This is why people hate INTERNAL recruiters. In all the years I've been placing candidates, and in all the companies I've worked for, I have never had this happen to me nor to my former and current colleagues but, it doesn't surprise me that it goes on with internal recruiters. Why wouldn't it? If companies feel that internal recruiters are worth only $40-50k, they get what they pay for.

And this is why a day doesn't go by that I don't have to apologize for the behavior of other recruiters. On behalf of all the idiots who give executive search recruiters a bad rep, I'd like to say that I'm very sorry and that we are not all like this. I'd also like to say thank you to the aforementioned idiots because your screw ups keep me in business.

Our thoughts: We really don't want to fuel the flames about internal versus external. We don't. But whoever you are, please try to treat jobseekers with respect. That's all. As the kids say, K THX BAI.

Popular posts this week:
WSJ Hiring For City Posts Has Begun

Why You Shouldn't Fire The Copy Editors

Job Trends, Then And Now

And some Friday reading material. Have a great weekend, y'all.

• accepted a job; do I need to notify other places I applied? (via Ask a Manager)
  
  
• More On This Week's BusinessWeek Layoffs (via FishBowlNY)
  
  
• Ogilvy PR Adds Digital Strategists (via PRNewser)
  
  
• Times Publishing Sells Governing Magazine To e.Republic (via paidContent)
  
  
• AOL Still Hiring Journos As It Cuts Staff (via FishBowlNY)
  
  
• New York Times Launches Local Chicago Edition Today (via FishBowlNY)
  
  

Overall, job prospects for graduates will drop two percent. MBA holders' prospects will rise 11 percent and Ph.D's will see a 20 percent increase in demand.

If you are unlucky enough to find yourself on the market as a grad with little to no experience, consider this: Employers with fewer than 500 people on staff said they expect hiring at their companies to jump by 15 percent; each company surveyed by Michigan State University will hire an average of 11 grads, 8 of which will be B.A.s. A third of employers said they'd consider graduates regardless of their major.

The study didn't touch specifically on j-school grads' outlook, but we know that's basically in the toilet.

Though WaPo says these aren't actually layoffs: instead, they're "dismissals ... "targeted" at duplication of work between the Web site and the newsroom."

A spokesperson for the paper called the number of people affected "small."

Keith Jenkins, formerly of the Post (until June 08), now of NPR, tweeted earlier today: "heard on the grapevine that The Washington Post is laying off members of its web team in advance of "the merger". Is anyone left to merge?"

Michigan decreased its unemployment rate by 1 percent in October, while Wyoming's unemployment rate rose by .9 percent.

California added 25,000 jobs in October, but has lost 687,000 jobs over the year, so you can figure that 25k means very little. In fact, California's 12.5 percent unemployment rate is a series high for the state.

(Related: Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah Add A Couple Thousand Jobs Each)

That's 90 cuts, not 400, the previous estimate of the number of jobs that would be cut. AP staffers are probably breathing a sigh of relief right now.

The Newspaper Guild printed a partial list of those jettisoned, which we've reprinted after the jump.

Oprah Winfrey is stepping down from "The Oprah Winfrey Show" at the end of the 25th season, in 2011.

She will appear on her cable network, OWN, which is set to launch in January 2011, but "The Oprah Winfrey Show" will no longer exist as the world knows it.

For CBS, the owner of syndication rights to her show, it means the loss of its signature program and millions of dollars every year in revenue.

For ABC stations, where her show was largely seen, it means the loss of daytime's most popular program, a generator of giant audiences leading into evening news programs...More widely, her departure will surely be interpreted as an endorsement of the cable TV business, and a blow to the fortunes of broadcast television. (NYT)

The loss of Ms. Winfrey's show will be missed in particular by the book publishing industry. ...

"If it is the end of her daily talk show, we probably won't see something else to match its overall potential impact on book sales in the broadcast arena any time soon," said Stuart Applebaum, a spokesman for Bertelsmann AG's Random House publishing arm. "She has an integrity and connectivity to her viewership that is unmatched by any other television broadcast personality. Happily she enjoys reading books and wants to persuade her viewership to enjoy them as much as she does. It's not a characteristic shared by any other TV personalities with her persuasiveness." (WSJ)

The media personality and mogul—whose show has served as the main pedestal from which she has engaged newsmakers high and low, transformed obscure products and personalities into runaway successes, and preached a gospel of self-empowerment to her devoted, largely female audience—is betting that, in a world of ever-fragmenting audiences, the future lies with creating her own branded network. (LAT)

ABC News has the full text of the statement she sent to the 200+ stations that carry Winfrey's show.

And what does this all have to do with jobs? Not much, at least not directly. But according to Broadcasting & Cable, stations have been paying more than $200,000 per week to syndicate the show. "If ABC replaced the show with news, it could easily produce newscasts for much less than what it's paying for Oprah. Even if the ABC stations' ratings dropped in the Oprah time slots, the cost savings would likely make up for those declines." More local newscasts means more hiring. On the other hand, "Too much news in a market can mean too much advertising inventory in news, reducing the value of that news inventory for all players." So in conclusion? No conclusions have yet been drawn, but we'll have to watch and see.

Finally: Anyone want some TomKat?

The new site is completely staffed by students, like the sites in Oakland and San Francisco, and the San Francisco Chronicle often links out to the student sites. The hyperlocal sites will eventually "fuel an innovative internet news hub starting early next year."

The New York Times has also agreed to distribute print versions of the hub's output in its newly-created Bay Area pages.

(More: In California, Startup Journalism Outfits May Be Bucking The Trend)

This was just posted to the New York Association of Black Journalists listserv (and forwarded to us):

The Wall St. Journal is considering looking into a Metro section for the paper; they may be looking for general assignment reporters to cover a range of beats which may include sports, politics, culture, etc. If you know of anyone with this type of experience please direct them to forward their resume with clips to Deborah.brewster at wsj dot com.

Via facebook (we're not naming names because we don't know whose privacy settings are set to what..Facebook isn't like Twitter, right?):
"kind of disappointed. I was hoping for a major medical, traditional health care plan. (Still, though, I appreciate the effort DS put into the research and think this is a good trend overall for freelancers.)...although the plan offered is not for me, it's a good start and I'm sure will help many writers who have nothing. Just getting Web employers thinking about benefits for freelancers is a HUGE step forward."
And:

"I totally appreciate the effort they put into this, and it is definitely better than nothing at all. My only real sticking point is that they promoted this as "insurance". This is not a classic insurance plan, the kind that most people think of when they hear "insurance". This is a discount plan. Yes, the discount is a considerable one, but it is still not comprehensive health insurance.

But, again, I'm not saying that I completely dismiss the time and effort DS put into this. It's amazing that they even considered providing health coverage of any kind. It's just that I feel the way they described it when they first announced the idea was misleading."

"As a new writer for DS I think it's woderful!!! [sic]" (Twitter)

"Demand Studios gets lots of cred for this. Could meet writing req in <3 days, then write for more $ for rest of month." (Twitter)

I'm not surprised or disappointed. This kind of plan is exactly what I anticipated. It's not a bad thing, it could be useful to some people, and it is something that Demand "worked" to put together.

Now, I'm not exactly impressed by Demand's efforts–I mean, c'mon–it's not like they are offering this to every writer signed up with them. Instead, they are offering it to writers who have written at least 90 articles over a consecutive 3 month period.

Does that make Demand Studios evil? Of course not. Does that make them the nurturing womb of a concerned mama sparrow? Uh...no. It makes them a business that did a smart thing to attract new writers and get new work that they will profit from. Nothing wrong with that. (FreelanceWriterVille)

I saw a comment from one of DM's mods noting that there were no caps on coverage. I have a feeling they didn't read their own documentation (which very clearly states otherwise). Just make sure you read it thoroughly (and as Yo said, go over it with an insurance professional) before signing up for something based on promises from people who clearly don't know what they're talking about. If at that point you feel that it's still right for you, by all means sign up. It's far from living up to the hype, but maybe for some it will be better than nothing (especially if they're not able to earn more per article elsewhere at the moment). (comment on previous FWV post)

But enough from them. MJD readers, tell us: What do you think of this? If you're a DS contributor, does this make you happy? If you're not, does this make you want to become one?

Among the victims:
Stephen Baker reports on his blog that Nov. 30 is his last day. "This was not a big surprise for me. I had made clear my mixed feelings. So off I go. It doesn't mean I won't be sad to leave, and today is a wrenching day to be in our offices." He'll be freelancing and working on another book, so hit him up if you have work to be done.

Damian Joseph tweeted that he also lost his job: "Laid off by BusinessWeek.... Sucks. Kind of feels like being dumped by a girl you really liked."

And Steve Wildstrom, personal tech writer, tweeted this: "Just got word out of the blue that I will not be staying with BusinessWeek when we move to Bloomberg. I guess I'm on the market."

And Shirley Brady, the site's community editor, tweeted a mysterious-sounding message: "So folks, my role isn't continuing with Bloomberg but I'll be with BusinessWeek through Dec. 1st - and here beyond that. #staytuned"

Update 2:22 PM: Brady's already fielding new offers, she tells us via e-mail—good for you, woman! "Pretty confident I'll continue
to do what I love to do," she says. Hit her up at @shirleybrady if you have a gig for a community editor.

Update 1:40pm: Jon Fine, who is currently on sabbatical from BusinessWeek, will not be returning to the magazine. His tweet: "some sabbaticals last longer than others: I will not be returning to BusinessWeek and my column once Bloomberg owns the mag."

Update 1:56 pm:: Amy Choi is out too.

Update: Lauren Young, Rob Hof, and 122 others.

Do you know more? Please let us know.

John Gilstrap, author of the bestselling thriller Nathan's Run, wrote recently about the things he's learned as an author.

Highlights:

I don't regret a moment of it, but looking back on that experience versus where I am now in the pantheon of writers, there are a few things I would do differently if I could climb into my Way-Back machine and fine-tune the past.

• I would insist on a multi-book deal. I was in the driver's seat in those days, and my agent at the time pressed hard for a one-book deal (hardcover only) with HarperCollins, and we auctioned off the paperback rights separately to Warner Books. I agreed, of course, because I didn't know any better, but in retrospect, that was a mistake. ...
• I would not trust the marketing and publicity departments. After the rock-star treatment I enjoyed during Nathan's Run's publishing cycle, I foolishly assumed that such was the rule for all books. I would write the novels, and the publisher would promote them. Wow, was that not true. By the time I caught on, way too many horses had already fled the barn.
• I would network more and make myself shamelessly visible....I knew nothing about the writers conference circuit until after Nathan's Run had been on the shelves for months....I hit the circuit pretty hard for At All Costs, but not so much for the succeeding two. By the time Six Minutes to Freedom came out—my nonfiction book—I figured that with the real star of the book still alive and on the speaker's circuit, no one would be all that interested in hearing from the author. That was a mistake. I allowed myself to disappear from my fan base, and to lose touch with far too many friends. Never again.

Martinez will continue with his agency while working with Vogue, where his duties will include "work[ing] with the magazine and vogue.com's art, design and photography and offer[ing] input on Vogue's overall image and brand."

(More on Steiner: Danko Steiner Named Vogue Design Director: UnBeige)

Sara Horowitz, founder of Freelancers Union, "is furious at the White House. She worries that health reform will disrupt the group she's spent years building.

Her health plan is designed specifically for independent photographers, designers and writers who are not full-time employees of a company. Yet the health reform bills in Congress don't recognize this kind of specialized coverage." (Forbes)

The bill passed by the House of Representatives could make the plans offered by Freelancers Union much more expensive, or would have to accept anyone—even non-freelancers. This bill "violates the president's promise that it won't force you to change your coverage," Horowitz told Forbes. "This is a third of the workforce."

(Horowitz's insurance offerings have come under fire from Freelancers Union members, too, by the way.)