Well RG - its been awhile that I've posted one of my dissertations - here ya go have fun with it!
Did you just "out" this guy??? Big no-no...
I tried not to out him, just to let him know i knew who he was so as to have a better chance at an honest and productive dialogue. I found that most individuals who post a question or a statement looking for a response, that I don't let know that i know who they are, are not very forthcoming to me, where as if i can identify them it actually takes awaythe whole cloak and dagger deal of hiding behind a user name and they normally will call me directly to talk, send me a personal message or e-mail or post very directly and make valid points instead of just barking at the moon like so many like to do. Now I know Mr. BIG and I've had plenty of dealings with him in the past and I would consider him top tier as it pertains to someone I'd like to employ, it just hasn't worked out that way over the past couple of years and I now know why. But out him, never (unless there is only 1 Mark in this business), after all if I outed people they'd get new handles and it would be twice as hard to identify who everyone is!
Eric,
First let me apologize. YOU have always treated me right. As far as I know, you have been straight up and honest with me. But seriously, 90% of your staff is NOT telling the people the truth...
I'll try to respond as best I can, y'all out there reading this can take it as you will as me towing the company line or me trying to actually develop an understanding of where we are today as a company, as individuals and as an industry.
First off no need to apologize as i took nothing personally, i was just trying to get a response from you so that we could have this dialogue. As far as 90% of my staff not telling the truth, do you mean just my recruiting staff or the company as a whole - reason i ask is i have full power to effect change in my recruiters but am limited to the power of suggestion as to the rest of the company. If you are referring to solely the recruiters then i will state as I've stated before - if anyone ever thinks a recruiter is being misleading, underhanded or blatantly lying I need to know - not a month or year later but as soon as you feel that it happened so that i can look into and address the situation. Now you may not like my answers as to the results of me looking into a situation or you may come out of it feeling vindicated - each instance is always different, and either way i will do my best to get to the bottom of what transpired.
...Not submitting resumes for plants unless they agree to go to some other outage that they are required to go to. And if they don't they don't get into the plant they ask for...
I know I've stated this to allot of people, techs, in-house, clients, etc...but not all of you may have heard or read what I've stated in the past. This industry has evolved allot since i got into it back in '89. Those of you who were here before me and those of you that started in the early 90's know what i mean. At one time technician could easily work 1 or 2 outages a season and still work >6-9 mo's a year. That was when there were more techs than jobs and jobs went more than the standard 3-4 weeks. The industry has evolved to the point that on a good season there are just enough personnel out there to evenly fill what the demand is. We as a company and the utilities we service have changed. The utilities that used to be scattered and many have been buying up each other so now they are vast and few. As a company we evolved from the old way of staffing plants as individuals to staffing on a "fleetwide" mentality - it was the only way to survive. If we still staffed on plant by plant mentality we would have gone the way of our competition along time ago. Staffing using the fleetwide mentality has pissed allot of people off, some technicians, some house personnel, and some recruiters. but it does provide the best results for what this company does, and that is fullfill its contractual obligations to our clients while trying to give individuals the longest run we can. Sometimes it works out well, sometimes it doesn't. But please understand, we did not set things up this way to piss people off, we set it up this way to survive in such a competitive market. Until such a time that our clients aren't looking to save money on training costs, in-processing costs, and the varied other savings/benefits they receive by transferring techs down a system run this is how the majority of our staffing will be done. With that said I can understand how this would piss someone off who wanted only 1 plant of a 2 or 3 plant run.
...Just talk to some (ALOT) of techs that don't work for you very often. There is a reason they don't work for you regularly. It's because of the way they are treated from the recruiters. I understand.....you probably aren't aware of everything. It's impossible to keep up with all of it. You are a big company. But you would draw a lot of faithful, loyal people if your recruiters would stop controlling and demanding when and where people go....
Allot of the techs that don't work for us regularly don't for a myriad of reasons, some we would prefer not to use unless we had too, some refuse because they blame us for something that we did indeed do that ticked them off, some don't because they blame us for their own shortcomings, some due to geographical constraints, etc, etc... You are right we do have a big company, but i don't feel its big to the point that concerns regarding recruiting should go unvoiced or unanswered. I'm not aware of everything that happens, i want to be, but unfortunately i am only one person and i myself have alienated enough techs to fill a few outages myself. As far a recruiters demanding where people go, i can see that from your point of view it would look like that, but from a my point of view i don't see it as so cut and dry. I see recruiters trying to staff a system run or a run identified by management (normally me) and being told that until site B fills up we will only be hiring those individuals that will do A to B. Once B is full then we can go to those that just wanted A. Sometimes it works well for all concerned, sometimes it doesn't either way we are fullfilling our mandate to transfer people down the line, using choice plants at the beginning and end of a season to ensure that the plants that fall in the peak season get staffed - if you were recruiting wouldn't you try to ensure that same? After all it does us no good as a company to staff the first 3rd of a season and the last 3rd of a season while the middle third goes short - that just means contract loss, which leads to bye bye Bartlett (which I'm sure a few of y'all would dance the jig if it were to happen, but I'm willing to bet the majority wouldn't be so happy)
...I mean I know dozens of techs that have worked for DZ only because you guys didn't have anything at the time and they needed to work to pay their bills or refused to submit a resume, and when your office found out that they were working for THE COMPETITION, they were so called "black balled" from any of your outages.....unless you were desperate for a warm body and then they might call you. Eric, that's just not right. And I don't believe YOU are that way. But believe me, your people are doing it, and doing it to allot of GOOD techs. I just thought you should know. Maybe you do. But I don't think you know the extent of how some of your people are alienating good people away from your outages...
I, and maybe I'm more naive to the situation than i think, I know of no "black balled" list just because someone went to work for Brand X. Now there is the old "probation" list but that only accounts for those techs that have been terminated for cause or that have failed to fullfill a commitment or the best, that have no showed to a job, where we wont use someone for a season or 2. I would drather have a tech working for the competition than be sitting home on unemployment. If a tech is working in this business, for anyone, there is a less likely chance of them dropping out of this business for a non nuke job, likewise if they are working they aren't collecting, if they aren't collecting then our unemployment stats don't increase - win win all around - not to mention they are getting additional experience that will make them more marketable in the future. Where i think we have the disconnect is if i have Tech A working at a Bartlett site and I have Tech B working at a Brand X site, both want a position i have open for what is considered a prime outage say late April, may time frame - one of the last of the season - i am going to of course defer to the individual coming from a Bartlett site - likewise if I'm staffing a kickoff site, one of the first shutdowns of the season, we will of course defer to those applicants that most recently worked for BNI so as to get them off of unemployment and show them that we are loyal to them as they are us - due to preferred returnee lists being "system wide returnee lists now instead of plant specific" there is of course great potential that these jobs can/will be staffed exclusively with techs coming from Bartlett jobs. This is not to say that we don't want to hire a tech coming from a Brand X site, its just that we have an obligation to hire those coming off of a BNI site. Funny thing is i get it all the time from BNI techs that we screwed them out of a position because we gave it to someone that came from a Brand X site - i guess there is no winning on this one - which ever way we go someone is going to feel like they were wronged. But at least you know where we are coming from.
I would really like to work at some of your plants, but I know how I am treated. I have been doing this for 30 years and I am a good tech. I have NEVER had a no show..... I finish every outage without leaving early. I AM loyal to the people I work for. But it has to be a two way street. You guys have to take care of us also and be loyal. And not hang it over our heads if at brief times we need to work for DZ if you don't have anything at the time that we need work. We have to put food on the table. And it should be across the board as much as possible, and not just for a handful of the "CHOSEN". I realize allot has been said here, and if you need to PM me with your reply I understand. But I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this....
I would really like you to work at our plants. I was unaware of how you were treated. All i can give ya is if you feel like you've been mistreated I would recommend you call me ASAP so i can address the issue - not guaranteeing it will be to your liking 100% of the time, but i will address it. In the times you have worked for us you have shown you are a highly motivated and competent individual capable of allot more than just meter swinging. I myself have always found you to be a personable individual, easy to talk to and do business with. As stated earlier its not that we try to hold the fact that you worked for Brand X over your heads its that we have a moral and business obligation to first employ those who last worked for us prior to taking someone that came from another company. It doesn't always work that way. But thats how we have done business since I started here and make perfectly good sense to continue that way. Hopefull I'll be able to snag you one day and set ya up for some good work to make you allot of money, until that time i wish you and yours to be as successful and prosperous as one can be. I appreciate your bringing up these concerns, as they seem to be the reoccurring concerns people have every year. The more i get to talk about them with you the better i can help you understand, even though you may not like the explanation, our position and methods. Karma to ya and hope to talk to ya soon about job opportunities.
As always - take it slow,
Eric
