Good morning, folks.

I was wandering through some online resume databases over the weekend, mainly the "Michigan Works" Job Site.

Of the 80 resume summaries I looked at, only 2 made any claims that the particular program they had worked with was compliant when they left.

Only one electric utility (in Florida) was found. The Electrical Engineer's job there was gathering statements from vendors. No mention of verifying the statements was made, although the applicant had been very detailed in other areas of the summary.

Does any of this prove anything? No, it doesn't. However, as a recruiter, I found it odd that so few candidates, many of whom were looking for Y2K related work, would or could claim successful remediations.

I realize that this could be due to non-disclosure agreements.

Does any of this "mean" anything? Darn if I know. But, it may be closer to "hard" information that the PR statements we are tired of reading.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), September 27, 1999

Answers

Jon, maybe folks don't think compliance is important. LOL

Got results-oriented work ethic?

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 27, 1999.

As a person who assists hundreds of people every year in developing/writing resumes, I can tell you that I have only had two clients claiming Y2K compliance as a professional achievement. Both put a huge emphasis on the term *mission critical* - both were involved with government agencies. I remember one CIO who made a big impression on me last year when she stated there was absolutely no way her company would be ready. She was unable to hire enough qualified programmers at the salary the company was willing to pay. Sorry I can't be more specific (confidentiality issues). As a side note, I have noticed an increased percentage of clients moving to rural areas. Nobody has specifically said it is because of Y2K. The majority of clients still seem blissfully ignorant of potential Y2K problems.

-- just me (sorrynot telling@justme.me), September 27, 1999.

Hmmmn....food for thought.

Not "good-tasting" food, mind you, but still "food for thought."

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 27, 1999.

I don't post as often as I have in the past, but I try to keep it relevent.

Thanks for the reinforcement of what I had observed.

The last thing any job seeker wants to do is to present their background and accomplishments in less than the best possible light. If these samples *are* the best possible light, then things are much worse than even I thought........

95 days and counting.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), September 27, 1999.

Definately gives one a queasy feeling.

Thanks, Jon!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 27, 1999.

Did they show their job history dates in Y2K compliant format (YYYY-MM-DD), e.g., 1999-09-27? Or in noncompliant form, e.g., 9/27/99? Personally, I would make that a hiring criterion. To me, if someone claims to be GI, but still insists on using a date format like that which got us into trouble, they are at least partially DWGI.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 27, 1999.

A@AisA.com...........

Then by your criteria, Gary North is at least a partial DWGI!!

From his website:

24-Sep-99 Introduction 27-Sep-99 Government 21-Sep-99 Taxation 27-Sep-99 Military 27-Sep-99 Martial_Law 21-Sep-99 Welfare_Payments 27-Sep-99 Banking 23-Sep-99 Telecommunications 25-Sep-99 Stock_Market 16-Sep-99 Litigation 23-Sep-99 Health_Care 17-Sep-99 Compliance

Hey, what's good for the goose is good for the gander..........

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), September 27, 1999.

A:

Sorry, it was a government site, it apparently only accepts 2 digit years. Michigan "windowed" their systems.

I wasn't looking for candidates for clients, I was just curious what might show up in regards to statements of compliant systems. In other words, just doing some research.

Craig:

Habits *are* hard to break, aren't they? [G]

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), September 27, 1999.