|
We offered someone a job last Wednesday, and he accepted the contract.
Of course we immediately told the company concerned, and they closed the position, and contacted other candidates to tell them they'd been unlucky this time.
He then calls up and says he's not sure, and wants to think about it over the weekend, and give an answer on Tuesday!
Well, we're going to look like right dicks to the client, now, telling them all was good, now not really knowing! Question is, do we gamble on someone who has demonstrated indecision, when we have a whole load of candidates begging for the role?
can't risk it. Called up the No. 2 on the list and offered it to them. They accepted and all is well with the world
Personally, I don't think Joe would have taken it anyway - but apparently he's spouting off online about how bad we are for not just giving him as long as he likes. you'd think he was the center of the universe!
|
|
|
|
|
I see that side, but most the paperwork hadn't been completed including the official acceptance by the client (which required a background check) and I know that there wasn't just one position; the client in question is constantly hiring contractors. I also know it wasn't urgent, since they took weeks to set up the interview, another week to give and feedback and my start date was flexible. Until this past week, NOBODY was acting like this was urgent; now suddenly it was? And it was a weekend. But what really set me off was how TekPartners said that they were a higher priority than my family. Sorry, but that's a bit too far.
(Edit: to reiterate, this was a contract in an at will employment state. The recruiter had said several times that if I didn't like the company or the location, I could "back out any time." Apparently, "any time" means only after what? A day, five days, six months?)
modified 17-Jun-14 17:17pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I am surprised you get enough money to accept. Every opportunity I have seen from them is significantly lower in pay than I could get from another agency. I don't even bother.
However, since I do this a lot I will offer something that I always do and will save you the hassle,
"This is a great offer you have made, can you please send it to me in writing so I can properly consider it? I don't like to make big decisions hastily, I will get back to you in a day or two."
Making it part of your standard course allows you the flexibility of time to consider, which is important. Maybe the offer was low (hah, tek partners it was low) or something else needed negotiation. Then you can negotiate. But, I don't think tek partners would communicate for you.
I remember a while ago when Tek Systems ( I don't think are related) shared a private conversation between me and the recruiter costing me a placement. Tek Systems is now on the boycott list. Life, learn and move on. Oh, and remember, go direct!
|
|
|
|
|
I really like your suggestion about asking for the offer in writing. Interestingly, several of the jobs I've gotten in the past, even through recruiters, said that until the acceptance letter was signed and returned, there was no official acceptance. (At every place I've worked, but especially in the last dozen years, we've had new hires bail on the day they were supposed to start. Nobody got pissy about it, we just shrugged and found someone else.)
As for the money; rates through agencies seem to be on the low side around the country. In this case, I discovered that the recruiter had mislead me about the tax impact of per diem, so I did quite a bit of research. Once I corrected my spreadsheet for the correct values, I found that it was about a 5-10% lower net (depending on how often I flew home) than my last two jobs, versus 10% higher.
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: Oh, and remember, go direct!
What is your method for getting jobs this way? I've only done three direct contracts, all back in the late 90s and all through total flukes (one from an ad in the paper that I was presented as a non-contract position, one through a former colleague and one by answering a programming question on a compuserve forum.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repost![^] 
And I can't understand why you haven't seen that your post is actually the same as the latest post here. 
Don't mind those people who say you're not HOT. At least you know you're COOL.
I'm not afraid of falling, I'm afraid of the sudden stop at the end of the fall! - Richard Andrew x64
|
|
|
|
|
Because neither has an informative title.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
OK then, next time I'll be extra nice.. 
Don't mind those people who say you're not HOT. At least you know you're COOL.
I'm not afraid of falling, I'm afraid of the sudden stop at the end of the fall! - Richard Andrew x64
|
|
|
|
|
One of those days...
For my defense, I am celiac and I had lots of gluten recently... 
Everything goes wrong after that! 
|
|
|
|
|
Then try taking sweets (I don't recommend CHOCOLATE, seriously.  ) that maybe make things right.
Don't mind those people who say you're not HOT. At least you know you're COOL.
I'm not afraid of falling, I'm afraid of the sudden stop at the end of the fall! - Richard Andrew x64
|
|
|
|
|
You better be nice or we'll send the Latter Day Saints[^] over and have them restore going door to door.  That'll learn ya!
If first you don't succeed, hide all evidence you ever tried!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it just me, or this method:
public static MembershipUser CreateUser(string username, string password, string email, string passwordQuestion, string passwordAnswer, bool isApproved, object providerUserKey, out MembershipCreateStatus status);
is not entirely conforming with the best practices?
(It's from the System.Web.Security standard .NET library)
Why can't it be:
public static MembershipUser CreateUser(MembershipUser userToCreate);
?
Pretty much all of the parameters are members of the MembershipUser class anyway.
Am I missing something in the software development trends?
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed - there is madness to your method 
Actually - more seriously - nothing should get passed into a method that the method does not need and also..how are you going to create the userToCreate to pass to the Create...
|
|
|
|
|
Umm off the top of my head something like this?
MembershipUser userToCreate = new MembershipUser();
userToCreate.UserName =""blabla;
userToCreate.Password ="blabla";
...
//All the relevant stuff plus some validation...
..
userToCreate.providerUserKey=providerUserKey;
userToCreate = CreateUser(userToCreate);
this.Display(userToCreate.status);
...?
You have minimum parameters.
If you change your User parameters, you don't break every single possible reference etc etc.
Edit:
Actually, come to think of it, CreateUser shouldn't be in the Membership object altogether.
After populating the relevant properties, you could call:
userToCreate.Create();
which could call
userToCreate.Validate();
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
MembershipUser userToCreate = new MembershipUser()
{
UserName =""blabla
, Password ="blabla"
...
//All the relevant stuff plus some validation...
..
, providerUserKey=providerUserKey
}
Then you can write your own library method to do it if you like and hide the details, it's no big deal.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - but Username[^] is read-only.
These changes would require it to be read-write which would lead people to try and change it after creation.
The pass-in-the-parameters create pattern is the best way to create something where some properties can only be meaningfully set in construction.
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote: The pass-in-the-parameters create pattern is the best way to create something
where some properties can only be meaningfully set in construction.
Exactly.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
"The pass-in-the-parameters create pattern" ???
Seriously, where did you see that?
Or maybe you are kidding right?
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Best practices aren't.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
True, there are always 'better practices'.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
It appears to me they are still practicing...
Practice makes perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul M Watt wrote: Practice makes perfect.
I'm pretty sure that has never been proven.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
As I've been told... "Practice doesn't make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect".
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
