The Ladders. Grrrr...
Discussion
Targarama said:
Kudos said:
Do you chaps realise it is people's livelihood you are dealing with? How hard is it to reply to an email or a phone call? Too busy? Why not recruit someone to do this admin for you?
Today's rejectee could be tomorrows hiring manager, remember that.
This.Today's rejectee could be tomorrows hiring manager, remember that.
Sitting at home waiting for 'the call' got me thinking about this, why not have a junior person send a rejection email or communication for the 'less suitable' candidates? Some agencies and companies sent rejection letters in the post, these were fine too - just give the candidates closure. Hire an intern, hire someone on minimum wage and give them mailmerge software, a printer, some envelopes and stamps. It isn't hard. Most applicants are not chancers, but I do understand you get a lot of people applying for jobs with a standard letter and inclue mistakes/references to the last company they applied to!
Kudos said:
Do you chaps realise it is people's livelihood you are dealing with? How hard is it to reply to an email or a phone call? Too busy? Why not recruit someone to do this admin for you?
Today's rejectee could be tomorrows hiring manager, remember that.
Based on the number of phishing calls I've had over the past 8 months, I would say that the majority of said calls were made by junior staff.Today's rejectee could be tomorrows hiring manager, remember that.
The same staff that could be utilised to send that rejection email or make that phone call.
Gargamel said:
Kudos said:
I didn't even need to check your profile to guess what line you were in...
No problem, I love a sweeping generalisation first thing in the morning. Luckily all Property developers are above reproach and should be held up by society as an example to us all of altruism, professionalism and best practice in 'caring capitalism' I think it's fair to say that recruitment agencies have managed to give themselves a pretty bad name over the past few years.
Whilst I appreciate that you all have to earn your daily bread, I think that because of the potential opportunity to earn, the recruitment industry has become saturated, resulting in a fiercely competitive 'dog eat dog' industry.
I acknowledge that there are still good agencies out there - but they tend to be the smaller ones based on my experience.
Gargamel said:
....... But for ALL recruitment consultants results are king, they must place someone to make any money at all, clients are fickle, candidates …(well look on here for candidate behaviour).....
Would you care to elaborate on this statement, and perhaps provide a few examples?Edited by TonyRPH on Friday 27th January 13:25
TonyRPH said:
Based on the number of phishing calls I've had over the past 8 months, I would say that the majority of said calls were made by junior staff.
The same staff that could be utilised to send that rejection email or make that phone call.
After all, they are in the recruitment "game", so surely should be capable of doing the full service e.g. "sorry, not good enough this time, but can I keep hold of your CV for future reference?"The same staff that could be utilised to send that rejection email or make that phone call.
I see you're unemployed IT Tony, what line are you in?
a bit of balance wouldn't go amiss, I'm not an apologist for the recruitment industry but in my opinion clients and candidates have a choice, don't deal with unprofessional agencies. Sadly it seems that malpractice goes unpunished by clients who will still hire from unethical agencies and candidates who confetti their CV's around the internet and then expect a 'service'. To all those frustrated candidates try to be a little more discerning in your choice of agency and you may have a more positive experience and (hopefully) outcome.
Blue62 said:
a bit of balance wouldn't go amiss, I'm not an apologist for the recruitment industry but in my opinion clients and candidates have a choice, don't deal with unprofessional agencies. Sadly it seems that malpractice goes unpunished by clients who will still hire from unethical agencies and candidates who confetti their CV's around the internet and then expect a 'service'. To all those frustrated candidates try to be a little more discerning in your choice of agency and you may have a more positive experience and (hopefully) outcome.
While I can see the fact that many agencies 'steal' jobs from the hired agency and go trawling for candidates being a big issue (and annoying to all parties), how does a candidate have a choice on most occasions?Kudos said:
After all, they are in the recruitment "game", so surely should be capable of doing the full service e.g. "sorry, not good enough this time, but can I keep hold of your CV for future reference?"
I see you're unemployed IT Tony, what line are you in?
I have a varied skill set.I see you're unemployed IT Tony, what line are you in?
<key skills deleted>
I find it odd that when one has a wealth of experience spanning some 20 years, you are told that your CV is too long!
How are you supposed to convey your abilities effectively??
Edited by TonyRPH on Monday 30th January 14:27
Targarama said:
While I can see the fact that many agencies 'steal' jobs from the hired agency and go trawling for candidates being a big issue (and annoying to all parties), how does a candidate have a choice on most occasions?
Sorry don't understand your point about stealing jobs from a hired agency, but in answer to your main point you can withdraw your CV (or not send it in the first place) to any agency who you feel behaves or acts improperly. Very few clients are represented on an exclusive basis, if you study agency adverts you will soon realise that the same job is being advertised by several agencies, if you can be bothered to call or mail a few questions before you submit your CV their responses will give you an indication of how well they understand the role in question and what sort of service you can expect. I know of many instances where clients have received the same CV from multiple agencies who 'spray and pray' without the candidates' consent. The tragedy of these situations is that the client tends to form a negative image of the candidate and they get declined for reasons unrelated to their skills or experience.Blue62 said:
, if you can be bothered to call or mail a few questions before you submit your CV their responses will give you an indication of how well they understand the role in question and what sort of service you can expect..
And typically you will get no response as:A - the job did not exist
B - the agent can't be arsed replying as this means doing some work
C - the agent is a
Blue62 said:
Sorry don't understand your point about stealing jobs from a hired agency....
This being where an agency calls to speak to a candidate, and starts probing for information about current recent / future interviews the candidate may have. Said candidate innocently reveals what interviews they have had and where - and the agency then tries to canvas the companies mentioned with it's own candidates.I believe this is known as the act of phishing.
Blue62 said:
<snip>.... I know of many instances where clients have received the same CV from multiple agencies who 'spray and pray' without the candidates' consent. The tragedy of these situations is that the client tends to form a negative image of the candidate and they get declined for reasons unrelated to their skills or experience.
I don't understand this. Why should a prospective employer form a negative opinion about a candidate, simply because the same candidate's CV has been submitted from multiple agencies? (this is an argument used continually by the agencies who seem to do the most phishing).It would be blind of any candidate to register with a single recruitment agency, and to hope that agency finds him or her the right job.
TonyRPH said:
Blue62 said:
Sorry don't understand your point about stealing jobs from a hired agency....
This being where an agency calls to speak to a candidate, and starts probing for information about current recent / future interviews the candidate may have. Said candidate innocently reveals what interviews they have had and where - and the agency then tries to canvas the companies mentioned with it's own candidates.I believe this is known as the act of phishing.
Another annoying habit is where an agency calls (or you call them) and they won't reveal the hiring company. Sometimes you get a clue and work it out. I understand they need to qualify candidates as I could be an agency phishing, not a real candidate, but once it becomes clear I hate it when they won't reveal the company. I have refused to go in to meet an agency before because of this protectionism where they wouldn't tell me who the hiring company was. There are plenty of companies in my business I wouldn't work for (for example, I notice RIM is still trying to hire, if I got a call about a role there I'd politely decline).
TonyRPH said:
I don't understand this. Why should a prospective employer form a negative opinion about a candidate, simply because the same candidate's CV has been submitted from multiple agencies? (this is an argument used continually by the agencies who seem to do the most phishing).
It would be blind of any candidate to register with a single recruitment agency, and to hope that agency finds him or her the right job.
I'm afraid it is the case in a lot of instances, it creates the impression that the candidate is either desperate or indiscriminate in the way that they manage their job applications, whatever the case if I receive the same CV 5 or 6 times from different sources it's hardly likely to create a good impression is it?It would be blind of any candidate to register with a single recruitment agency, and to hope that agency finds him or her the right job.
I am not suggesting that you leave your details with one agency alone, simply that people use their noodles a bit more when applying. Call agencies (if they don't respond to mail) to get a feel for their knowledge of the role, hiring company and their professionalism. I've run and sold 2 recruitment businesses over the last 20 years and I'm currently a NED for two businesses, I can tell you that in the internet age agencies of a reasonable size receive and process up to 2000 CV's per day, responding in a meaningful way to candidates is nigh on impossible, so they will only contact the people who they know they have a good chance of placing, they can't function otherwise. If you continually fail to get a response then consider whether your CV and experience are truly relevant to the position and whether the key information easily accessed. It could be that your experience or circumstances are such that no agency considers you to be 'commercially viable' as they tend to have a pretty narrow view of the market (because they are paid to find the right person), it may therefore be better to apply directly to companies rather than waiting for an agency to call.
Blue62 said:
I'm afraid it is the case in a lot of instances, it creates the impression that the candidate is either desperate or indiscriminate in the way that they manage their job applications, whatever the case if I receive the same CV 5 or 6 times from different sources it's hardly likely to create a good impression is it?
I disagree with this. I think it demonstrates resourcefulness and enthusiasm - however these are things that few people who actually do the hiring seem to care about.Which is why so many companies so often end up with the wrong person.
Blue62 said:
I am not suggesting that you leave your details with one agency alone, simply that people use their noodles a bit more when applying. Call agencies (if they don't respond to mail) to get a feel for their knowledge of the role, hiring company and their professionalism.
I have done just this on many occasions only to be fobbed off with excuses.I leave messages with humans (not voice mail) but calls are rarely returned.
Blue62 said:
I've run and sold 2 recruitment businesses over the last 20 years and I'm currently a NED for two businesses, I can tell you that in the internet age agencies of a reasonable size receive and process up to 2000 CV's per day
<snip>
Fair enough - but if they advertised less fake jobs, then the daily CV intake would probably drop by 70% or more, and they could deal with the applications for the real jobs more effectively.<snip>
I'm also sure that not every recruiter has to deal with this amount of CVs singularly.
Blue62 said:
It could be that your experience or circumstances are such that no agency considers you to be 'commercially viable' as they tend to have a pretty narrow view of the market (because they are paid to find the right person), it may therefore be better to apply directly to companies rather than waiting for an agency to call.
Or it could be that some recruiters simply don't understand what they are dealing with.I recall back in the 80's when I lived in SA, that recruiters were specialists - e.g. you had technical people recruiting for technical positions - not just "regular" (non specialist) people that I seem to deal with these days.
If a technical person was reviewing CVs, they would quickly realise what they were dealing with.
After all, if I worked in the recruitment industry, I wouldn't regard myself as being suitable for reviewing applications for an accountant's job for example, because I know nothing about accounting.
Oh dear Tony, you seem to having a bad time of it and I'm genuinely sorry for you if you're frustrated in your attempts to find work. I have to say that you have a fairly skewed take on the recruitment industry though, I've yet to meet a client who considered a candidate as resourceful because they'd applied for the same job to 5 different agencies. I also think it's wrong to suggest that recruiters should possess the skills of their candidates if they're to properly assess them. Quite apart from the logistics of finding qualified accountants or lawyers (or IT people) who want work in recruitment in the first place, candidate selection is only part of the role and while I've seen some people make the transition effectively, they're in the minority as most fail to realise how much 'selling' is involved and they just can't handle the pace.
It would pay you to try to understand what recruitment agencies are really about, you might then stand a chance of getting something for your efforts instead of banging your head against the proverbial brick wall.
It would pay you to try to understand what recruitment agencies are really about, you might then stand a chance of getting something for your efforts instead of banging your head against the proverbial brick wall.
Blue62 said:
Oh dear Tony, you seem to having a bad time of it and I'm genuinely sorry for you if you're frustrated in your attempts to find work. I have to say that you have a fairly skewed take on the recruitment industry though,<snip>
You're right, I do have a rather skewed take on the industry.Not least of all based on my own personal experiences, and those of others I have heard from.
One example springs to mind; a certain agency decided to start sending me their "candidates of the month" mailshot - and I was stunned to find my own CV on this list!
Blue62 said:
I've yet to meet a client who considered a candidate as resourceful because they'd applied for the same job to 5 different agencies. I also think it's wrong to suggest that recruiters should possess the skills of their candidates if they're to properly assess them. Quite apart from the logistics of finding qualified accountants or lawyers (or IT people) who want work in recruitment in the first place, candidate selection is only part of the role and while I've seen some people make the transition effectively, they're in the minority as most fail to realise how much 'selling' is involved and they just can't handle the pace.
I think you summed it up in one word there - "selling" - the industry has become so driven by the "opportunity to earn" that it would appear that many recruitment agents don't have the candidate's interests at heart - only their own - and making money from the candidate is the number one priority, rather than placing him or her in the correct role.I've had many calls about jobs which are obviously unsuitable for me - but it has been suggested that perhaps I could be put forward for it anyway. Why would I want to go for a job that I blatantly don't have the skill set for, just so that I can line the consultants pocket with money should I be offered (and accept) said job?
Blue62 said:
It would pay you to try to understand what recruitment agencies are really about, you might then stand a chance of getting something for your efforts instead of banging your head against the proverbial brick wall.
Trust me, I do understand what recruitment agencies are really about.They are about revenue, then revenue, and most importantly, revenue.
I stress that not all are like this, and I believe that it's individuals (rather than the entire brand) that reflect this attitude in many instances.
I'm open to be proven wrong in this regard - but I suspect if you ask the vast majority of people why they became a recruitment consultant, I have no doubt the answer will be "for the money".
As a once IT manager (and perhaps again in the future) I hesitate to wonder if I'll ever make use of any agency.
Blue62 said:
Oh dear Tony, you seem to having a bad time of it and I'm genuinely sorry for you if you're frustrated in your attempts to find work. I have to say that you have a fairly skewed take on the recruitment industry though, I've yet to meet a client who considered a candidate as resourceful because they'd applied for the same job to 5 different agencies. I also think it's wrong to suggest that recruiters should possess the skills of their candidates if they're to properly assess them. Quite apart from the logistics of finding qualified accountants or lawyers (or IT people) who want work in recruitment in the first place, candidate selection is only part of the role and while I've seen some people make the transition effectively, they're in the minority as most fail to realise how much 'selling' is involved and they just can't handle the pace.
It would pay you to try to understand what recruitment agencies are really about, you might then stand a chance of getting something for your efforts instead of banging your head against the proverbial brick wall.
Heres an example for you, fresh off the press.It would pay you to try to understand what recruitment agencies are really about, you might then stand a chance of getting something for your efforts instead of banging your head against the proverbial brick wall.
I applied DIRECT for a role with a large UK outsourcer for a senior role (£100k+). They contacted me and I spoke to their internal resourcing people and after going through the formalities they said "good match, will forward to the hiring manager".
I chased this today and was told that the hiring manager was given my CV by another external agency, so the internal people were washing their hands of me.
I do not know who the other agency was, I spoke to no one and certainly did not give permission to send my CV to anyone. Who sent it?? What else are they doing with it??
Recruitment "consultants" are
s. Plain and simple s.To be fair Tony, in this day and age can you think of any industry sectors that aren't about money and revenue? I don't think recruitment is that much different to any other sector, it's just that it has a greater impact on individuals than most and if we have a bad experience, like Kudos, it hurts. Something odd about your story Kudos, have the in-house team given you a reason why they won't deal with you? If an agency has submitted your CV on an unsolicited basis they are breaking the law, if you're happy to testify to that fact then why would the in-house team not work with you?
Blue62 said:
To be fair Tony, in this day and age can you think of any industry sectors that aren't about money and revenue? I don't think recruitment is that much different to any other sector, it's just that it has a greater impact on individuals than most and if we have a bad experience, like Kudos, it hurts. Something odd about your story Kudos, have the in-house team given you a reason why they won't deal with you? If an agency has submitted your CV on an unsolicited basis they are breaking the law, if you're happy to testify to that fact then why would the in-house team not work with you?
I agree that profits need to be made - but at what cost?There's a fine line between providing a service based on a customer's needs, and making money.
I fear that making money has taken 100% precedence over all else in the recruitment industry.
Just like any service provider - you have to keep the customer happy - but - make a profit at the same time.
Unfortunately, where the recruitment industry is concerned, you rarely reply on repeat business (apart from the contract sector - but that's entirely different) - so you can continually disappoint your customers (in this case the candidate) without fear of revenue loss.
However - what many seem to forget is that today's candidate could be tomorrow's hiring manager.
But then this does seem to be the typical way of doing business in some sectors of the service industry these days - the customer is no longer king. Some companies only survive because of the huge client base out there - but given enough time - these businesses will fail.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff