Recruitment Agents

[Skaville]

i have done. guess where that gets me?



well you explain it then? i phone the agent and say im not going as its not suitable for me and they give the hard sell. no i dont have back bone, because i need a f***ing job and i know full well that i have to go through agents.

thats my gripe, that somehow they have become indespensible to employers, if you contact them direct they say contact their agents, most dont publish jobs on their websites or advertise them direct because this industry has conned them into thinking they provide a valuble service. theres a place for recruitment agents, for temps where you need a pool of people and at the top to identify specilised people in specific jobs. In between its just a load of shit, with companies paying '000 (20% salary is not unusuall i understand) just for someone to send them a bunch of CVs. i thought companies would wake up and just advertise direct on the job boards, so maybe its just dumb HR people who perpetuate the problem. Maybe The Grub is one of those who does actully call back, but my experience is 8/10 dont bother unless they sniff a commission and will drop you if the CV isn't accepted or as soon as you failed an interview, you never hear from them again. did you see the comment earlier, for half of my interviews i havent even been told i was unsuccessful. no commision so they arent interested.

if you work in recruitment and you care about the image, isnt about time there was proper standards and industry regulation to cull the bullshit merchants?

Look, I sympathise with your sitution and apologies for getting somewhat uppitty, but for f*** sake stop calling everyone in my industry a tosser.

Personally, I value my candidates integrity. If it's not right DECLINE THE INTERVIEW. If there is a chance that it might be worth a go then I will encourage you to take that chance. You'd be surprised how often it works out.

Okay, onto your next gripe. You think the recruitment industry has "conned them into thinking they provide a valuble service". Hmmm. Think about that again. Maybe, just maybe... think about it..... just maybe.... it can be a valuable service!!! Perhaps it's not just a horrible conspiracy designed to hinder you. Do you really think that one of my clients has paid me £200k over the past five years for fun (and believe me.... that's small fry)? I have found that particular employer over fifty permanent memebers of staff in that time and their revenue has grown by over 50%. The company employs 400 people. Did I con them into them into thinking I provided a valuable service or did I just provide a valuable service? I just can't work it out

For the record, I charge 18% and yes, they have tried advertising direct but they get innundated with innappropriate people and would rather me send them six great people than recieve 1,000 applicants from India, Uzbekistan and China. My client list includes Unilever, HSBC and IBM. I did a bloody good job to con companies of that stature.

Next gripe, this whole, "they will drop you if the CV isn't accepted or as soon as you failed an interview, you never hear from them again." I can't speak for everyone in my industry, but most of my roles are fairly specific. Few people match more than one role. In other words, If you don't get that job, unfortunatley i can't help. You're not paying me a retainer, I'm not going to dedicate the next six months of my life to finding you a job. So, the advice is work with many consultants, not just one or two.

As far as lack of interview feedback goes - that's not good. I won't defend that. Finally, regulation. There is the REC. If you have a complaint, start there http://www.rec.uk.com/home

Apologies for any typos, nonsensical comments or needless aggression - I'm hitting the red wine rather hard. Good luck in finding a job, but FFS stop calling me a tosser.

 

[beorhthelm]

You think the recruitment industry has "conned them into thinking they provide a valuble service". Hmmm. Think about that again. Maybe, just maybe... think about it..... just maybe.... it can be a valuable service!!! Perhaps it's not just a horrible conspiracy designed to hinder you. Do you really think that one of my clients has paid me £200k over the past five years for fun (and believe me.... that's small fry)?

kinda my point. i dont know what level of the recruitment world you work in, but a the everyday average level i can not for the life of me understand why a company can not employ internal HR recruitment personel for a fraction the money they spend on external agents. it makes no sence, my old company recurited for about 6-8 post every year, minmum of 20-25k up to 50+... so say 150-200K verses 30k cost for an extra head in HR.

this whole, "they will drop you if the CV isn't accepted or as soon as you failed an interview, you never hear from them again." I can't speak for everyone in my industry, but most of my roles are fairly specific. Few people match more than one role. In other words, If you don't get that job, unfortunatley i can't help.

when i say you dont hear from them again, i mean for the job in question, you dont get a call or even an sodding email to say it was rejected from most. I didnt even treat sales people that shit when i was working in helpdesk. do you wonder why im pissed with that sort of "relationship"?

as for REC... yeah. like all standards bodies the complaints procedure is for you to take it up with the company in question first and only if you are not happy with the resolution from there, then the REC will listen. Well, two emails to a company to see their complaints procedure and guess what responce after a week? whats the point anyway? theres no requirement so worse case scenario is they boot a firm who wouldnt care anyway.

 

[sully]

when i say you dont hear from them again, i mean for the job in question, you dont get a call or even an sodding email to say it was rejected from most. I didnt even treat sales people that shit when i was working in helpdesk. do you wonder why im pissed with that sort of "relationship"?

Sorry to disappoint, but this is the same in my industry.

I send out tenders to contractors for building packages. Those that are not successful do not often get feedback unless they ring me and ask. Like many people, I'm onto the next job and don't have time to give them the feedback they obviously deserve. This doesn't mean (I hope) that I'm shit at my job or a total ****, but just that, realistically, my time is better spent elsewhere. It's just the way of the world. Get over it.

Generally, if I've not got a job I've applied for, I know why without someone having to tell me. Often, I've just not connected with the person that interviewed me. If I've walked away thinking the interview went well, I've always been offered the job. Just stop looking for someone to blame and start looking at how you have presented yourself.

 

[Skaville]

kinda my point. i dont know what level of the recruitment world you work in, but a the everyday average level i can not for the life of me understand why a company can not employ internal HR recruitment personel for a fraction the money they spend on external agents. it makes no sence, my old company recurited for about 6-8 post every year, minmum of 20-25k up to 50+... so say 150-200K verses 30k cost for an extra head in HR.



when i say you dont hear from them again, i mean for the job in question, you dont get a call or even an sodding email to say it was rejected from most. I didnt even treat sales people that shit when i was working in helpdesk. do you wonder why im pissed with that sort of "relationship"?

as for REC... yeah. like all standards bodies the complaints procedure is for you to take it up with the company in question first and only if you are not happy with the resolution from there, then the REC will listen. Well, two emails to a company to see their complaints procedure and guess what responce after a week? whats the point anyway? theres no requirement so worse case scenario is they boot a firm who wouldnt care anyway.

On the first issue - I take it maths is not your strong point.

Let's say they recruit seven people through agencies at a mid point of say £35k would cost your old company £49k, not £150-200k. You then have the additional cost of an extra employee which when I went to university is two and a half times your salary, so that person is costing you £75k.

You then have the cost of candidate attraction. Finding the best candidate out there is usually a little harder than sticking an advert in the Argus and a cheap advert online is not going to give your company a voice amongst the thousands, probably millions of adverts out there. So, be preapred to throw plenty of money at the situation. You'll be spending thousands before you know it. Using the best agencies in a specific market will give you a breadth of reach that your internal HR person could only dream of, especially if you alter your choice of agency and use specialists in each field. A good local example is Mission Testing, who have an excellent reputation nationwide for finding software testers. Could your internal HR person and her advert in the Argus compete?

With regard to feedack, I've already stated that I won't defend that behaviour, although I do use a disclaimer telling candidates who apply for a job online that they will only hear from me if they are successful. I still get back to the majority as a matter of courtesy, but the sheer volume is totally unmanageable.

RE the REC - well if you haven't heard you have cause for complaint.

 

[beorhthelm]

well its a good job im not in accountancy then

anyway the weekend is here so the search goes on hold, the abuse will continue on monday.

 

[Skaville]

well its a good job im not in accountancy then

anyway the weekend is here so the search goes on hold, the abuse will continue on monday.

Oh terrific. I'll look forward to your nonsensical vitriol. Can't you just go and have an angry wank?

 

[sully]

Deleted coz I should read what I'm quoting first!

 

[brighton bluenose]

On the first issue - I take it maths is not your strong point.

Let's say they recruit seven people through agencies at a mid point of say £35k would cost your old company £49k, not £150-200k. You then have the additional cost of an extra employee which when I went to university is two and a half times your salary, so that person is costing you £75k.

You then have the cost of candidate attraction. Finding the best candidate out there is usually a little harder than sticking an advert in the Argus and a cheap advert online is not going to give your company a voice amongst the thousands, probably millions of adverts out there. So, be preapred to throw plenty of money at the situation. You'll be spending thousands before you know it. Using the best agencies in a specific market will give you a breadth of reach that your internal HR person could only dream of, especially if you alter your choice of agency and use specialists in each field. A good local example is Mission Testing, who have an excellent reputation nationwide for finding software testers. Could your internal HR person and her advert in the Argus compete?

With regard to feedack, I've already stated that I won't defend that behaviour, although I do use a disclaimer telling candidates who apply for a job online that they will only hear from me if they are successful. I still get back to the majority as a matter of courtesy, but the sheer volume is totally unmanageable.

RE the REC - well if you haven't heard you have cause for complaint.

ha ha ha - probably the most self-serving post I've ever read on here!!

1. What you fail to address is that HR costing '£75k' will not have responsibility for just those seven appointments over the 12 months that you assess their cost at, they will give you additional value in a host of other ways and;

2. Whilst a specialist agency WILL highlight the job to a specific audience the clued up HR person will target the same audience! The crap you spout about sticking an ad in the Argus is just that.

I'm sick of so-called 'head-hunters' ringing or sending through details of jobs that are totally unsuitable or nowhere near what I do - their scattergun approach is lazy, wasteful of my time boring as hell!!

 

[bhaexpress]

2. Whilst a specialist agency WILL highlight the job to a specific audience the clued up HR person will target the same audience! The crap you spout about sticking an ad in the Argus is just that.

Is there such a person as a 'Clued up HR person ? Must be pretty rare.

I'm sick of so-called 'head-hunters' ringing or sending through details of jobs that are totally unsuitable or nowhere near what I do - their scattergun approach is lazy, wasteful of my time boring as hell!!

Don't blame the 'Head Hunter' but blame the person who designed the database they use. The problem so often is that Recruitment Consultants are about selling and all too often don't know much about the industry they recruit form now who is to blame for that ?

 

[Skaville]

ha ha ha - probably the most self-serving post I've ever read on here!!

1. What you fail to address is that HR costing '£75k' will not have responsibility for just those seven appointments over the 12 months that you assess their cost at, they will give you additional value in a host of other ways and;

2. Whilst a specialist agency WILL highlight the job to a specific audience the clued up HR person will target the same audience! The crap you spout about sticking an ad in the Argus is just that.

On the first point - Yes, fair enough the company would benefit from an additional HR resource in other ways, but you are assuming that they actually need further HR resource. Equally, the skillset needed to perform HR is very different to that needed to do recruitment. I had a conversation with a client last week who has tried to bring recruitment in house but has found that internal people are not comfortable approaching people in the same way recruitment consultants do. You'll need an HR person with sales skills who can still add value in other areas of HR. Not easy to come by.

On the second point, yes, the internal HR person will be contacting the same audience. The question is, will they be doing that as effectively as someone who is speaking to that audience every day. I'm sorry, but they won't be in the same league as a GOOD (yes, a good) specialist agency that understands their market well. If it what all as easy as you make out, agencies would simply not exist, yet quite the opposite is true.

 

[beorhthelm]

On the first point - Yes, fair enough the company would benefit from an additional HR resource in other ways, but you are assuming that they actually need further HR resource. ...

On the second point, yes, the internal HR person will be contacting the same audience. The question is, will they be doing that as effectively as someone who is speaking to that audience every day. ....

it is my contention that if a company needs to recruit more than half a dozen people each year and therefore constantly recruiting somewhere in the business, than they do need an additional HR resource. since they would be employed for this purpose they would be in contact with the "audience" all the time so would be effective.

You speak of agents knowing their market and i think we hit upon somthing from earlier - maybe you work in a specilied area with targeted recuritment of highly skilled people. My lowly experience it is usualy painfully apparent the agents know sweet FA about IT and its just buzwords to them. maybe its a bt of a if you cant do, recruit situation

also back to that 75k, dont know where thats from but i reckon its bollocks, or one of those bogus stats that trys to make a point by over reaching, maybe takes all company business costs and divide by number of employees, so including numerous fixed costs. bit like when the police say an event costs 0.5million when in reality 0.45m of that would have been incurred anyway and they just need to pay some overtime. my by amatuer reckoning (and i'll ask the HR mrs later...) salary+NI+OfficeEquipment+ITsupport = 30k+11%+500(say they need a new desk&chair)+1000(new PC+s/w) = ~35k. probably missing somthing, but i cant see how its possibly more than 50% more. seriously, i would be interested to know how 2.5x is supposed to be broken down.

 

[Skaville]

it is my contention that if a company needs to recruit more than half a dozen people each year and therefore constantly recruiting somewhere in the business, than they do need an additional HR resource. since they would be employed for this purpose they would be in contact with the "audience" all the time so would be effective.

You speak of agents knowing their market and i think we hit upon somthing from earlier - maybe you work in a specilied area with targeted recuritment of highly skilled people. My lowly experience it is usualy painfully apparent the agents know sweet FA about IT and its just buzwords to them. maybe its a bt of a if you cant do, recruit situation

also back to that 75k, dont know where thats from but i reckon its bollocks, or one of those bogus stats that trys to make a point by over reaching, maybe takes all company business costs and divide by number of employees, so including numerous fixed costs. bit like when the police say an event costs 0.5million when in reality 0.45m of that would have been incurred anyway and they just need to pay some overtime. my by amatuer reckoning (and i'll ask the HR mrs later...) salary+NI+OfficeEquipment+ITsupport = 30k+11%+500(say they need a new desk&chair)+1000(new PC+s/w) = ~35k. probably missing somthing, but i cant see how its possibly more than 50% more. seriously, i would be interested to know how 2.5x is supposed to be broken down.

Too bored to go into all this again, but the 2.5 times salary comes from the HR aspect of my degree. It's all to do with hidden costs, training, overheads (office space, utilities etc), NI etc etc. Go with your own calculations if you wish. I'm sure you know best

Do I really need to explain this "audience" point again? If a company is recruiting across a year they are like to need people in many functions of the busines - i.e. managment accountants, IT, marketing, sales etc etc. The "audience" will change constantly. Take a software house, that I am currently recruiting for. They are looking for developers, testers, support and technical consultancy - all specific roles with the population of IT people out there. There are also hiring sales people and marketing and have taken people in HR recently. They are based in London. For an HR person to keep abreast of the best people in London for all these sectors would be something of challenge, but if they want, for example, a tester, they could go to Mission Testing in Crawley who know this market very well and can save them all the bother.

You'll need to translate the following "My lowly experience it is usualy painfully apparent the agents know sweet FA about IT and its just buzwords to them. maybe its a bt of a if you cant do, recruit situation". I can't debate what I can't understand.

 

[maffew]

they are all wankers though arent they

 

[looney]

they are all wankers though arent they

I'll get back to you on that one.

 

[maffew]

I'll get back to you on that one.

not looking for a job are you looney?

 

[beorhthelm]

Too bored to go into all this again, but the 2.5 times salary comes from the HR aspect of my degree. It's all to do with hidden costs, training, overheads (office space, utilities etc), NI etc etc. Go with your own calculations if you wish. I'm sure you know best

i acknowledge i dont know didnt i? but i have been involved in budget meetings and know a ball park for the budget allocated to a head... and the amount allowed for the agent cost was far more than the amount of of overhead from the actual salary involved. some firms might like to add office space but its a fixed cost they were paying before and do you take into account the extra head cost would reduce the pro-rata for every other head etc? its bogus, small companies (which is my experience) just dont work like that. you must know that half of a uni degree is filled with theoretical fluff that bears no relation to the real world? or put another way and apply common sence, do you really think a 40k developer is costing a company 100k?

Do I really need to explain this "audience" point again? ... For an HR person to keep abreast of the best people in London for all these sectors would be something of challenge

if they want a specialied role filled, yes it would be difficult. if they want a beginner-intermediate or even generic senior role, whats the difference between HR bod sifting CVs off Jobsite+a dozen others or an agent doing the same thing? it seems that alot is little more than outsourced HR recruitment admin.

You'll need to translate the following

what im talking about is im just an average IT admin with not enough experience/skills to be in specialied area. I get calls from Computer People, Ashdown, Hayes, and other "specialised" IT recruiters and they dont know the first thing about IT. I get several emails every week offering senior PHP and Java developer jobs because they obviously get caught in a automated CV keyword search, when the most brief scan would show im not a developer (or even just better search terms).

 

[looney]

not looking for a job are you looney?

It was an attempt at parody.

 

[bhaexpress]

what im talking about is im just an average IT admin with not enough experience/skills to be in specialied area. I get calls from Computer People, Ashdown, Hayes, and other "specialised" IT recruiters and they dont know the first thing about IT. I get several emails every week offering senior PHP and Java developer jobs because they obviously get caught in a automated CV keyword search, when the most brief scan would show im not a developer (or even just better search terms).

Actually having been in IT for quite a few years I think you're being a bit harsh on some agencies. I've just finished a contract for a firm call Plan Net who were easily the worst I have ever dealt with. However I talk to Computer People, Hayes and a host of others and whilst I agree that some recruiters haven't got a clue I reckon quite a few do. The point is that the people who use IT recruitment firms (which is just about everybody) can see through a consultant who is clueless and it doesn't pay that agency to have that situation. I think you need to know that the first person you normally speak to is a 'resourcer' who in fact is pretty much a trainee, it's their job to find out your availability but they are not the people who deal with your application or then end client, they are there to do some of the donkey work. In point of fact many agencies don't use them anyway.

It's easy to complain about Recruitment Consultants, most of us have had the runaround at some time or another but on the other hand it works both ways. For example, the little filler contract I am doing now I had about four hours notice before I started because the person who was supposed to do the job just didn't turn up. Now that's not the fault of the agency but who in the end is the bad guy then ? I probably deal with agencies more than most but if I have a gripe (s do many consultants) it's with HR people.

 

[User removed 4]

does anyone on here have any experience of a company called fdm ? they are it recruiters

 

[maffew]

does anyone on here have any experience of a company called fdm ? they are it recruiters

catering recruitment arent they?