What's Changed In Recruitment?

[Sa Calobra]

Doofus said:

I met a chap socially the other night, who called himself a Placement Executive, or something. I'd have called him a Recruitment Consultant.

Anyway, he was saying that he had up to 200 candidates on his books at any one time and had never met more than about a dozen of them. Anecdotally, I've heard people say that it's almost impossible to get any feedback from or contact with a recruiter.

In the olden days, the candidate was the commodity that was being sold, and the consultant took an interest in each candidate, advised, and tried to fit them into the right job. Is is just a sausage machine these days? And if so, why? It can't just be because there are so many more people job hunting than there were 20 years ago, surely?

Do any recruitment consultants still treat candidates and clients with respect?

No he's an example of a st recruitment consultant. They've always been like that the bad ones. If he asked you about benefits that a candidate wants to know and you told him sorry we can't offer that (and it was key to the candidate) he definitely wouldn't tell them the bad news.

I did it for 12years (two companies).

The bad consultants last two years before they move into product sales. I've met loads of bad ones. Horrible people. Really devisive too.

[Stella Tortoise]

I think of the larger firms in the same light as HFC/AVCO/Associates in the 80s.

It's a very profitable, if somewhat seedy, business model that tends to recruit a large number of unqualified young people and churn at an alarming rate.

The thick skinned will stick it out for a couple of years and learn a lot in that time which they can take to their new chosen industry and, generally, reap the benefits of their experience.

None of this guarantees a great customer experience to either the candidate or the client.

[Countdown]

Stella Tortoise said:

I think of the larger firms in the same light as HFC/AVCO/Associates in the 80s.

It's a very profitable, if somewhat seedy, business model that tends to recruit a large number of unqualified young people and churn at an alarming rate.

The thick skinned will stick it out for a couple of years and learn a lot in that time which they can take to their new chosen industry and, generally, reap the benefits of their experience.

None of this guarantees a great customer experience to either the candidate or the client.

I think "seedy" describes it perfectly. For example some agencies think it's perfectly acceptable to ask candidates where else they are currently applying on the pretence that "they don't want to send their CVs through again" when in reality it's to cold-call those very companies in order to put forward other candidates.

We currently have two finance roles out to advert. We've seen agencies advertise our roles but with a salary band going 5-10k higher than we will be paying even though we've not asked them. So it's basically a CV farming exercise for them. In the past when we've used agencies we get to the end of the interview and the candidate says "The agency said the salary was negotiable up to £XX k". Err no, the limit is £XX-£5k... so basically the last 2 hours has been a waste of your time and ours

Now that websites like LinkedIn have gained traction it's far easier tapping into a good pool of candidates without having to go to agencies.

[Sa Calobra]

Many agencies approach people who weren't even looking and say TBH I'm on 'x' (market rate) 'Id only move for more'. So the agency to get the candidate to even go for an interview says 'ok 5-10k to move agreed'?

They then hope one of two things will happen..

The candidate goes along and is smitten and doesn't mind moving for almost the same money

Or

They can be talked into taking the role by a nice, affable, outgoing consultant who they built a relationship up with.

Or

The company relents and after seeing the agencies market survey gets additional sign off for 3k more, no more than that Mr agency I'm afraid.

Or a combination of the above.

What also tends to happen is the agency advertises the role with a big uplift to attract more candidates than anyone else and the genuine ones go to them as they think that agency can get them the best money. Even candidates who might havecpplied direct go for the bogus ad.

Meanwhile internal employees see that a similar role to theirs is being advertised for more and kick off.

It all means that agency only works once or twice for a company before being turned away forever.

So that agency then approaches line managers directly in that company hoping to get new business even though they've been told never again.

Pond life is a polite term.

[bad company]

Countdown said:

I think "seedy" describes it perfectly. For example some agencies think it's perfectly acceptable to ask candidates where else they are currently applying on the pretence that "they don't want to send their CVs through again" when in reality it's to cold-call those very companies in order to put forward other candidates.

Obtaining market intelligence from candidates, nothing wrong with that. We certainly did so and it helped us to know who was recruiting for what. That doesn’t mean that we’d cold call though we sometimes we’d send a mailshot. It’s a competitive business.

countdown said:

We currently have two finance roles out to advert. We've seen agencies advertise our roles but with a salary band going 5-10k higher than we will be paying even though we've not asked them. So it's basically a CV farming exercise for them. In the past when we've used agencies we get to the end of the interview and the candidate says "The agency said the salary was negotiable up to £XX k". Err no, the limit is £XX-£5k... so basically the last 2 hours has been a waste of your time and ours

Now that websites like LinkedIn have gained traction it's far easier tapping into a good pool of candidates without having to go to agencies.

How do you know the agencies are advertising YOUR jobs? They shouldn’t advertise jobs they don’t have.

If it’s so easy to recruit on LinkedIn why do you think more agencies are opening and fees are increasing?

Edited by bad company on Wednesday 22 August 13:25

[Countdown]

bad company said:

Countdown said:

I think "seedy" describes it perfectly. For example some agencies think it's perfectly acceptable to ask candidates where else they are currently applying on the pretence that "they don't want to send their CVs through again" when in reality it's to cold-call those very companies in order to put forward other candidates.

Obtaining market intelligence from candidates, nothing wrong with that. We certainly did so and it helped us to know who was recruiting for what. That doesn’t mean that we’d cold call though we sometimes did. It’s a competitive business.

You may call it that. I call it scummy behaviour. If it was normal/acceptable/professional behaviour Agencies would tell the candidates why they were doing it, rather than the BS about "not sending your CVs through again"

bad company said:

How do you know the agencies are advertising YOUR jobs? They shouldn’t advertise jobs they don’t have.

Indeed, but they do. So I know that one of our competitors was advertising for a Group FC role about 6 months ago. They have filled it but it's still being advertised on Indeed and the Agency's own website. The role that we advertised for needed a specific skill mix (SAP, Business Objects, FRS102, Housing SORP). When combined with the pay band that's a relatively rare combination. We didn't ask for Agencies to be involved but they were advertising it without our permission and sending over CVs that we'd not asked for.

To give you another example I've had an agency phone my Payroll Manager asking her if she'd be interested in applying for her own job... she was moving on and we'd advertised on Indeed. they'd obviously picked it up from there and not realised that it was her role that was being recruited for.

bad company said:

If it’s so easy to recruit on LinkedIn why do you think more agencies are opening and fees are increasing?

I'm not sure they are tbh (you may well be right but the last time I went to agencies they were ALL willing to reduce their commission rate from 30% down to 15%) for a multiagency brief.

[Badda]

bad company said:

Badda said:

So any practice that’s used to get a placement is justified because a successful placement means you’re good at your job? That is simply not true and thought processes and arrogance like that are the scourge of the industry.

I could name half a dozen well known IT recruiters from the early 2000s who were financially successful but had awful reputations.

What practices you’ve seen used to get placements are unjustified? I’d like to understand exactly what you’re referring to.

Perhaps you could explain how a recruiter with an awful reputation made money? He had to have made good placements to do so.

Mailshotting CVs by the thousand - awful practice that gets results. Fees achieved but also bad rep.

Advertising for jobs that don't exist to get candidates with niche skillsets to mailshot. Immoral practice that gets results and therefore fees. Fees achieved but also bad rep.

etc etc

I've been on all three sides of the desk so know exactly what goes on and know that financial success does NOT equal quality work. If you still disagree with it, you're naive or in denial IMO.

[bad company]

Badda said:

Mailshotting CVs by the thousand - awful practice that gets results. Fees achieved but also bad rep.

Advertising for jobs that don't exist to get candidates with niche skillsets to mailshot. Immoral practice that gets results and therefore fees. Fees achieved but also bad rep.

etc etc

I've been on all three sides of the desk so know exactly what goes on and know that financial success does NOT equal quality work. If you still disagree with it, you're naive or in denial IMO.

Mailshoting cv’s without candidate consent would contravene data protection law. An agency would be mad to do that.

Advertising non jobs contravenes the employment agencies act but most likely still goes on sometimes.

I do still disagree with you but hey what do I know. I just owned and managed a successful agency for 23 years.

[Badda]

bad company said:

Badda said:

Mailshotting CVs by the thousand - awful practice that gets results. Fees achieved but also bad rep.

Advertising for jobs that don't exist to get candidates with niche skillsets to mailshot. Immoral practice that gets results and therefore fees. Fees achieved but also bad rep.

etc etc

I've been on all three sides of the desk so know exactly what goes on and know that financial success does NOT equal quality work. If you still disagree with it, you're naive or in denial IMO.

Mailshoting cv’s without candidate consent would contravene data protection law. An agency would be mad to do that.

Advertising non jobs contravenes the employment agencies act but most likely still goes on sometimes.

I do still disagree with you but hey what do I know. I just owned and managed a successful agency for 23 years.

Accept that others have high levels of experience.

I'm amazed that after 23 years you never came across companies or individuals who were high billers but had shady practices. So amazed that I don't believe it I'm afraid, despite your protestations.

[bad company]

Countdown said:

I'm not sure they are tbh (you may well be right but the last time I went to agencies they were ALL willing to reduce their commission rate from 30% down to 15%) for a multiagency brief.

Here’s the evidence:-

https://recruitmentbuzz.co.uk/uk-recruitment-indus...

So an agency phoned your Payroll Manager and told her they were calling about her her job. Seriously????? Are you sure she’s being 100% truthful. Agents are notoriously secretive about identifying clients too early.

[Doofus]

bad company said:

Mailshoting cv’s without candidate consent would contravene data protection law. An agency would be mad to do that.

Not if they're anonymised.

[bad company]

Badda said:

bad company said:

Badda said:

Mailshotting CVs by the thousand - awful practice that gets results. Fees achieved but also bad rep.

Advertising for jobs that don't exist to get candidates with niche skillsets to mailshot. Immoral practice that gets results and therefore fees. Fees achieved but also bad rep.

etc etc

I've been on all three sides of the desk so know exactly what goes on and know that financial success does NOT equal quality work. If you still disagree with it, you're naive or in denial IMO.

Mailshoting cv’s without candidate consent would contravene data protection law. An agency would be mad to do that.

Advertising non jobs contravenes the employment agencies act but most likely still goes on sometimes.

I do still disagree with you but hey what do I know. I just owned and managed a successful agency for 23 years.

Accept that others have high levels of experience.

I'm amazed that after 23 years you never came across companies or individuals who were high billers but had shady practices. So amazed that I don't believe it I'm afraid, despite your protestations.

Yes there were 1 or 2 shady recruiters over the years but the examples you give are just wrong. Breaching data protection laws are a CRIMINAL offence with BIG penalties. No matter, you heard about it so it must be happening.

[Badda]

Doofus said:

bad company said:

Mailshoting cv’s without candidate consent would contravene data protection law. An agency would be mad to do that.

Not if they're anonymised.

And the process is 'sold' to the candidate in a certain (shady) way.

[TonyRPH]

bad company said:

Here’s the evidence:-

https://recruitmentbuzz.co.uk/uk-recruitment-indus...

So an agency phoned your Payroll Manager and told her they were calling about her her job. Seriously????? Are you sure she’s being 100% truthful. Agents are notoriously secretive about identifying clients too early.

So you keep telling us how the recruitment agency market is growing, but apparently refuse to accept that there are many cowboys out there?

I'll give you an example of how they operate...

When GDPR was introduced, just like many people, I received an endless stream of emails about it from various (online*) places I had signed up.

But - most tellingly, I received at least 10 emails from recruitment agencies I had never heard of, never given permission to act on my behalf, never even applied for roles with them (I keep email records of every role I apply for).

So what were they doing with my personal information, when they had no right to even store it?

Does that sound ethical and honest to you?

Clearly, they had obtained my data fraudulently, and have probably even been using it fraudulently by mail of CV mailshots (that I wasn't even aware of).

THIS is why I say the the entire industry requires an overhaul and some form of regulation.

• includes forums etc.

[bad company]

Doofus said:

bad company said:

Mailshoting cv’s without candidate consent would contravene data protection law. An agency would be mad to do that.

Not if they're anonymised.

If there properly anonymised so no individual can be identified what’s the problem?

[Badda]

bad company said:

Doofus said:

bad company said:

Mailshoting cv’s without candidate consent would contravene data protection law. An agency would be mad to do that.

Not if they're anonymised.

If there properly anonymised so no individual can be identified what’s the problem?

I think that says it all!

[bad company]

TonyRPH said:

I'll give you an example of how they operate...

When GDPR was introduced, just like many people, I received an endless stream of emails about it from various (online*) places I had signed up.

But - most tellingly, I received at least 10 emails from recruitment agencies I had never heard of, never given permission to act on my behalf, never even applied for roles with them (I keep email records of every role I apply for).

So what were they doing with my personal information, when they had no right to even store it?

Does that sound ethical and honest to you?

Clearly, they had obtained my data fraudulently, and have probably even been using it fraudulently by mail of CV mailshots (that I wasn't even aware of).

THIS is why I say the the entire industry requires an overhaul and some form of regulation.

• includes forums etc.

You have to have input your data somewhere for that to have happened.

Otherwise 10 agencies committed serious criminal offences just to get your details. Does that sound likely?

[TonyRPH]

bad company said:

Doofus said:

bad company said:

Mailshoting cv’s without candidate consent would contravene data protection law. An agency would be mad to do that.

Not if they're anonymised.

If there properly anonymised so no individual can be identified what’s the problem?

The REAL problem here is the mailshotting of CVs (anonymised or not) simply because an agency has said CV on record.

They are mailing out CVs of candidates who are more often than not no longer looking for a job, so this is misleading potential employers as well.

So explain to us how you see that as ethical?

[TonyRPH]

bad company said:

You have to have input your data somewhere for that to have happened.

Otherwise 10 agencies committed serious criminal offences just to get your details. Does that sound likely?

So what you're saying is, that it's ok for agencies to harvest CVs from job boards, even if the candidate did not apply through said agency?

Is that what you're saying?

Because to my mind that is grossly unethical - and I would be extremely disappointed if my CV was made available to just any agency when applying for a job through a particular agency...

[bad company]

Badda said:

bad company said:

Doofus said:

bad company said:

Mailshoting cv’s without candidate consent would contravene data protection law. An agency would be mad to do that.

Not if they're anonymised.

If there properly anonymised so no individual can be identified what’s the problem?

I think that says it all!

Does it. What exactly is the problem, please explain.