Why we hate Recruitment Agencies
Discussion
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.
One point you are missing is that most of the moaning on threads like this are not from the client. It works for the clients and that's why they do it.£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.
You flippantly mention replacing RC's with a computer programme, which ignores the fact that lots of the complaints are caused by computer programmes doing parts of the RC's job. People who feel outraged that they receive an email about a job that doesn't quite match theirs because a computer has selected too vague a keyword (or whatever).
The industry does have a bad name, and rightly so to an extent - but when you first start in recruitment (as alluded to above) it is almost impossible to do it well as the length of time it takes to build up loyal contacts is way longer than the amount of time a company is prepared to employ you. You don't have the luxury of spending 5 minutes with every person who applies for a job, and you don't have the luxury of letting deals slip through your fingers by dint of doing the right thing. FOr the first few months of your career your job is permanently on the line and during that time all that matters is filling jobs and nothing else. Its very different when you have built up a trusting base of clients and candidates because fees take care of themselves and you can afford to be completely honest, knowing that it benefits you. If you spend the first 5 months like that, though, you will be out of a job because it is a long term benefit and definitely does not work in the short term.
So what's the answer to that eternal problem? I've wondered that for nearly 20 years and can't come up with an answer. In an ideal world, fees would be 50% more and you would allow newcomers a year or so of not worrying about their fees in order to establish yourself. It's not going to happen, though, as it is already expensive and even then the good people would not accept basic salaries (which are not good for trainees).
But I'm open to suggestions as to how my company can vastly improve a service to clients and candidates in a highly competitive market without increasing fees, so feel free to be constructive anyone on this thread who is unhappy.
Cold calls are not a problem for me. Radio silence is the problem, on senior roles where the pool is small and I know agent will need to speak to me at some point in the future, in this scenario it is best to nuture a relationship with me rather than burn bridges from the get go. And yet they do, repeatedly and its not just junior CV filters doing this, its senior consultants.
Like I say, I don't have a problem with the good ones but there is no solution to the bad ones other than to introduce a disruptive technology , collapse in the margins and increase the speed of finding high-quality candidates beyond what humans can do. This will drop the head-count in recruitment to a far lower level. It has happened in far more complex data-mining jobs already, it will happen in recruitment sooner or later, the entry cost just needs to drop.
I reckon a 4% margin will kill off pretty much every agency that is not heavily computerised. A well known agency already operates with a 5% margin on one of the big banking contracts and thats not sustainable using real people IMHO.
What won't be computerised is the high-end roles where a quality contact book and ability to nurture relationships along with the ability to negotiate, this will never be replaced but the vast majority (90%+) of recruitment consultants don't operate in this space.
Like I say, I don't have a problem with the good ones but there is no solution to the bad ones other than to introduce a disruptive technology , collapse in the margins and increase the speed of finding high-quality candidates beyond what humans can do. This will drop the head-count in recruitment to a far lower level. It has happened in far more complex data-mining jobs already, it will happen in recruitment sooner or later, the entry cost just needs to drop.
I reckon a 4% margin will kill off pretty much every agency that is not heavily computerised. A well known agency already operates with a 5% margin on one of the big banking contracts and thats not sustainable using real people IMHO.
What won't be computerised is the high-end roles where a quality contact book and ability to nurture relationships along with the ability to negotiate, this will never be replaced but the vast majority (90%+) of recruitment consultants don't operate in this space.
Edited by Carl_Docklands on Tuesday 17th February 15:06
Carl_Docklands said:
Cold calls are not a problem for me. Radio silence is the problem, on senior roles where the pool is small and I know agent will need to speak to me at some point in the future, in this scenario it is best to nuture a relationship with me rather than burn bridges from the get go. And yet they do, repeatedly and its not just junior CV filters doing this, its senior consultants.
Like I say, I don't have a problem with the good ones but there is no solution to the bad ones other than to introduce a disruptive technology , collapse in the margins and increase the speed of finding high-quality candidates beyond what humans can do. This will drop the head-count in recruitment to a far lower level. It has happened in far more complex data-mining jobs already, it will happen in recruitment sooner or later, the entry cost just needs to drop.
I reckon a 4% margin will kill off pretty much every agency that is not heavily computerised. A well known agency already operates with a 5% margin on one of the big banking contracts and thats not sustainable using real people IMHO.
What won't be computerised is the high-end roles where a quality contact book and ability to nurture relationships along with the ability to negotiate, this will never be replaced but the vast majority (90%+) of recruitment consultants don't operate in this space.
I think that for obvious reasons you are basing that on your own industry, i.e. computing. The vast majority of recruiters work in different sectors. Recruitment is and IMO always will be a people business which cannot be heavily computerised. If you are talking about 5% recruitment fees then yes that is probably not sustainable in most industries.Like I say, I don't have a problem with the good ones but there is no solution to the bad ones other than to introduce a disruptive technology , collapse in the margins and increase the speed of finding high-quality candidates beyond what humans can do. This will drop the head-count in recruitment to a far lower level. It has happened in far more complex data-mining jobs already, it will happen in recruitment sooner or later, the entry cost just needs to drop.
I reckon a 4% margin will kill off pretty much every agency that is not heavily computerised. A well known agency already operates with a 5% margin on one of the big banking contracts and thats not sustainable using real people IMHO.
What won't be computerised is the high-end roles where a quality contact book and ability to nurture relationships along with the ability to negotiate, this will never be replaced but the vast majority (90%+) of recruitment consultants don't operate in this space.
Edited by Carl_Docklands on Tuesday 17th February 15:06
bad company said:
Recruitment is and IMO always will be a people business which cannot be heavily computerised.
Thats my point though, its not a people business anymore, its a CV word-search sift through, throw as many candidates up the wall as quickly as possible to the client and see one sticks. 'Don't care if I know the candidate', 'don't care if a better one comes along in 24 hours'.Most recruiters treat it like they would tinder.
As soon as this became the modus operandi of your bog standard recruiter, this combined with central data repositories and data-mining opened up the option of replacement with by a robot at some point in the future.
As with traders, not all recruiters will be replaced.
Recently had one who tried to make a connection with me via LinkedIn, apparently he had a great opportunity for me. He obviously didn't look at my CV as it was for my company and he was telling I would be on 10k more than I currently am. I looked at his background (more than what he did for mine) and he's went from working for Aberdeen Audi straight to being an Aerospace Specialist. Didn't even bother replying back to him.
Carl_Docklands said:
Thats my point though, its not a people business anymore, its a CV word-search sift through, throw as many candidates up the wall as quickly as possible to the client and see one sticks. 'Don't care if I know the candidate', 'don't care if a better one comes along in 24 hours'.
Most recruiters treat it like they would tinder.
As soon as this became the modus operandi of your bog standard recruiter, this combined with central data repositories and data-mining opened up the option of replacement with by a robot at some point in the future.
As with traders, not all recruiters will be replaced.
If recruiters are throwing too many CV's to you it is possibly because you have instructed too many of them. If it's on a contingency fee deal they are going to send you any candidates who even slightly match the job in case one of their competitors get in first with the same candidate.Most recruiters treat it like they would tinder.
As soon as this became the modus operandi of your bog standard recruiter, this combined with central data repositories and data-mining opened up the option of replacement with by a robot at some point in the future.
As with traders, not all recruiters will be replaced.
The process becomes a CV race with little motivation for a professional approach.
I arranged to meet a qualtiy candidate to discuss a particular role with a client firm. Having taken the time to do this I found that another RC put him in for the same job the day before having hardly even spoken with him.
What am I likely to do next time I identify a good candidate?
bad company said:
I arranged to meet a qualtiy candidate to discuss a particular role with a client firm. Having taken the time to do this I found that another RC put him in for the same job the day before having hardly even spoken with him.
What am I likely to do next time I identify a good candidate?
Now as a Freelance Engineering Contractor I make a rule of NOT pissing around with meeting any RC. What am I likely to do next time I identify a good candidate?
You've got my CV, you've spoken to me, the first available bum on the seat with more or less the right skills will get the job. No closing date. The opposite. Get my CV to your client as soon as possible, and I'll make myself available for interview tomorrow if they are desperate.
I realise that might be the opposite of the world you live in. But I've had a few "prelim interviews" where the whole thing was pointless in the extreme. (One had me traveling 100 miles just for the titillation of his ego, and as far as I could see, the job he described on the phone didn't actually exist)
My OH just had an e-mail from an HR person thanking her for her job application ... except she hadn't applied for the job, not least because it's far more junior than the position she's at now and paying about half of what she's currently on. She asked the HR person where the application had come from and was told. Then she got in touch with the recruiter who said they're not responsible for applications made without the permission of the person whose name the application is being made in! The recruiter's attitude was basically "our s
t doesn't smell". I can't believe this is legal!
What's really disturbing is that you could be turned down for an interview for a job that you really want, and could do brilliantly, if the company has a policy of not interviewing the same person more than once within a certain time frame, all because some dhead recruiter has already submitted your details to the same potential employer without telling you!
t doesn't smell". I can't believe this is legal!What's really disturbing is that you could be turned down for an interview for a job that you really want, and could do brilliantly, if the company has a policy of not interviewing the same person more than once within a certain time frame, all because some d
head recruiter has already submitted your details to the same potential employer without telling you!Edited by MitchT on Monday 9th March 12:59
Pit Pony said:
Now as a Freelance Engineering Contractor I make a rule of NOT pissing around with meeting any RC.
You've got my CV, you've spoken to me, the first available bum on the seat with more or less the right skills will get the job. No closing date. The opposite. Get my CV to your client as soon as possible, and I'll make myself available for interview tomorrow if they are desperate.
I realise that might be the opposite of the world you live in. But I've had a few "prelim interviews" where the whole thing was pointless in the extreme. (One had me traveling 100 miles just for the titillation of his ego, and as far as I could see, the job he described on the phone didn't actually exist)
In the bulk of contracting and temping this approach will currently work fine for you. When you get into proper interim rather than just cover or project resource they call interim then it might not work for you. Likewise for permanent roles where the client and candidate criteria/expectation may be different then it might not work. Getting a bum on a seat isn't the main criteria when companies may be looking at leadership roles, a specific problem to fix, succession planning, etc.You've got my CV, you've spoken to me, the first available bum on the seat with more or less the right skills will get the job. No closing date. The opposite. Get my CV to your client as soon as possible, and I'll make myself available for interview tomorrow if they are desperate.
I realise that might be the opposite of the world you live in. But I've had a few "prelim interviews" where the whole thing was pointless in the extreme. (One had me traveling 100 miles just for the titillation of his ego, and as far as I could see, the job he described on the phone didn't actually exist)
MitchT said:
My OH just had an e-mail from an HR person thanking her for her job application ... except she hadn't applied for the job, not least because it's far more junior than the position she's at now and paying about half of what she's currently on. She asked the HR person where the application had come from and was told. Then she got in touch with the recruiter who said they're not responsible for applications made without the permission of the person whose name the application is being made in! The recruiter's attitude was basically "our st doesn't smell". I can't believe this is legal!
What's really disturbing is that you could be turned down for an interview for a job that you really want, and could do brilliantly, if the company has a policy of not interviewing the same person more than once within a certain time frame, all because some dhead recruiter has already submitted your details to the same potential employer without telling you!
She needs to remind the recruiter that they need to comply with the Employment Agencies Act (EAA). If they are REC members report them here - t doesn't smell". I can't believe this is legal!What's really disturbing is that you could be turned down for an interview for a job that you really want, and could do brilliantly, if the company has a policy of not interviewing the same person more than once within a certain time frame, all because some d
head recruiter has already submitted your details to the same potential employer without telling you!Edited by MitchT on Monday 9th March 12:59
https://www.rec.uk.com/home
Your wife could also make a data protection request to see where else they may have made applications for her. Then ask them to remove her details from their records.
EC225Eng said:
Recently had one who tried to make a connection with me via LinkedIn, apparently he had a great opportunity for me. He obviously didn't look at my CV as it was for my company and he was telling I would be on 10k more than I currently am. I looked at his background (more than what he did for mine) and he's went from working for Aberdeen Audi straight to being an Aerospace Specialist. Didn't even bother replying back to him.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm a nobody, I'm not on anyone's radar in particular for what I do day to day. I'm happy enough with thatWhat's funny is telling agents as a candidate that you're not using agents for recruitment. They really dont know what to say when a candidate does it. I dont get some smug satisfaction w
k out of it or anything, I'm genuinely not interested in using an agent for finding my next role. I'll network and approach the companies I want to work with who I'm already in contact with anywayMy take on all of this is that we all continue to use bad agencies (clients, permits and contractors/interims) if they can provide us with what we want. When I recruited people I would use agencies, some were better than others in terms of their ethics, but ultimately the one with the best candidate got the business and often that was the least scrupulous (IMHO). I reckon in our own sweet ways we all contribute to bad practice by continuing to engage with bad agents and then moan when we get stiffed.
Many years ago agencies had to be licensed, all that stopped with the passion for deregulation during the Thatcher years, not that the licensing amounted to much then, but had it continued then it may have provided a platform for quality standards. As it stands recruitment companies are no better or worse than any other service company, the sad fact is that the good are few and far between in any sector and I include the 'proper' professions in that, I've met plenty of greedy lawyers and accountants happy to put profit before all else.
Many years ago agencies had to be licensed, all that stopped with the passion for deregulation during the Thatcher years, not that the licensing amounted to much then, but had it continued then it may have provided a platform for quality standards. As it stands recruitment companies are no better or worse than any other service company, the sad fact is that the good are few and far between in any sector and I include the 'proper' professions in that, I've met plenty of greedy lawyers and accountants happy to put profit before all else.
Blue62 said:
My take on all of this is that we all continue to use bad agencies (clients, permits and contractors/interims) if they can provide us with what we want. When I recruited people I would use agencies, some were better than others in terms of their ethics, but ultimately the one with the best candidate got the business and often that was the least scrupulous (IMHO). I reckon in our own sweet ways we all contribute to bad practice by continuing to engage with bad agents and then moan when we get stiffed.
Many years ago agencies had to be licensed, all that stopped with the passion for deregulation during the Thatcher years, not that the licensing amounted to much then, but had it continued then it may have provided a platform for quality standards. As it stands recruitment companies are no better or worse than any other service company, the sad fact is that the good are few and far between in any sector and I include the 'proper' professions in that, I've met plenty of greedy lawyers and accountants happy to put profit before all else.
All very true. One of the problems is that employers will instruct several agencies on the same job so they compete on s 'CV race' basis.Many years ago agencies had to be licensed, all that stopped with the passion for deregulation during the Thatcher years, not that the licensing amounted to much then, but had it continued then it may have provided a platform for quality standards. As it stands recruitment companies are no better or worse than any other service company, the sad fact is that the good are few and far between in any sector and I include the 'proper' professions in that, I've met plenty of greedy lawyers and accountants happy to put profit before all else.
We always promised our candidates that we would not send their CV to any firm without discussing it with them and gaining consent first. Several times we lost out because by the time spoke with the candidate another agent had simply sent a cv. Bit of a 'scattergun' approach.
bad company said:
Blue62 said:
My take on all of this is that we all continue to use bad agencies (clients, permits and contractors/interims) if they can provide us with what we want. When I recruited people I would use agencies, some were better than others in terms of their ethics, but ultimately the one with the best candidate got the business and often that was the least scrupulous (IMHO). I reckon in our own sweet ways we all contribute to bad practice by continuing to engage with bad agents and then moan when we get stiffed.
Many years ago agencies had to be licensed, all that stopped with the passion for deregulation during the Thatcher years, not that the licensing amounted to much then, but had it continued then it may have provided a platform for quality standards. As it stands recruitment companies are no better or worse than any other service company, the sad fact is that the good are few and far between in any sector and I include the 'proper' professions in that, I've met plenty of greedy lawyers and accountants happy to put profit before all else.
All very true. One of the problems is that employers will instruct several agencies on the same job so they compete on s 'CV race' basis.Many years ago agencies had to be licensed, all that stopped with the passion for deregulation during the Thatcher years, not that the licensing amounted to much then, but had it continued then it may have provided a platform for quality standards. As it stands recruitment companies are no better or worse than any other service company, the sad fact is that the good are few and far between in any sector and I include the 'proper' professions in that, I've met plenty of greedy lawyers and accountants happy to put profit before all else.
We always promised our candidates that we would not send their CV to any firm without discussing it with them and gaining consent first. Several times we lost out because by the time spoke with the candidate another agent had simply sent a cv. Bit of a 'scattergun' approach.
If one agent sprays a load of C.V's to a client and doesn't follow it up, but a 2nd agent a week later then provides the same C.V to the same client, after interviewing the candidate, following both up with calls and emails and ensuring the candidate knows all that they need to know (company, salary, location etc)...then it would be the second consultant that would get the fee if there was a placement due to properly engaging with both parties. it's all about having a solid paper trail of engagement with all parties.
This exact situation happened to my company earlier this year.
The only good part is, is that there are so many poor Consultants, with no knowledge of REC guidelines, data protection and employment law, that it makes good Recruitment companies stand out among the rest.
billy939 said:
The issue with this is that according to REC guidelines it would not always be the Consultant that sent the C.V first, but the one who engaged with the candidate and client the most/best.
If one agent sprays a load of C.V's to a client and doesn't follow it up, but a 2nd agent a week later then provides the same C.V to the same client, after interviewing the candidate, following both up with calls and emails and ensuring the candidate knows all that they need to know (company, salary, location etc)...then it would be the second consultant that would get the fee if there was a placement due to properly engaging with both parties. it's all about having a solid paper trail of engagement with all parties.
This exact situation happened to my company earlier this year.
Glad to hear that happened with your company. Most will ask the agent first in time with the CV to arrange the interview & get any fee. Some have never even heard of REC.If one agent sprays a load of C.V's to a client and doesn't follow it up, but a 2nd agent a week later then provides the same C.V to the same client, after interviewing the candidate, following both up with calls and emails and ensuring the candidate knows all that they need to know (company, salary, location etc)...then it would be the second consultant that would get the fee if there was a placement due to properly engaging with both parties. it's all about having a solid paper trail of engagement with all parties.
This exact situation happened to my company earlier this year.
A recent REC document had a section on recruitment agency numbers in the UK and at the time of the October 2014 there were 19,440 registered active recruitment agencies in the UK. That’s a huge number and many I’m sure are “lifestyle agencies” and I bet 50% have never heard or comply with standard practise set out by the REC.
If you're not happy with agencies contacting you or sending your CV's then I would suggest you do homework, find the agencies that are focused to your skillset and register with these. Then remove your details from the hundreds of "job boards, CV databases or generalist agencies" and work closely with your selected agencies. If they mess you around, then ask to be fully removed and move onto the next one.
If you're not happy with agencies contacting you or sending your CV's then I would suggest you do homework, find the agencies that are focused to your skillset and register with these. Then remove your details from the hundreds of "job boards, CV databases or generalist agencies" and work closely with your selected agencies. If they mess you around, then ask to be fully removed and move onto the next one.
TJW said:
A recent REC document had a section on recruitment agency numbers in the UK and at the time of the October 2014 there were 19,440 registered active recruitment agencies in the UK. That’s a huge number and many I’m sure are “lifestyle agencies” and I bet 50% have never heard or comply with standard practise set out by the REC.
If you're not happy with agencies contacting you or sending your CV's then I would suggest you do homework, find the agencies that are focused to your skillset and register with these. Then remove your details from the hundreds of "job boards, CV databases or generalist agencies" and work closely with your selected agencies. If they mess you around, then ask to be fully removed and move onto the next one.
Good advice. If you're not happy with agencies contacting you or sending your CV's then I would suggest you do homework, find the agencies that are focused to your skillset and register with these. Then remove your details from the hundreds of "job boards, CV databases or generalist agencies" and work closely with your selected agencies. If they mess you around, then ask to be fully removed and move onto the next one.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff