Why we hate Recruitment Agencies
Discussion
Gargamel said:
The point on paying 150% of fees. is simple.
As an RC I have two clients. Both are looking for s
t hot lawyers. One gives me 30% commission. One gives me 20% commission. Now, which one to send my best candidate to ?
The risk there is another RC could send the same candidate to firm paying 20% so you could lose your best candidate for no fee.As an RC I have two clients. Both are looking for s
t hot lawyers. One gives me 30% commission. One gives me 20% commission. Now, which one to send my best candidate to ? In that situation I would still send the candidate to both firms.
bad company said:
The risk there is another RC could send the same candidate to firm paying 20% so you could lose your best candidate for no fee.
In that situation I would still send the candidate to both firms.
Of course you would. But you'd be telling your candidate which firm was better ....;) In that situation I would still send the candidate to both firms.
Gargamel said:
bad company said:
The risk there is another RC could send the same candidate to firm paying 20% so you could lose your best candidate for no fee.
In that situation I would still send the candidate to both firms.
Of course you would. But you'd be telling your candidate which firm was better ....;) In that situation I would still send the candidate to both firms.
bad company said:
No. I would not attempt to influence a candidate to accept an offer from a client just because they pay a higher fee. I really think that is dangerous practice.
No need to be quite so defensive, I know RC's get a massive kicking on here. But I worked in Agencies for 15 years.... If it didn't influence you then why didn't you merely advise the client, that the additional money wasn't necessary and professional ethics prevented you from accepted what a first glance appears to be a bribe....
Gargamel said:
No need to be quite so defensive, I know RC's get a massive kicking on here. But I worked in Agencies for 15 years....
If it didn't influence you then why didn't you merely advise the client, that the additional money wasn't necessary and professional ethics prevented you from accepted what a first glance appears to be a bribe....
If the client wants to pay more I was obviously happy to oblige. That said the decision on whether or not to accept an offer has to be the candidate's alone.If it didn't influence you then why didn't you merely advise the client, that the additional money wasn't necessary and professional ethics prevented you from accepted what a first glance appears to be a bribe....
Friend of mine applied for a home-based job last week via recruiter. They came back and said they weren't progressing her application as there were looking for someone from a specific sector. That'd be the sector she currently works in and has been in for ten years ... hence why she thought she'd have a good chance. So, she phoned them up and pressed them. After some squirming they told her their client wanted someone within a two hour drive of head office. Shame they hadn't bothered to mention this on the ad, thus saving my friend, and doubtless many more people, the wasted time of applying for something that they couldn't meet the criteria for.
Gargamel said:
As an RC I have two clients. Both are looking for st hot lawyers. One gives me 30% commission. One gives me 20% commission. Now, which one to send my best candidate to ?
Why not send them to both t hot lawyers. One gives me 30% commission. One gives me 20% commission. Now, which one to send my best candidate to ? 
Otherwise you are playing with the candidates livelihood for the sake of a percentage.
hornetrider said:
Why not send them to both
Otherwise you are playing with the candidates livelihood for the sake of a percentage.
Ok - first my comments are slightly tongue in cheek. But take it to it's logical conclusion. How may business we will "just as hard" for two clients, when one of them is paying a third more. Otherwise you are playing with the candidates livelihood for the sake of a percentage.
However the phrase you used above has pretty much described most recruitment activity!
MitchT said:
Friend of mine applied for a home-based job last week via recruiter. They came back and said they weren't progressing her application as there were looking for someone from a specific sector. That'd be the sector she currently works in and has been in for ten years ... hence why she thought she'd have a good chance. So, she phoned them up and pressed them. After some squirming they told her their client wanted someone within a two hour drive of head office. Shame they hadn't bothered to mention this on the ad, thus saving my friend, and doubtless many more people, the wasted time of applying for something that they couldn't meet the criteria for.
That sort of stuff happens all the time. The most likely explanation is that the client firm either did not tell the recruiter about this requirement at the outset or they had such a strong response that they felt that they could impose an additional requirement.The recruiter takes the blame but was probably not to blame.
Why would the recruiter want to waste their time having to deal with unsuitable candidates?
bad company said:
That sort of stuff happens all the time. The most likely explanation is that the client firm either did not tell the recruiter about this requirement at the outset or they had such a strong response that they felt that they could impose an additional requirement.
The recruiter takes the blame but was probably not to blame.
Why would the recruiter want to waste their time having to deal with unsuitable candidates?
The girl who spoke to my fried said she'd been told to leave it off the advert by her boss. Go figure!The recruiter takes the blame but was probably not to blame.
Why would the recruiter want to waste their time having to deal with unsuitable candidates?
MitchT said:
bad company said:
That sort of stuff happens all the time. The most likely explanation is that the client firm either did not tell the recruiter about this requirement at the outset or they had such a strong response that they felt that they could impose an additional requirement.
The recruiter takes the blame but was probably not to blame.
Why would the recruiter want to waste their time having to deal with unsuitable candidates?
The girl who spoke to my fried said she'd been told to leave it off the advert by her boss. Go figure!The recruiter takes the blame but was probably not to blame.
Why would the recruiter want to waste their time having to deal with unsuitable candidates?
I figured and I'm not buying it.
My experiences are also sadly pretty awful (I work in insurance). I agree with what others have said for the most part though. Many of them are woefully inexperienced with absolutely no career in the sector they are recruiting for. I don't see how they can recruit successfully if they don't know what the different jobs actually involve! Some of my past experiences are below.
When I wanted to move from a claims based role into something else (still in insurance) a few years back, one of the big names (who got me the job I was in 4 years prior), basically laughed at me and said I can forget trying to change career path (I did change career path in the end via another agency).
Another recruiter said a firm (large national) had offered me an interview and that they would come back to me with the date etc shortly. Several days pass so I phone to chase, no response. I phone again, and again (you get the idea) to finally be told that "oh that role has been put on hold for now, the client is waiting on financial sign off!". Ridiculous.
Another recruiter phones me up out of the blue (that I'd never spoken to before) saying they have an interview for me. I asked how, given that I hadn't given them my CV or permission to submit it to no less than 3 companies (one of which I definitely would not have wanted to work for), and they fumbled their way through some pathetic excuse / apology.
The big name beginning with a H. Most people in the relatively small market sector I work in that know the main agent at this place and cannot stand them. This person must have submitted my CV to easily 10-15 companies but I would never get a further response. Anyway they came into my new office about a month after I'd changed jobs via another agency and their face when they saw me was an absolute picture!
Another agent put me forward for a role outside London (they knew I didn't want to go there) but they reckoned they could still beat my existing salary so I thought why not. They offered me the job but on a salary considerably less than my existing!? I'm amazed the agent had the gall to ask!
I did finally find one good recruitment consultant last year though, and they were such a breath of fresh air. They came back to me straight away, kept me informed at all times, negotiated what I wanted and were just a pleasure to deal with through the whole process. I now always recommend them whenever anyone asks, and if I was ever looking in the future I would go just to that one recruiter.
I would still say 90% of them are bloody useless though!
When I wanted to move from a claims based role into something else (still in insurance) a few years back, one of the big names (who got me the job I was in 4 years prior), basically laughed at me and said I can forget trying to change career path (I did change career path in the end via another agency).
Another recruiter said a firm (large national) had offered me an interview and that they would come back to me with the date etc shortly. Several days pass so I phone to chase, no response. I phone again, and again (you get the idea) to finally be told that "oh that role has been put on hold for now, the client is waiting on financial sign off!". Ridiculous.
Another recruiter phones me up out of the blue (that I'd never spoken to before) saying they have an interview for me. I asked how, given that I hadn't given them my CV or permission to submit it to no less than 3 companies (one of which I definitely would not have wanted to work for), and they fumbled their way through some pathetic excuse / apology.
The big name beginning with a H. Most people in the relatively small market sector I work in that know the main agent at this place and cannot stand them. This person must have submitted my CV to easily 10-15 companies but I would never get a further response. Anyway they came into my new office about a month after I'd changed jobs via another agency and their face when they saw me was an absolute picture!
Another agent put me forward for a role outside London (they knew I didn't want to go there) but they reckoned they could still beat my existing salary so I thought why not. They offered me the job but on a salary considerably less than my existing!? I'm amazed the agent had the gall to ask!
I did finally find one good recruitment consultant last year though, and they were such a breath of fresh air. They came back to me straight away, kept me informed at all times, negotiated what I wanted and were just a pleasure to deal with through the whole process. I now always recommend them whenever anyone asks, and if I was ever looking in the future I would go just to that one recruiter.
I would still say 90% of them are bloody useless though!
Recruitment agent recently contacted me when a colleague of mine left. I took his job (and a large pay rise) and was contacted by an agent who didn't seem to understand that he had sent me details of the job I was already doing, but for a lot more money, and he got a little pissy saying "well, you shouldn't rule out applying as it'll be a promotion"!!
Needless to say that call ended with him nursing a new rectum.
Rude, arrogant pig he was.
Needless to say that call ended with him nursing a new rectum.
Rude, arrogant pig he was.
Potatoes said:
In my 10 years in the industry, albeit 9 of them working in in-house recruitment teams this is almost always the case:
I would replace the word 'probably' with mostly. They are mostly to blame.bad company said:
...
The recruiter takes the blame but was probably not to blame.
...
I love this thread!The recruiter takes the blame but was probably not to blame.
...
One consultant last week called me on a Saturday about a higher end contract role, interrupted quality time with my family about an 'urgent' opportunity. OK fine, I am a businessman.
Said consultant can't even pop me a note to say if the job is a dud, on hold or whatever. I will give the consultant a further 4 days grace before black-listing him.
It's this type of behaviour (and I could list many, many more) which will eventually kill off the agent as we currently know it because the moment they stop becoming 'true' agents i.e. good communicators, negotiators, networkers and lead creators, they are closer to becoming computerised.
I buddy up with a small network of consultants who are true agents because the majority are getting worse.
oh yeah, I don't have a problem with good RC's in general. Some of the behaviour of the others on the other hand is what will drive people to find ways of not using them any more, in the long run.
£20m per year is what it costs to develop a high-end software application to replace people for jobs like this, plus the marketing etc. eventually though, someone, somewhere will pony up and in the process and it will transform the industry.
Until then, its business as usual.
£20m per year is what it costs to develop a high-end software application to replace people for jobs like this, plus the marketing etc. eventually though, someone, somewhere will pony up and in the process and it will transform the industry.
Until then, its business as usual.
Carl_Docklands said:
oh yeah, I don't have a problem with good RC's in general. Some of the behaviour of the others on the other hand is what will drive people to find ways of not using them any more, in the long run.
£20m per year is what it costs to develop a high-end software application to replace people for jobs like this, plus the marketing etc. eventually though, someone, somewhere will pony up and in the process and it will transform the industry.
Until then, its business as usual.
I bet the agents you do use never need to make cold calls or hassle anyone BUT even they had to start somewhere.£20m per year is what it costs to develop a high-end software application to replace people for jobs like this, plus the marketing etc. eventually though, someone, somewhere will pony up and in the process and it will transform the industry.
Until then, its business as usual.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff