Talk about Bartlett

[nickthestick]

Very Well stated Eric........

[vikingfan]

    Eric,

outstanding reply to this posting ! while many people may want all the primo jobs ect. there is a method to the madness in how it's carired out. I believe that if company x says site A and B are staffed and it does not fit your schedule for any other work and company Y has a schedule that is somewhat favorable in terms of when you start the outage season and finnish, you should not take out your frustrations on Company X when they call you back asking if your available for a slot somewhere that may have just opened up. Even though you have a committment to company Y, dont take it out on company X ! its only logical business practice to offer to those working for them in the current outage season. while i'm not sure of all the current facts in this situation ect, ect but it is wise to make sure you talk with company X and express your feelings of the situation before posting a lengthy disertation as to what happened in your current sittuation in this public forum !! just my 1 cent wortht.

[Lorrie Henson]

Eric, thank you very much for your response.  I know that it's business, and that not everyone is going to like it.  I fully understand trying to staff positions with people that are currently working for you, and that is commendable.  However, I guess I just didn't look at it that way when he was told that if he broke his contract with Brand X, Bartlett could guarantee him a spot, and that if he didn't...he would probably not be considered.  I guess I was looking at the 'big' picture and the fact that Jim has been with you for so long.. and not the 'smaller' picture of season-to-season.  I have upset you, and for that I do apologize.  I do thank you for recognizing his work ethics...they are very important to him, as most people that work with him know.

I have always thought the world of Bartlett and have voiced that to many people in the past... especially those that thought different from me.  I guess that's the main reason why I was so upset.  But, I have calmed down... I'm a woman.... what can I say?     I do hope a position becomes available, but if not, there's always the Fall.  

Regards,
Lorrie

[Eric_Bartlett]

Lorrie - I just got done with a similar converstation - no harm no foul.  Yes I was irked at first but by the time I was done responding I was gald you had actually posted what you did cuz I feel its about time some of the misconceptions out in the field on how/why we do things in the office get cleared up.   I have an idea of what some of those are, but to have it posted so its wink'n and blink'n at me is the best way for me to approach and address them.  I too apologize if I caused any heartache with my reply.  I probably wouldn't be so easy to get going if the company and I didnt share my last name...   Anyways always ask the question, raise your concerns.  I will do my best to answer it, even though sometimes the answers I come up with arent the desired ones, or they may get me in hot water.  Stay in touch and we'll see what we can do to get you two back with us in the future. 

Eric Bartlett

[hamsamich]

Well, I know Jim and his wife, and they are good people.  I'm sorry they got burned this time.  But thanks for that explanation Eric, if I could give you karma I would.  I figured it was something like that.  I guess the real problem here is telling people something is staffed when it isn't.  I saw your explanation on that, and although it is mitigating (if I read it correctly), Bartlett should be more straight up with people and say "we are holding those spots for people who have been loyal to Bartlett lately, or this cycle".  How many times has Jim done a little extra for Bartlett?  Has that been taken into account, or forgotten?  This is a question, since I don't know.

I'm not saying Bartlett lied, but things were not clear either.  I have friends that are in the business, good people, and sometimes when they call Bartlett (especially juniors) they may not get a call back.  Not professional.  I believe the recruiters may not want to talk to them for one reason or another.  I know these people well and they don't make something out of nothing.  I know things get busy but that is still no excuse, my opinion here and since I have not ever been a recruiter I could be wrong about this.  I hope I wouldn't do this if I was a recruiter, but I haven't walked a mile in thier shoes.

Bartlett could be better with communications.  I've seen this quite a few times.  I appreciate the effort there Eric.  Thank you.

[Laning]

Although I don't have a horse in the race here, I feel compelled to offer this.

1. I'd no sooner want my wife speaking publicly on my behalf than she'd want me speaking on her behalf.

2. I must say, as a longtime Brand Xer, I'm quite impressed with Mr. Bartlett taking the time to offer his explanation. That act itself was much larger than the actual word count of his post!

[Lorrie Henson]

For the record, my husband had no idea I wrote anything in here... I was speaking MY MIND, not his. 

[Laning]

JrHPGal,

My point exactly. Unfortunately, he's gonna be the one dealing with the fall out. If nothing else, he'll be getting his chops busted by smart asses like me.  :-)

[UncaBuffalo]

Next season is a whole new season that will have techs, that are not working for us this season, working for us that we will try and take care of and there will be a techs that did help us this season that will go to Brand X next, that I wont be able to take care of because of I'll be trying to take care of the ones that will be helping us next season. 

Just wanted to double-check whether this really means that, in the office as a whole, you only take into account what has happened this season when staffing the 'prime' outages? 

(I would have thought previous loyalty would also be rewarded...?)

[Camella Black]

For the record, my husband had no idea I wrote anything in here... I was speaking MY MIND, not his. 

I feel your pain and your concern. It is VERY hard at times not to speak my mind concerning the way this business works; unfortunately I have been around it long enough to realize that not only could me saying what I want to hurt my husband professionally but there are always going to be those out there who will ride his back at work about what you say or do.

I also know how you feel being the wife and I assume mother of the household: we are the caretakers, the bill payers and budget makers most of the time and this has been a hard last couple of years with the ways in which outages have been scheduled and the amount of work we have seen.

Rest easy, at least your husband has a good wife beside him who is not afraid to speak up for him, the same can't be true for a good many in this business.

[Eric_Bartlett]

Just wanted to double-check whether this really means that, in the office as a whole, you only take into account what has happened this season when staffing the 'prime' outages? 

(I would have thought previous loyalty would also be rewarded...?)

If I could take care of everyone that has ever helped us both past and current I would.  If someone helps us out now, yes I try and take care of them in the future, but if I have someone who helps us out by going to a solo outage during a season (tech 1) and someone who went w/another vendor (tech 2), regardless if tech #2 has helped me out in the past, I need to take care of tech #1 first, then if I can help out tech 2 I will. 

...Bartlett should be more straight up with people and say "we are holding those spots for people who have been loyal to Bartlett lately, or this cycle"...

The recruiter who told him it was staffed was being honest and upfront based on the information available to them at that time  - they had our status sheet stating it was staffed.  That individual recruiter did not know slots had been placed on hold until the sheet was changed showing openings.  I fully agree with your above statement and thats what I have them doing at this time.  Looking at it, I would rather have someone w/hurt feelings by tell'n them that we arent gonna use them on a prime job because of this, that or the other thing and that the slots are on hold for select individuals than to cause an undercurrent of mistrust, deception and lies.  People tend to get over hurt feelings alot easier and faster than when a trust is broken or violated.  Consider this a lesson learned on my part.  One of many already learned and of many that I still have yet to learn, but thats why I look foward to y'alls posts everyday - y'all do a good job on keep'n me honest. 

...sometimes when they call Bartlett (especially juniors) they may not get a call back.  Not professional...I know things get busy but that is still no excuse, my opinion here and since I have not ever been a recruiter I could be wrong about this.  I hope I wouldn't do this if I was a recruiter, but I haven't walked a mile in thier shoes... Bartlett could be better with communications... 

Point(s) taken - Yes people may not get a call back - Am i happy about that? Nope! I have to admit I'm one of the biggest offenders up here.  It would take me a full work day to call back all my messages that i get in a work day - I know that that is no excuse.  I have been beat'n on my folk regarding the phones and returning calls.  We are trying to get better.  We are trying to better serve both you the techs, our clients and our own management.  Keep the input coming in, the more you tell me the better informed I'll be when I make changes or set policy.  After all we cant do our jobs up here with out you out there. More people up here need to realize that with out you in the field, we, Bartlett, does not exist.


Thanks,
Eric Bartlett

[Eric_Bartlett]

For the record, my husband had no idea I wrote anything in here... I was speaking MY MIND, not his. 

Dont let me or them get to ya - you had reached frustration level with what you considered a legit concern.  You aired it, it was addressed, and will continue to be addressed as time goes on.  Camella is right, hats off to you for showing concern for your husband and this situation.  Thank you for bringing this into the open where i can now evaluate what/how these types of situations will be handled in the future.  It wasnt on my to-do list this morning, but it is now.

Eric

[hamsamich]

Thanks for being honest Eric and giving insight.  I guess I'd rather be told I'm not getting the job for the actual reason instead of sugar coating it.  Just a personal pref. here.  I wouldn't hold any malice if told "we need to let the people who work only bartlett sites have job preference in this case, so we can't let you in yet".  But maybe I would if i hadn't read all these posts, hindsight is 20/20.  Anyway, i have a better understanding of how things work. 

[HenryBlack]

Thanks for the info on how things work up there. When I called and asked about Palo Verde I got a totally different story from the recruiters, that for all intents and purposes meant the same thing. At least now I know why.

[Already Gone]

I think it should be noted that a lot of bad feelings could be spared if we all tried to understand the people are just trying to do their jobs - and let them do their jobs instead of trying to go around them.
We all want this or that outage at any given time, but there is only ONE person who can get us into that slot - the recruiter.
Not that anyone was doing anything underhanded here, but calling the site is absolutely NOT the way to find out if there are slots.  The SC and other techs at a site might know a limited part of the picture, but not enough.  It is not their job to staff outages.  Contacting the site bypasses the one person who has the techs names in one hand and the vacancies in the other - the recruiter.
When I want a job with Bartlett or Brand X, I don't call the site.  I don't call the janitor in the Plymouth office.  I don't call the payroll department.  I call the person in charge of hiring techs for that job - the recruiter.  For that reason, I have never felt screwed out of a job.  Only once did I ever get in a position where I was told that a spot was being held for current Bartlett employees.  I was eventually offered the spot when all the current people either passed or went to other sites.  Patience is sometimes needed.

[UncaBuffalo]

I think it should be noted that a lot of bad feelings could be spared if we all tried to understand the people are just trying to do their jobs - and let them do their jobs instead of trying to go around them.
We all want this or that outage at any given time, but there is only ONE person who can get us into that slot - the recruiter.
Not that anyone was doing anything underhanded here, but calling the site is absolutely NOT the way to find out if there are slots.  The SC and other techs at a site might know a limited part of the picture, but not enough.  It is not their job to staff outages.  Contacting the site bypasses the one person who has the techs names in one hand and the vacancies in the other - the recruiter.

I totally disagree with this, T. 

As Eric has pointed out, Bartlett's concern is taking care of their techs.  My concern is going to the outages I want to go to.  If Bartlett is refusing to staff me into an outage where I am a multiple-time returnee (just so they can do favors for people who have never been there), I won't hesitate to call the plant and have my resume requested. 

[Brett LaVigne]

Karma to ya Eric!

Very good posts.  So many live in a fantasy about what Bartlett can and can not do while keeping the client happy, properly staffing outages, staying competitive and keeping shareholders happy. You don't pull punches and I have much respect for that.

[Camella Black]

I see several sides to this story; techs want and need to work. Recruiters and utilities need techs. Several things need to work better in my opinion, communication being the number one topic.

EVERYONE involved needs to be consistent with their story, don't tell tech A that you aren't taking resumes yet, but when you do it will be for returnees and tell tech B that its staffed and then tell tech C there are openings. My idea would be to just tell everyone that these jobs are pre-filled and don't list it on the wish list.

I personally believe that not only are the staffing companies but the utilities are doing themselves a disservice by not submitting or accepting names; too often really good, hard working techs are being looked over and left out.

[HenryBlack]

I agree that communications should be a top priority. I don't go around recruiters to find a job, but when I call the office and talk to one of them I would really like to be told the truth. Misleading information makes some people upset, me being one of them. After spending more than half of my life in the business I believe I deserve the truth, and so does everyone else. The recruiters dont have to dance around the truth, just tell us like it is, Please, we are all big girls and boys. If everyone heard the  truth then all the stories would be the same and someone wouldn't have to find out by reading a post on here that they were mislead by a recruiter. Thanks

[SloGlo]

I totally disagree with this, T. 

As Eric has pointed out, Bartlett's concern is taking care of their techs.  My concern is going to the outages I want to go to.  If Bartlett is refusing to staff me into an outage where I am a multiple-time returnee (just so they can do favors for people who have never been there), I won't hesitate to call the plant and have my resume requested. 

i too, have been known to have contacted the sc at a plant and even the utility rep if i needed to get the inside scoop on whether a contract was filled.  when doing this, i have found the best next step is to axe that person whether they want to call the contracting company about gitting me on site or should i call and reference their name.  eye've had both responses, and followed thru on them.  usually got onto that site.  usually after going thru these situations, i found that the recruiters were most likely to tell me on the next problem job, that although the site was filled, they would call and see if they could squeeze me in.  that usually worked too.  there are many ways to go to get on site, some roads are better paved than udders.  sometimes what looks like a sure thing turns out to be a dead end.  eric bartlett has done an excellent job of fielding this problem in this forum, 'n i yam tipping my brim to him.

'n don't fergit dat professional adminisrators day is coming in april, maybe a bunch of phlowers wit a card of apprecheashun to him wood be nice.   

[Already Gone]

The customer is a customer.  Bartlett is the employer.  They are not an "agency".  They are the employer - the site is not.  They have the right to hire whomever they want to hire, as long as they don't break any laws.  The matter of the customer approving resumes is so that they can asssure that the vendor is supplying qualified techs.  It is still their responsibility to ensure that the people who work at their site are qualified.  However, they have no right at all to deny any qualified tech - they are NOT the employer.  They have the right to request particular techs and Bartlett has the right to refuse.  They won't if they can avoid it.
Bartlett may submit your resume at the request of the customer.  It's just good business to try to accomodate your customer.  But they also have the right to staff their contracts with their employees.  Back to the real world -- all uf us are their employees at times and not their employees at others.  I think it is cool that they put forth the effort for all of us, but their first loyalty should be to the people who are earning their money for them.
If you back-door your way into an outage by calling the site, or using your pull with a site coordinator, you could be screwing somebody out of a job.  Every time the site requests a resume, somebody else's name has to get crossed off the list.
Unc, if I were the customer, you'd always be on the preferred list.  But, not everybody gets in because he or she is a better tech.  Sometimes, the house wants a certain tech. because he buys the drinks or his wife has a killer body (this is not an exaggeration).  You may shudder to think about this, but any one of us has certainly gone on unemployment instead of working because somebody was doing a favor for somebody.  (Remember the last time you looked at a tech and wondered how the hell such a worthless waste of flesh was getting paid the same as you?  That guy is probably somebody's brother-in-law, and he's going to take your spot at some outage some day because of his connection to some house tech.
Not to cross the wires, but this is the one major reason why HP's will never unionize.  All the other reasons pale in comparison to our fear that we might lose the ability to bone the crap out of each other..

[HousePuke]

Having spent a few years as the "customer" I looked for returnees because they are a known quantity.  Then I looked at the resumes supplied by the vendor and evaluated who seemed to have the best fit experience wise.  It was not the least bit uncommon to be called by a tech or a friend in the business asking if I still had slots open.  If I knew the person and thought they were a good tech then I'd bring them in.  If I didn't, then I didn't!
If I didn't see a name I was expecting then I'd call the vendor and ask them to find them for me.  They did it every time. 
When I was on the road there were several instances of calling whomever I could to get into a site I wanted into.  Just making sure I was earning a check and raising the family.  Of course outages were quite a bit longer back then and the plants brought in quite a few more techs too.

[Eric_Bartlett]

Bartlett is the "supplier" as is every other man staffing company.  The customer has every right to hire whom THEY want.  ANYBODY thinking they can hold on to resumes because they don't get along with, don't like or the contractor doesn't bleed the Company color is plain wrong.  Their function is to supply resumes there-by supplying 'service'.  Like you've also stated you've all worked for everybody at some point.  You go where the money is, the supplier would be morally wrong to begrudge you for wanting make money close to home, further from home or for making more money, whaterver the case may be. 
If the worker HAD to go work where they it was less disireable for them, then they should be compensated for doing so.  Not simply by being rolled into 3 more two week jobs, with the stress of moving added on, they should be able to work where they want, and not fear the possibility of retrobution.  Because they make money off of all workers, there should be no favoritism, they bill the same for everyone.
I can't believe you even mentioned the word 'LOYALTY', I won't even go there.
If you don't back door your way in, or call in a card, you're srewing yourself out of a job.  Tell me, is the guy you bow out to sending you a cut of his check?
True..... slugs do get in that way, so is the nature of the beast.  It's up to management (the plant) to see the worker for the quality work they do and "HIRE" accordingly.
at this site, the Customer does the hiring, NOT the supplier. 

I'm having a hard time digesting your post so bear with me while I chew on it in little pieces...

"Bartlett is the "supplier" as is every other man staffing company.  The customer has every right to hire whom THEY want.  ANYBODY thinking they can hold on to resumes because they don't get along with, don't like or the contractor doesn't bleed the Company color is plain wrong."

To set one thing straight though (and I can only speak for Bartlett) we do not "hold on to resumes because they don't get along with, don't like or the contractor doesn't bleed the Company color".  We may hold back on submitting resumes due to logistics for example – 20 slots to fill, 40 approved candidates, 100 non returnees and 20 returnees that were not pre-approved that want to be submitted – if we cannot fill those slots w/the approvals we already have then we'll go thru the additional 120 applicants and submit them based on certain criteria – that criteria might be returnee based, could be experience based (how much time in the business, have they ever done this, that or the other thing) or it could be based on who do we have that has helped us out this season or in the past that we need to take care of.  As stated before in previous posts I hire folk everyday whom I personally cant stand above people I consider friends, its the way of this business - there are always extenuating circumstances, nothing is cut and dry except the following fact that Beercourt pointed out, the vendor is the employer, end of issue. 

"Their function is to supply resumes there-by supplying 'service'.  Like you've also stated you've all worked for everybody at some point.  You go where the money is, the supplier would be morally wrong to begrudge you for wanting make money close to home, further from home or for making more money, whatever the case may be. "

Our function is not to supply resumes.  That is the function of their HR and hiring departments.  Our function (I won't speak for other vendors) is to supply a qualified crew to perform certain tasks at certain times to certain clients.  It is also to protect and educate the clients from/on an ever changing industry.  It is also to keep as many people that are currently working, continuously employed and off of un-employment.   We would never begrudge someone for wanting to make money, that's why we are in business, that's why the customers are in business, that's why y'all do what you do – to make money.  There are certain circumstances that we will hold against someone in their quest to make more money, and those are pretty clear, jump'n ship, no showing to a job, etc...

"If the worker HAD to go work where they it was less disireable for them, then they should be compensated for doing so.  Not simply by being rolled into 3 more two week jobs, with the stress of moving added on, they should be able to work where they want, and not fear the possibility of retrobution.  Because they make money off of all workers, there should be no favoritism, they bill the same for everyone"

Yes people should be able to work where they want, but not everyone can work at the same site, just not enough slots.  Hell, I've had sites that I've had more pre-approved returnees than slots to fill – at some point certain criteria has to be put in place to filter the applicants – fact of life, fact of staffing, fact of this business.  You say we should show no favoritism...why? Because as you say we make money off of all workers? Hmmm. Lets do a hypothetical – I have a slot to fill at a highly desired job.  I have it narrowed down to 2 applicants.  Applicant 1 is just wrapping up a job with us, applicant 2 is wrapping up for some other vendor.  Sorry but I'm going to show favoritism to the applicant that just came off of one of my jobs.  Why would I do that, you may ask? That's just wrong you may say.  I look at it this way.  If I'm going to make the same amount of money on either applicant, which one am I going to spend less money on if I don't hire them.  The answer would be applicant 2 because #2 is coming off of someone else's job, thus I'm not responsible for that individuals unemployment, where as if I hired #2, yes I'm still making the same amount of money off of #2, but now I'm also paying unemployment to #1, thus boosting our unemployment costs – I'm not retaining the same amount of money in the overall picture.  I will concede to you that someone should be able to work where they want w/out fear of retribution, within reason.  If I have 2 techs working on a job and 1 of them bags out in mid outage to go make more money, or go to a job they'd rather be at w/brand x, yes I will hold that against them, no I will not go out of my way to hire them and yes I will flag and most likely pull back their resume for future consideration, after all why should I reward someone that has broken a commitment above someone who stood by their commitment.  And finally no one HAS to go anywhere.  If you don't want the job, don't take it, end of issue.  Don't get me wrong, it's my job to convince you that you really do want it.

"I can't believe you even mentioned the word 'LOYALTY', I won't even go there.
If you don't back door your way in, or call in a card, you're srewing yourself out of a job.  Tell me, is the guy you bow out to sending you a cut of his check?"

What's wrong with the word Loyalty?  Yes its hard to find people, companies, etc that still honor loyalty like it should be.  We try.  We don't always succeed.  There is always going to be someone that will think we turned our backs on them and show them no loyalty.  Once again it's the nature of this business.  When you back door your way in you accomplish a few things – A. you normally screw someone that deserved that job above you B. you may alienate a recruiter that you may need help from in the future C. you set the tone to the recruiting dept., site vendor management and the site that you think your "above" everyone else and that your special and should be treated special...once again don't get me wrong, I'm a strong advocate on calling in markers all around – tech on recruiter, recruiter on tech, tech on utility, etc, etc, etc – it just I'm also a strong advocate of doing it the right way.

"True..... slugs do get in that way, so is the nature of the beast.  It's up to management (the plant) to see the worker for the quality work they do and "HIRE" accordingly."

Couldn't agree and disagree more strongly at the same time.   Yes Slugs get in the way of the whole backdoor thing.  You'll get kiss-up slugs getting slots above performers all the time – that just pisses me off to no end.  Yes it is up to management to see the worker for the quality of work they do, but not just plant management – vendor management too, and then vendor management along with some feedback from the plant management should do the proper evaluations so that the vendor company can hire accordingly.

"at this site, the Customer does the hiring, NOT the supplier."

I'd love to know what site you are on so I could put it all in context...whether the site is actually doing the hiring which I have never seen (other than Diablo) or if they are just giving their input to the vendor on who they would like hired.  If I knew the site I'd know the situation, unless of course it was a Brand X site, then I could understand why the site would have to be doing the hiring.

Anyways there's my long winded dissertation for the day.  I appreciate your position, hell I'd probably feel similar if I was in the field having to deal w/someone like me for a job too.

Y'all have a good weekend

Eric Bartlett

[craps7]

I have a hard time with this "loyalty".  My favorite company now has a regional manager one of which has spent the majority of his time  working for the other guys. (energy services, numanco, etc.)  About the only loyalty I see is through the cordinators at the work sites.   They are the ones that try to staff outages with the techs they can depend on.

[Old HP]

As a  Loyal? B employee  15+ years and 5+ without working for another company I still have to contact the plant to get into outages that I have worked many times, as a result of unanswered phone calls to recruiters. So  the treatment to techs is equally frustrating to all. It is just like the military did anyone ever get a straight answer from a recruiter before enlisting, they were just trying to fill slots too.

                                      Tired Old HP