregon to the catchy
television commercials his Web site pioneered. "Advertising, particularly television
advertising, is certainly an effective vehicle," he says.

Now, the group has expanded nationwide, running ads in favor of closing the gun show
"loophole" -- which allows people in 32 states to buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing
background checks -- and providing tens of thousands of dollars in funding for state groups.

Despite the shot in the arm Americans for Gun Safety has given to the gun show issue, many
advocates of stricter gun laws are critical of McKelvey's efforts.

Violence Policy Center public policy director Joe Sudbay notes that the group's focus on gun
shows addresses just a small part of a much larger problem. He says McKelvey is using his
money to try to get cash-strapped state gun control advocacy groups to support his
middle-of-the-road approach -- at the risk of undermining the broader gun control effort.

McKelvey offered $60,000 to any state group willing to become a "chapter" of his organization.
Although many of these affiliates balked once they discovered that the organization's mission
statement endorses gun ownership, McKelvey allowed them to keep the one-year grants.

"I think he was trying to do a hostile takeover of the gun control movement," Sudbay says.

Sudbay is equally critical of McCain and Lieberman's gun show proposal, which would allow
private gun show dealers to move to a 24-hour background check in three years if the attorney
general certifies they are able to access files on 95 percent of buyers.

Lieberman, who says he and McCain became convinced that the gun issue had become too
polarized after they both campaigned for national office last year, defends McKelvey's efforts,
saying he may have identified the kind of balanced approach that has eluded lawmakers so far.
"There's a logic to this," Lieberman says.

At the moment, however, gun rights advocates aren't rushing to embrace McKelvey's approach.
His overtures to some of Capitol Hill's most staunch conservatives have been rebuffed. The
May issue of the National Rifle Association's magazine features a caricature of McKelvey with
the caption, "The New Gun Haters Have Arrived . . . With the Same Old Scheme."

While Americans for Gun Safety has yet to engage in direct electioneering, its critics and allies
predict that it may become even more powerful if the changes to campaign finance laws passed
by the Senate are enacted. The proposal, sponsored by McCain and Sen. Russell Feingold
(D-Wis.), would end the raising of unlimited "soft money" donations to political parties from
corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. It could give new power to independently
funded groups such as McKelvey's, which would not be subject to the new restrictions.

Cowan says the group is still evaluating its political strategy for the next election. Without
question, he adds, "McCain-Feingold actually helps groups like us. . . . The right of a democracy
is people can organize themselves to effectively advocate for a point of view."

For McCain, McKelvey's willingness to devote millions of dollars to influence lawmakers on
issues such as gun control is something to be lauded rather than criticized. "I'm glad a guy with a
billion dollars, or two billion dollars, wants to spend his money on an issue he feels strongly
about," McCain says.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 9:17:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/27/2005 9:17:23 AM EDT by ElCamino]
So?

If I boycotted every company that had some anti-gun owner or executive, I'd be sitting at home doing jack shit, owning nothing but guns and venison.

ETA: And certainly not posting on the Internet about it.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 9:58:04 AM EDT
LoginName,

Let me guess you picked, they suck?

Thanks for your input but I'm looking for your experence with Monster.com and employment.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 10:07:31 AM EDT
FYI five response polls do not work right. Every time someone votes for the #4 or #5 response a vote is added to both response causing them both to always have the same number of votes.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 11:01:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:
FYI five response polls do not work right. Every time someone votes for the #4 or #5 response a vote is added to both response causing them both to always have the same number of votes.



dang it
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 2:19:28 PM EDT
I posted my resume, and was recruited by a company that gave me a 30% raise and a much better work environment.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:33:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sterling18:
LoginName,

Let me guess you picked, they suck?

Thanks for your input but I'm looking for your experence with Monster.com and employment.



To be perfectly honest, I have no real opinion about Monster.com one way or the other (OTOH, I think McKelvey is an asshole).

I just thought some here might find the McKelvey/Monster.com/AGS connection (for lack of a better term),
worh noting when picking and choosing whom they do buisness with.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:36:52 PM EDT
Got a job within a month of looking from monster, and then didnt get shit after 6 months of looking. This also includes dice, hotjobs, yahoo! jobs, and others. Hit or miss.

Friends make much better job leads than online services.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:36:55 PM EDT
I get alot of contract computer repair work from Monster.com. Got called for an install job on friday. Was supposed to do it on monday, but with this hurricane.....not likely.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:38:15 PM EDT
I get five or six calls a week because of Monster.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:39:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
I get five or six calls a week because of Monster.



Really, that's pretty good.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 6:15:46 AM EDT
I got a few calls when I was searching.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 6:28:26 AM EDT
Be careful of some offers off of those sites, a lot of scammmers try to target potential job candidates.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:30:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By armac:
Be careful of some offers off of those sites, a lot of scammmers try to target potential job candidates.



And watch out for scamming headhunters. Though the difference is minimal, headhunters do have a position at some company they want you to fill (and garner them a commission) but they don't give a shit whether its a good job for you or not, they just want you to sign, sign, sign.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 1:27:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2005 2:17:18 PM EDT by sterling18]

Originally Posted By armac:
Be careful of some offers off of those sites, a lot of scammmers try to target potential job candidates.



Are you suggesting identity theft?
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 1:51:57 PM EDT
Many of the tech ads are fakes. They are placed as part of the Reduction-in-Recruitment process. The ads used to be easy to spot, but now it's more difficult due to changes in the law. I would guess 20-25% of the ads you see on dice.com are fakes.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:18:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattja:
Many of the tech ads are fakes. They are placed as part of the Reduction-in-Recruitment process. The ads used to be easy to spot, but now it's more difficult due to changes in the law. I would guess 20-25% of the ads you see on dice.com are fakes.



What is a Reduction-in-Recruitment process?
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:23:35 PM EDT
btw, my current company uses Monster.com also, you think they will find out that I posted on it?
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:28:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 2:33:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sterling18:

Originally Posted By mattja:
Many of the tech ads are fakes. They are placed as part of the Reduction-in-Recruitment process. The ads used to be easy to spot, but now it's more difficult due to changes in the law. I would guess 20-25% of the ads you see on dice.com are fakes.



What is a Reduction-in-Recruitment process?



I don't know the exact details, but it's part of the process of getting green cards. An employer has to prove that local help is not available before applying to sponsor a foreign national. The employer often gets that "proof" via job ads. You'll often see ads requiring very specific skills and very high education requirements, but when you look at the details, you'll realize that it's almost impossible for anyone to have the required skills. For instance, they will require 8 years experience with technologies that have only existed for 5 years. The end result is very few people will answer the ad, which is what the employer wants all along. Now he has his excuse to sponsor that Chinese student who has worked for him part-time all along. And that kid will be treated almost as an indentured servant until he has his green card. It's a very common scam. They do it with H-1B VISA hires as well.

If one sends out 100 resumes and only gets 3 responses, part of the problem could be that those resumes went to fake job ads.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:16:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mattja:

Originally Posted By sterling18:

Originally Posted By mattja:
Many of the tech ads are fakes. They are placed as part of the Reduction-in-Recruitment process. The ads used to be easy to spot, but now it's more difficult due to changes in the law. I would guess 20-25% of the ads you see on dice.com are fakes.



What is a Reduction-in-Recruitment process?



I don't know the exact details, but it's part of the process of getting green cards. An employer has to prove that local help is not available before applying to sponsor a foreign national. The employer often gets that "proof" via job ads. You'll often see ads requiring very specific skills and very high education requirements, but when you look at the details, you'll realize that it's almost impossible for anyone to have the required skills. For instance, they will require 8 years experience with technologies that have only existed for 5 years. The end result is very few people will answer the ad, which is what the employer wants all along. Now he has his excuse to sponsor that Chinese student who has worked for him part-time all along. And that kid will be treated almost as an indentured servant until he has his green card. It's a very common scam. They do it with H-1B VISA hires as well.

If one sends out 100 resumes and only gets 3 responses, part of the problem could be that those resumes went to fake job ads.



Great, just great. 3% response these days huh? That's like all these jobs are going to the day labors.

Link Posted: 8/29/2005 4:18:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 5:58:28 PM EDT by sterling18]
btw, what is the proper etiquette to omitting your current company's info that you are working for from your resume so they don't find out? But still keep your discription.

TIA
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 5:58:56 PM EDT
^^^^
Top Top