COMMENTS- LeakedOut

Newest comments first

Charlotte Aubin

Also, the treatment of our job applications by the human resources is remarkable. HR get annoyed when people approach managers or directors in social media including Linkedin for submitting directly to them their CVs. But my testimony below exposes another shame. I had submitted in the past an open application to the HR manager of CdR of Hutchinson Group, Pauline Branger, by email asking to consider me for any vacancy in their group. I sent it on Sunday (not working day) and I got the very next day on Monday at 9:00am a negative reply. She did not even diffuse my CV to directors before she replied. She communicated to me that they could not follow my request as there were no vacancies. Indeed, in contrast to the norm, she did not mention that she would keep my CV for future openings and she did not encourage me to follow their career site. She just wished me good luck in my job search. Four months later I was contacted directly by an R&D director in Linkedin for job opportunities. Why they keep HR in companies if they are unable even to process properly an application? The positions are created upon a candidacy with the interim contracts helping a lot in this regard. Obviously, with their turnover being high, due to their harassment strategy, they need to have replacements readily. Later, when I was hired a colleague told me that the period I had sent my CV to HR there were several vacancies and people were hired. Putain!

HUTCHINSON SA 
Selon l’article L1221-9 du code du travail «Aucune information concernant personnellement un candidat à un emploi ne peut être collectée par un dispositif qui n'a pas été porté préalablement à sa connaissance». The LinkedIn headhunters call targeted individuals to select information about their job, experience, expertise, projects upon they work (potential patents), they create files illegally without the consent of the former with their data and diffuse info to various employers hidden behind them including Tristone. Indeed, they avoid communication by emails to eliminate evidences about their shameful practices and do not disclose the name of the entity which appointed them. The law must apply for the modern through LinkedIn violations. 
Also, corporate HR by searching and calling “relatives” of an employee to collect further information regarding their personal relations, residence and family data commit violation of the law. 
Those do consist offenses which are overlooked. Those offenses need to become known through sites which support “unfavorable criticism”. The reply to offenses in not to silence the critic but to end the offenses. Instead of consuming resources to identify people behind IPs in order to accuse them for “defamation” (when they report real facts and make "fair use") better to search about how to eliminate the actual offenses and injustice making the existing laws applicable in practice and even more reforming them taking into account the modern violations. The aim must be to enhance the justice or efficiency of a legal system and not to muzzle those who bring into light the offenses and injustice. 

Claudine S

LeakedOut can even be paid by a petty entity for suspending an account without any reason or violation made by the account holder. They can permanently restrict an account even when there has been no inappropriate comment made by the user and they fail to provide a feedback despite the numerous requests by the former who at the end is compelled to ask closure of the account. What is the reason to keep an account restricted in permanent basis? Permanent restriction does not make sense but only temporary restriction or closure of an account. In case of violation they must provide feedback to the account holder specifying the violation. Do they intend to use an account and make themselves violation having access to one’s contacts and messages?! They restrict the accounts so as the users to give them permission to explore their messages? They can not restrict an account without letting the user know the reason! They can not restrict an account even when a humorous or acerbic comment has been made by a user as this can not consist violation. They can not restrict an account if the users change their email. It seems that LeakedOut is shamed to admit that they proceed in restriction of an account without any violation recorded and thus they do not provide a feedback. Steer clear of LinkedIn or LeakedOut pseudo-professionals!

Catherine Bernard 

Let’s continue our criticism in regards to the ridiculous appointment of LinkedIn headhunters by various companies. Their initial approach is “Your name was recommended to me on a confidential basis so I cannot say who it was. The role I am working on is not with Quantum but with one of our clients who are specialists in the design and manufacture of Z systems. The concerned industry is highly competitive and in order to stay ahead of the competition and continue to provide the highest quality and most advanced products to their customers at the lowest cost, my client is now seeking an expert in this field to help develop and industrialize new products. If you are open to opportunities please let me know.” If one is open to new opportunities, then they would be interested in a direct contract with a company and not with a consultancy or other external recruitment group. Recruiters can not ask people who hold positions in a company and are outside their network if they are interested in quitting their jobs! If a company is looking for an expert to work in the development and industrialization of new products, then that company has to open a position, advertise it at their career website and people who would be interested could apply to them. All companies have HR department who could take in charge the selection or maybe the HR role has been reduced only to “home research” and intrusion into the private life of employees as it has been ridiculed below? Why a person should opt to work in a company via a consultancy agency and not directly hired by the former? One could understand the benefit for the headhunters as they would get paid. Also, a company might be interested in restricted contracts, but what would be the benefit for the “recommended” person? Upon the submission of a formal “subject access request” under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 one can get interesting pieces of information regarding the appointment of such agents by companies for “making a pool of talents in their industry (competitors)”. Precisely, they claimed "We are a retained executive head-hunter that works with selective clients such as Tristone. We are appointed to identify and secure senior and potential management for them and given that we work on a referral and network and search/i.d. basis it is not unusual to contact potential targeted candidates via LinkedIn and also directly by telephone. We are not a contractor firm or consultancy that operates interim positions etc. Tristone retained us to find the “best talent in their competitors” not just within your organisation but other such as Conti, MGI etc and this is not unusual for Head Hunters to be appointed in this way for executive or specialist appointments. I am sure a process which would are familiar with, as it’s not just a recruitment agency profiting from speculative CV’s etc more a targeted approach. It would appear that in this case you may have had the experience they have retained us to acquire for them. A member of our internal research team had merely found you on LinkedIn and you “looked” like the type of candidate we they had been searching for.”
Such mission or approach seems unreasonable. What we are familiar with is an interview which follows a submitted CV upon a job advertisement, the basics in the recruitment process. The companies in a certain industry and the number of people who work in managerial or other positions are countless. They try to identify those through LinkedIn by “searching keywords” and call them to select more information for creating a file (list of talents) without indeed providing any info in advance?! They just ask people who work in a company to contact them by phone without providing any information about the job, company or country despite the numerous requests by the “targeted” individual who is then considered in the file they open illegally as "unwilling to cooperate”. They expect people working in various companies to make themselves available or "cooperate" having a phone contact with them in order to provide them further information about their job/experience/skills from nowhere? Again, an interview follows a submitted CV upon a job advertisement in a company’s legal website, they are not familiar with the basics in the recruitment process? If a company is in search of candidates for an opening firstly they have to advertise the position at their website and if they want further assistance by such agencies then the latter have to provide information to the person they approach. They refer to secret jobs. What is this conspiracy in job market they support through LinkedIn? Or maybe (which is also known in job market) a firm gets a job advertisement by another firm and appoints "head hunters" to contact targeted persons to make investigation in regards to their professional targets, intentions, current experience and potential interests in other companies which is unprofessional and dishonest as well? Obviously, their aim is just to take without giving any real job info. They try to collect info from countless employees in countless companies within a certain industry without recommendation? Such headhunters even dare to contact employees in their work leaving phone messages about their consultancy services while the employer does not take any action to identify them. Such employers know only to make ridiculous complaints when their shits become publicly known? Do they all aim to drive us crazy? The companies expect from their employees to be committed but they ask headhunters to approach those who work in competitors? If one applies for a job in company while being employed they will be accused by both employers for not being committed. Who accuses those petty employers hidden behind headhunters for that shame?
LinkedIn or rather LeakedOut facilitates only leakage of information about the job/employer of the account holders and annoying intrusion of unprofessional entities who are hidden behind headhunters.