Re: Appalled, eh?

["Barbara A. Tokay" <batokay -at- IX -dot- NETCOM -dot- COM>]

Professionalism is a term that's bandied about... what's professional about
paying someone less than the going rate because he/she "didn't follow
procedures."? Is the goal hiring someone who can do the job or hiring someone
who will kiss your hind end?

A number of people on this list have given good & compelling reasons for not
supplying samples etc. And I personally never supply samples on the first
go-round. It eliminates prospective clients who are "trolling" for samples
and/or pay rate information.

If someone is seriously interested in my work/credentials, he/she will take the
time to speak with me, preferably in person. At an interview, I provide all the
necessary and appropriate information.

I would never hire a contractor whose hiring practices include harassment of
prospective employees--that's asking for disaster.

I find it scary that you think Andrew's approach is "professional."



Meek, DavidX L wrote:

> I guess I just don't get it, but I've always thought that being a
> professional means being able to fulfill reasonable job requirements to a
> high degree of quality.  If a job applicant can't follow basic directions,
> what does that say for that person's ability to complete an assignment in a
> professional and timely manner?
>
> This isn't mean; it's professionalism.  It's meeting standards.  Hopefully,
> the individual sets personal standards that are higher than what the company
> requires.
>
> Frankly, I'd be cautious about working for a company that *didn't* enforce
> professional standards for behaviour and quality.
>
> Mr. Plato has the right idea.  Maybe it's a sign of the times that
> professionalism has become so lightly regarded.  And that's not appalling;
> it's scary.
>
> -Dave
> (Any statements made above are mine, and mine alone.)
>
> From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000==


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=