Testing experienced editors

Crust

This is what I think about an agency that got me one week of work in four months:

Bound and gagged

I've got a short-term temp editing assignment to do proposal editing for a government contractor.

Before starting I had to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

When I arrived I was given a visitor pass and swipe card to use when entering and going from one floor to another. I have to wear them on a lanyard around my neck.

WTF did you contact me?

I received the following (with some more details) on Dec. 12 from an Aquent rep:

"I found your resume in our database, and you look like you'd be a great fit for a job opportunity I have available for a part-time Editor/Proofreader.

"I'd like to share more details with you. If you're interested, drop me a note and I'll give you a call."

I emailed her. No response.

I called her. She said she'd send me an email with a number of different times from which I could choose, so she could call me at a convenient time for me. No email.

I've subsequently sent her four emails, expressing my interest. No response.

Clearly, she contacted me solely for the purpose of meeting some kind of quota.

I will continue to send her emails, just to be a pain in the ass.

HR going by another name

An email I got from Aquent yesterday brings back vivid memories of what I experienced countless times over many years and call "the temp agency tease," as in "we've got something perfect for you yadda yadda yadda."

I called the Aquent rep yesterday, and rather than talk with me about the position, she said she'd email a list of times she could call, and that I should pick one. I still haven't received the email.

I have no doubt that temp agency reps have an incentive to make a certain number of contacts a week, month, or whatever. I know of what I speak. I've dealt with many of them. I have an interview this week with The Creative Group in DC that might very well turn out the same way.

People who work for temp agencies are in effect HR folks, and we know about them. I think they're recruiters who couldn't make the cut into the more prestigious and higher-paying agencies. This is not cynicism; this is the reality of temping through agencies.

Drawing a line in the sand

Testing editor applicants is not limited to prospective employers (see "Testing, Testing, 1-2-3," below).

Several years ago, I sent the following letter to the president of an editing agency regarding its testing requirement.

"An Unsolicited Suggestion"

Dear XXX:

I am one of "the 3% who pass ABC tests." [The agency uses this figure in its marketing materials to tout the quality of its temps.] I have previously done successful temp work for a number of your clients, some of whom have requested me back.

I recently submitted my resume in response to your ad for technical editors. I just got off the phone with XXX who told me that, because I haven't done work for ABC in several years, I would have to be retested in order to be reinstated/considered. I told her that I am not willing to do that.

I have been working in the editorial field for almost 20 years, and my editing skills are even stronger today than when I worked with ABC. I find this policy quite literally unbelievable. As someone with extensive editorial experience, I don't have to tell you that the editing skill set is not lost over a period of time when it is in constant use. In fact, it is strengthened. (Please see attached resume.)

ABC is missing out on some significant talent by imposing this draconian requirement. It's bad enough that many employers impose an editing test on experienced professionals; they don't know any better. But for ABC to retest is an insult to our profession.

I would urge you to reconsider this policy out of respect for the professional achievements of those who have been associated with ABC and wish to return, willing and able to solidify your competitive position.