IT Contracting and "references"...
Discussion
Age old issue here, looking for work as my last contract ended a week ago and looking for a new role. Market is simply awful. Anyway had a call from an agency for a great job, perfect in fact. However agent claimed that the the employer wants to see "two names for references" before they consider an interview.
I stood my ground and said if they get me an interview I will provide the names. This went back and forth and the agent said he will see what they say.
Been contracting for 5yrs now and this seems more and more common. Anyone else seeing this trend?
I stood my ground and said if they get me an interview I will provide the names. This went back and forth and the agent said he will see what they say.
Been contracting for 5yrs now and this seems more and more common. Anyone else seeing this trend?
I don't think I've ever been asked for references whilst contracting (but I haven't contracted in these tough times). Because you have not been employed by the companies at whom who have worked, you do not have a contractual relationship with them - and they are therefore not obliged/in a position to enter into any communication about you. In fact, some of my contracts have stated that the company will not provide a reference. Only the agency, with whom you have a contract, is in a position to supply a reference (and no-one has ever asked me for an agency reference)
I have sometimes been asked to provide referee details as part of the permy application process. I state that they will be submitted upon a job offer being made, and have never had an issue with that. I would feel uncomfortable with a company having my referee details, if they have not offered me a job and I am still employed elsewhere
I have sometimes been asked to provide referee details as part of the permy application process. I state that they will be submitted upon a job offer being made, and have never had an issue with that. I would feel uncomfortable with a company having my referee details, if they have not offered me a job and I am still employed elsewhere
Edited by spanishchocolate on Thursday 22 July 11:59
zippy I like the reference!
Yes, agreed, job does not exist, agent was very cagey about the role and didn't give to much away and was more interested in "which jobs I have been offered as of late" and "who with". He also the name of the last contract wrong, so clearly had not read my CV correctly either.
I am in support, so not a great deal out there and some of the rates are bordering on a complete p-take!
Yes, agreed, job does not exist, agent was very cagey about the role and didn't give to much away and was more interested in "which jobs I have been offered as of late" and "who with". He also the name of the last contract wrong, so clearly had not read my CV correctly either.
I am in support, so not a great deal out there and some of the rates are bordering on a complete p-take!
There's a long thread on the topic here (it's a scam): http://forums.contractoruk.com/business-contracts/...
Edited by Scawie on Thursday 22 July 12:35
Scawie said:
There's a long thread on the topic here (it's a scam): http://forums.contractoruk.com/business-contracts/...
Thanks for that, seems to be a very common trend. Just emailed a mate of mine, who is an MD of a VERY large recruitment agency and he summed up their tactics with one word-we are adult enough to work out what it is!Edited by Scawie on Thursday 22 July 12:35
Edited by yellowtr on Thursday 22 July 12:41
My current client did ask for a "continuous employment history" for the last 5 years (they're a Defence company). I responded that I had been continually employed by the company of which I am the Director since 1999. That seemed to throw them and they haven't pressed me on it since. 
I had the same thing at a different client who used an out-sourced reference checking agency and wanted the name and address of my previous employer. It was quite amusing giving myself a glowing reference and saying what a good employee I was.
But back on topic, references up front are a scam and always have been.
I had the same thing at a different client who used an out-sourced reference checking agency and wanted the name and address of my previous employer. It was quite amusing giving myself a glowing reference and saying what a good employee I was.
But back on topic, references up front are a scam and always have been.
Got asked this yesterday and I said job spec first then interview if they were serious and then I asked why it was needed and that my current employer (my company) could give glowing references for me.
They asked if my current employer could give one, again stated I wasnt employed by anyone other than my company... she asked if she could get one off the company that is employing my services as a company?
I asked her why she was so insitant about it as this was a scam that was done 2 years ago and suprised its still in force and known better as pishing by recruiters.
She tried to justify it and then said that she would ask the company (small hedge fund) I said not to bother as I would ask them direct and she went quiet and said that she had to go and do something, but would be in contact with me shortly...
god Im a bastid at times to them... she was doing ok till the word reference and must be last 2 investment banking jobs.
They asked if my current employer could give one, again stated I wasnt employed by anyone other than my company... she asked if she could get one off the company that is employing my services as a company?
I asked her why she was so insitant about it as this was a scam that was done 2 years ago and suprised its still in force and known better as pishing by recruiters.
She tried to justify it and then said that she would ask the company (small hedge fund) I said not to bother as I would ask them direct and she went quiet and said that she had to go and do something, but would be in contact with me shortly...
god Im a bastid at times to them... she was doing ok till the word reference and must be last 2 investment banking jobs.
Going to go down like a lead balloon but anyway here goes:
Sometimes (as in now and again), this is a genuine request. I have 6 major core clients that I have built up fantastic relationships over the last 12 years, then I have another couple which I am nurturing. Of those 6 major core clients, 2 like me to submit candidates with references taken. When I say references, personal (off the record) references covering stuff like team fit, any negatives etc. 1 client insists on it, the other likes it and I have noticed with client 2 that if I submit candidates with references they tend to be the ones that get interviewed.
I have never understood candidates trying to dictate when they will pass this info on, I just find that so arrogant. Happily I only notice this behaviour on websites such as contractorUK, in actual reality I have only witnessed a few candidates flatly refuse to supply this information, most candidates will happily pass on references.
My client who demands references when we submit a candidate was also non plussed. I explained I had a fantastic candidate for a role (Oracle BI Report Writer), but the candidate refused to give references until offer stage. Client said "not interested, as this is part of the process for application and if the candidate could not be arsed to conform to our (clients) process then that candidate would not fit in our (clients) organisation". I kind of agree with that, if a candidate starts demanding what they will and won't do before they are even through the door then that candidate is probably not going to work well with other set criteria.
I hear excuses about referees getting the hump being continually contacted but then they shouldn't be a referee if they are not expecting to be contacted. As for "phishing" - well that would just be good business sense, if a recruiter takes a reference from a decision maker/hiring manager then fails to engage in offering a business service at the end of the reference taking then they would be bloody stupid and wouldn't last five minutes in the commercial business world. In the commercial sector business sells to business, that is largely how our commercial sector works, to not act upon that implies lack of drive and may I say common sense.
Sometimes (as with client 1 above) references are part of a SLA, a good example is a major global oil company which originally heralds from the UK, they demand references before interview stage, if you don't supply those references then we cannot put you forward as a constant lack of supplied references will flag up as a failure to meet one of the KPI's of the PSL agreement.
Oh and we do get the occasional bad reference back. In which case I am glad I have taken that reference up.
+++please note none of the above is a dig at any member of PH, or any associated friends, family or families friends, or the IT contractor you met the other week+++
Sometimes (as in now and again), this is a genuine request. I have 6 major core clients that I have built up fantastic relationships over the last 12 years, then I have another couple which I am nurturing. Of those 6 major core clients, 2 like me to submit candidates with references taken. When I say references, personal (off the record) references covering stuff like team fit, any negatives etc. 1 client insists on it, the other likes it and I have noticed with client 2 that if I submit candidates with references they tend to be the ones that get interviewed.
I have never understood candidates trying to dictate when they will pass this info on, I just find that so arrogant. Happily I only notice this behaviour on websites such as contractorUK, in actual reality I have only witnessed a few candidates flatly refuse to supply this information, most candidates will happily pass on references.
My client who demands references when we submit a candidate was also non plussed. I explained I had a fantastic candidate for a role (Oracle BI Report Writer), but the candidate refused to give references until offer stage. Client said "not interested, as this is part of the process for application and if the candidate could not be arsed to conform to our (clients) process then that candidate would not fit in our (clients) organisation". I kind of agree with that, if a candidate starts demanding what they will and won't do before they are even through the door then that candidate is probably not going to work well with other set criteria.
I hear excuses about referees getting the hump being continually contacted but then they shouldn't be a referee if they are not expecting to be contacted. As for "phishing" - well that would just be good business sense, if a recruiter takes a reference from a decision maker/hiring manager then fails to engage in offering a business service at the end of the reference taking then they would be bloody stupid and wouldn't last five minutes in the commercial business world. In the commercial sector business sells to business, that is largely how our commercial sector works, to not act upon that implies lack of drive and may I say common sense.
Sometimes (as with client 1 above) references are part of a SLA, a good example is a major global oil company which originally heralds from the UK, they demand references before interview stage, if you don't supply those references then we cannot put you forward as a constant lack of supplied references will flag up as a failure to meet one of the KPI's of the PSL agreement.
Oh and we do get the occasional bad reference back. In which case I am glad I have taken that reference up.
+++please note none of the above is a dig at any member of PH, or any associated friends, family or families friends, or the IT contractor you met the other week+++
Romanymagic said:
Going to go down like a lead balloon but anyway here goes
No offence RM, but I was waiting for a post like this. You seem like an exceptional agent and I'm sure that in your own case your request for references is perfectly reasonable. However, you just don't seem to grasp that you are the exception rather than the norm. A majority of agents asking for references up front are phishing. Contractors who refuse are not being arrogant, they're being realistic. Obviously it all comes down to how both sides handle the negotiations as to whether one or both come away with a bad taste. It's the job (even the raison d'être) of the agent to make the connection and close the deal. And that means mediating and getting the client and contractor to a point of agreement. Ok, if either side won't budge then it's not going to happen and everyone loses out, but I think it's a bit rich to brand contractors as arrogant for being wise and wary over not giving into the barrow-boys who tarnish your industry. As I said, I'm sure you are a brilliant agent. But I also believe you are in the minority. And I apologise if you occasionally get tarred with the same brush as your less honourable peers.
Romanymagic said:
I have never understood candidates trying to dictate when they will pass this info on, I just find that so arrogant.
Wait.. what? You don't understand people being circumspect with their client list? Maybe we should play swapsies and you give me a few of your clients in return to cold call? Romanymagic said:
Client said "not interested, as this is part of the process for application and if the candidate could not be arsed to conform to our (clients) process then that candidate would not fit in our (clients) organisation".
This seems pretty arrogant to me. Not sure I'd want to supply services to a client like this. And from an IR35 point of view I certainly don't want to provide services to a company that wants such a level of compliance. At the end of the day we're all in business and there is no Mutuality of Obligation. I'm as much free to choose who my company provides service to as the client is to choose who to engage. If either side doesn't like the deal then it won't happen.
Edited by JonRB on Thursday 22 July 23:27
Romanymagic said:
Your post insinuates (note *insinutates* ie to me, IMHO, willing to be corrected yada) that the client is superior to the candidate, and that their opinion and requirements matter more. Why isn't the candidate's request equally as valid as the client's? They both need each other (granted, this is an employer's market at the moment). After all, the candidate has more to lose by a reference being followed up whilst still employed (if a contractor - if they are planning to end their contract early), than a client has to lose by getting referee details after a job offer has been madeAlso, surely your client is doubting their own judgement, if they don't have sufficient confidence in their and/or the agency's recruitment process to be able to spot someone who may potentially prompt bad references
I've been in full-time employment (contract and permanent) since 1996, and have never needed to supply references before a job offer. Knowing how easily mistakes are made, I still would decline to supply referee details prior to a job offer being made. Nothing at all to do with arrogance; it's to do with self-preservation from human error/carelessness (in the true sense of the word ie not caring if following up references whilst I am still employed had an effect). To me, the client's stance seems to be the one that is arrogant - they are willing to potentially lose good candidates because they are unwilling to assess an individual's scenario, and build a situation that suits both parties. Why would a candidate want to work for a company that applies such rules carte blanche, and doesn't have the capacity to assess each candidate as an individual?
Edited by spanishchocolate on Thursday 22 July 23:39
Romanymagic said:
Stuff
Personally I don't really have a problem with what you say in principle. In my particular case earlier this week, the job advertised was very well paid (a little too well paid for sector and region), the agent would not give me the name of the client, would not send the "role specification", tried to tell me about another role he had (with a more believable rate) and oh yes - i'll need references.
So you tell me - phishing or what you described?
and if phishing why should I not be "arrogant" and give him the reference(s)?
spanishchocolate said:
Romanymagic said:
Your post insinuates (note *insinutates* ie to me, IMHO, willing to be corrected yada) that the client is superior to the candidate, and that their opinion and requirements matter more. Why isn't the candidate's request equally as valid as the client's? 1. The client is paying. End of.
2. You're an IT contractor thats all. For most of you with most of your skills you are 10 a penny and most of the decent ones are already employed.
Its a very simple and brutal reality.
DJC said:
spanishchocolate said:
Romanymagic said:
Your post insinuates (note *insinutates* ie to me, IMHO, willing to be corrected yada) that the client is superior to the candidate, and that their opinion and requirements matter more. Why isn't the candidate's request equally as valid as the client's? 1. The client is paying. End of.
2. You're an IT contractor thats all. For most of you with most of your skills you are 10 a penny and most of the decent ones are already employed.
Its a very simple and brutal reality.
Fair enough if the recruiter themselves wants to speak to your last employer. It's a common enough thing in my game. You might have left under a cloud / be a total douchebag. Reputable agents have a reputation to protect.
But to not give any firm details about the job on offer / insist on two references prior to discussing any role?
Fishier than a fleet of old herring trawlers.
DJC said:
spanishchocolate said:
Romanymagic said:
Your post insinuates (note *insinutates* ie to me, IMHO, willing to be corrected yada) that the client is superior to the candidate, and that their opinion and requirements matter more. Why isn't the candidate's request equally as valid as the client's? 1. The client is paying. End of.
2. You're an IT contractor thats all. For most of you with most of your skills you are 10 a penny and most of the decent ones are already employed.
Its a very simple and brutal reality.
I've had negotiations (you would call them interviews) with nob-ends with this exact mentality. Unless they are paying exceptional rates I will always walk away. They are always far more trouble than they are worth. The majority of decent contractors who will have options, will also walk away. Leaving the lower end (in both skills and attitude) of the contractor pool to work with these clients.
This of course perpetuates the image of contractors in their minds convincing them they were right all along.
Its a very simple and brutal reality.
Understood chaps (re: comments above).
Sadly the recruitment industry and in particular "IT" is chock full of chancers (as in "recruitment consultants").
It must be hugely frustrating to engage with agencies who don't seem to care/and or understand the process, the frustration and have an even lesser understanding of the technologies, the industry and the inconvenience.
I cannot stand other "agents" (naturally PH members who happen to be agents would probably be the exception owing to a love of the machines), I regularly attend agency briefings with clients and I will take the stairs when leaving the meeting because I don't want to share a lift with the other consultants. Largely they are an opportunistic bunch which is why so many change agencies every 6 months. I have been with the same company for over 12 years, I know my "niche" and I have to deliver (to both candidate and client).
Phishing in the traditional sense is wrong i.e. approaching a candidate "just" to get references as a means to opening up a business sales dialogue and I agree this benefits nobody and the candidate would feel used, the referees frustrated and the agent looking like a slime bag.
Sadly the recruitment industry and in particular "IT" is chock full of chancers (as in "recruitment consultants").
It must be hugely frustrating to engage with agencies who don't seem to care/and or understand the process, the frustration and have an even lesser understanding of the technologies, the industry and the inconvenience.
I cannot stand other "agents" (naturally PH members who happen to be agents would probably be the exception owing to a love of the machines), I regularly attend agency briefings with clients and I will take the stairs when leaving the meeting because I don't want to share a lift with the other consultants. Largely they are an opportunistic bunch which is why so many change agencies every 6 months. I have been with the same company for over 12 years, I know my "niche" and I have to deliver (to both candidate and client).
Phishing in the traditional sense is wrong i.e. approaching a candidate "just" to get references as a means to opening up a business sales dialogue and I agree this benefits nobody and the candidate would feel used, the referees frustrated and the agent looking like a slime bag.
Mobile Chicane said:
Oh, put your cock away.
Fair enough if the recruiter themselves wants to speak to your last employer. It's a common enough thing in my game. You might have left under a cloud / be a total douchebag. Reputable agents have a reputation to protect.
But to not give any firm details about the job on offer / insist on two references prior to discussing any role?
Fishier than a fleet of old herring trawlers.
Agree with you 100%. Before giving references you want: Fair enough if the recruiter themselves wants to speak to your last employer. It's a common enough thing in my game. You might have left under a cloud / be a total douchebag. Reputable agents have a reputation to protect.
But to not give any firm details about the job on offer / insist on two references prior to discussing any role?
Fishier than a fleet of old herring trawlers.
a) job number/reference - if (and only if) its a big company, bluechip/FTSE250 etc. i.e. these firms will have formal processes which inevitably will involve having job/reference numbers.
b) company/client name
c) full job spec or if none available (even with some large organisations, no one has bothered to put a spec together prior to getting approval to recruit, seriously even your BP's, HSBC's, etc.), then at least some sort of spec to supply tech required.
d) ideally and unless the end client demands it then Supply references only at interview stage. Remember you can supply your previous agent as a referree (purely to confirm job title and to and from dates).
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff