Trust 1-man headhunter operation?

No, of course not. But he's less likely to be a pure scam operation.

You should post the details of this recruiter here so we can warn him what an unemployable whiner you are.

Everyone is cranky today, or at least on the groups that I frequent.

C'mon. It's memorial day. We're all alive, most of us haven't had any limbs blown off, and many of us haven't even had to serve in the armed forces.

So can we wait until tomorrow before starting any more wars?

I'm a whiner, but I'm not unemployable, and mostly the people who are annoyed by my whining are incompetents pretending to have tech skills. You must be one of those incompetents. People with abilities tend to be a bit cynical (you call it whining) because they realize how screwed the world is.

I understand the people who question/reject the system, and I understand the people who blindly accept the system, but the people who have always made no sense to me are the ones who actively promote the system and attack the minority who question it.

I usually end up exchanging some opinion in each interview to test if the company is right. Actually, in one interview my interviewer did some complaining. He was one of those Linux guys who likes to bash (does that mean "whine" in your language?) Microsoft. I'm not fervent about this particular topic, but it's not bad to meet someone with a mind.

In my (very) limited experience, the one man outfits are the best - but all agents are a pain in the ....

I don't know if it is just a US language thing, but I would call this guy an employment agent, not a head hunter.

In my view:

• A head hunter would be somebody that got a very tight specification for the person they were after (even the name of the person they were after), then they would research the best people in the industry (i.e. actually do something for their money) and make approaches to potential candidates - even if there target was already happily employed.

• An agent is somebody who tries to match up a list of job openings with a list of people who are registered as interested in new employment. Normally very badly.

Why not ask him for 2 references. One a person he placed, and the second a company he placed someone in, ideally not the same company.

Scott

That make some sense, the reverse of how I give my references out. I guess the trick is figuring out if the references themselves can be trusted.

You haven't been around here long, to so categorize larwe. I think he was quite accurate. There are never real guarantees on anything.

Specify a technical placement. Anyone who is hired to pretend to be an engineer or programmer won't be able to answer basic questions about the technology. Then investigate the company like you would any other; is it publicly traded? Does it have a website? How long does the domain record say it has been registered? Is it in the phone book of the city it is in? What does the reording say when you call after hours?

Guy Macon

Good idea. A real technical person probably wouldn't be corrupt enough to participate in a major scam, and I'm guessing a scam artist would be too lazy to occasionally do legitimate work as a front.

It's not traded nor does it have a web site, but it is in the phone book

I should try calling at 10 p.m.

It was the one guy, announcing his name and saying to leave a message. There was no mention of his recruiting company's name, so it could have easily been his home phone line. Of course, it could have just meant he had a direct line into his office/cubicle at work (I did at my old job).

Why are you so nervous about this? Its not like you are going to work for the guy himself, he is just an introduction agency. A pimp for want of a better word.

As I said before, from my experience the small outfits seem to be the best. If he is an ex engineer then he will be much more targeted in his approach. Most of my experience is coming from the recruiters point of view, rather than the candidates point of view though.