forums

Jurich

Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
There has to be a reason.

It’s been guessed already that somehow hiring Jurich, if that happens, is not financially attractive to the search firm, ie, there is no financial incentive for them.

But D$ is absolutely right, if this is happening as it seems or is reported to be happening, you never let a service provider dictate terms. Never.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I wanted to allude to it (Indeed/LinkedIn) in a humorous fashion.

I'm just not sure why we didn't define this better ("hey, we already know of our own UM alums like Radakovich and Tiny Tony and LeBatard's godchildrens' father Jim Frevola, and we've already been contacted by Jurich, so can you just get us some new-new names").
 
Salt said:
So much for search firms being neutral. Looks like they are trying to tip the scales. Sounds self serving rather than serving interests of the client that’s hired you.
Click to expand...
May not be entirely true. They may be serving the interests of *some* of the BOT.
 
So let me get this straight:

1. New money swiging d*cks wanted Jurich
2. Old guard eunuchs wanted some empty suit that would retain Manny
3. Compromise was search firm would propose candidates
4. Search firm threatens to resign if Jurich is considered

Are we sure this search firm is impartial?

The old guard is DIGGING DEEP to keep the mayor's son in power.
 
I don’t know if anybody here has worked with a search firm.

I have.

The one thing about the search firms that I am familiar with, is that most of the time, in fact probably all of the time, they have a stable of candidates, and there are definitely financial incentives to hiring one of their candidates.

I think most people in the business world realize that search firms aren’t necessarily honest brokers, but you use them to widen the pool of candidates to look at and possibly interview.

My mantra in hiring people has always been that the larger pool of candidates that I have to choose from, the greater chance I have for making a correct decision.

So that’s why you use a search firm even though they’re not necessarily a 100% honest broker. To widen your pool of possible candidates.
 
Advertisement
ChoadCane said:
I thought we were hiring someone Monday Tuesday or Wednesday. We haven't finished interviews yet? Holy **** everyone is incompetent
Click to expand...
This is my bigger concern. Like many have said, it’s more likely that he was an exclusion because they spoke to him before than anything else. The bigger issue is what the **** have we been doing since firing Blake James, ignoring keeping and paying that idiot for months longer than was needed.
 
Tony4Miami said:
WTF?! I know Miami pays a fee but does the search firm also get a cut of the AD/Coach salary?
Click to expand...

Depends on the contract, but, yes, that is how many search firms are paid.

I once had to speak with an Administrative Assistant who circulated a memo that included the dollar amounts paid to a search firm. It was easy math (divide by 20%) to figure out the salaries of several key individuals.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
This is fundamentally different from a search firm situation. Audit firms SIGN OFF on audited financials, they actually did the work to audit the numbers, and there are rules of professional conduct which regulate these types of things.

As for search firms, you can get any "service level" you want. Just names? Fine. Names and reference-checking? Fine. Names, reference-checking, and background-checking? Fine.

And for the record, recruiters/head-hunters get bypassed ALL THE TIME. Hey, we hired you as our recruiter/search firm, but we decided to promote someone from within? BYYYYEEEE. We got a candidate that was referred by an existing employee? Thanks, but no thanks, no soup for you.

In my entire professional life, I have never heard of a search firm "threatening to resign" simply because you give an interview to someone that they think has background-check issues. If that was even an issue, it is easily disposed of with a conclusion of "well, you assume all the risk, we disagree, but you are the boss."
Click to expand...

I’m a CPA i know how it works lol you’re right though… it’s different in the fact that there’s no regulating body and no standards to follow. And they’re not actually signing off.

I’m sure there’s some basis to sue in the contract if something comes up from said candidate that wasn’t uncovered in their work. I’m sure there’s a way around that if the school wants Jurich they can clear them of any wrongdoing related to him.. but they’re not willing to put their name on him without that caveat in the contract. Especially when it comes to an FBI investigation - idk how many of those details and results are readily available to them. Tells me they’re not willing to say it’s settled and over with.
 
Advertisement
JayCane20 said:
No different than a CPA firm walking when they find fraud in financials. It’s their prerogative to not be associated with it. Whether they’re right or wrong in their assumption.

I’m sure they don’t want their name linked to the hire in the case that there’s something that comes up after the fact.

Tells me Miami hired the firm as a smoke screen of doing due diligence. Fine by me
Click to expand...

Not asking them to sign off an put their license on the line. Completely different.
 
Back
Top