What's Changed In Recruitment?
Discussion
deckster said:
Personal attacks aside, you might like to reflect on the comments on this thread and perhaps start to form some conclusions as to why you were so unpopular that you had to resort to subterfuge to get people to speak to you.
I didn’t. My candidates were very happy to talk but I had to get past nosey/protective pa’s/secretaries.You have the wrong end of the stick here.
Edited by bad company on Wednesday 22 August 23:50
Edited by bad company on Thursday 23 August 09:59
CaptainSlow 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.I used to use recruitem, x-ray etc etc - now using those and contacting is dodgy ground. Companies still will.
bad company said:
deckster said:
Personal attacks aside, you might like to reflect on the comments on this thread and perhaps start to form some conclusions as to why you were so unpopular that you had to resort to subterfuge to get people to speak to you.
I didn’t. My candidates were very happy to talk but I had to get past nosey/protective pa’s/secretaries.Edited by bad company on Wednesday 22 August 23:50
There are few things more annoying than being in the middle of something and getting interrupted by a call from an RA who has lied through their teeth to get past the switchboard or the PA in order to speak to you . They then insist on making stupid small-talk as if they care about how your weekend was, how United were doing etc etc. But, whilst you might think it, you can't tell them to FO because you want to remain polite and professional.
It's just another example of scummy behaviour which only you seem to think is acceptable and justifiable because you were successful. Brother owners are successful. It doesn't make what they do any less scummy.
Countdown said:
If they were "happy to talk" then it seems odd that the PAs were acting as gatekeepers. The PAs will generally know who the boss does and doesn't want to speak to, that's part of their job. And if they were being difficult with you, that's probably because their boss didn't want to talk to you.
There are few things more annoying than being in the middle of something and getting interrupted by a call from an RA who has lied through their teeth to get past the switchboard or the PA in order to speak to you . They then insist on making stupid small-talk as if they care about how your weekend was, how United were doing etc etc. But, whilst you might think it, you can't tell them to FO because you want to remain polite and professional.
It's just another example of scummy behaviour which only you seem to think is acceptable and justifiable because you were successful. Brother owners are successful. It doesn't make what they do any less scummy.
OK, I’ll spell it out.There are few things more annoying than being in the middle of something and getting interrupted by a call from an RA who has lied through their teeth to get past the switchboard or the PA in order to speak to you . They then insist on making stupid small-talk as if they care about how your weekend was, how United were doing etc etc. But, whilst you might think it, you can't tell them to FO because you want to remain polite and professional.
It's just another example of scummy behaviour which only you seem to think is acceptable and justifiable because you were successful. Brother owners are successful. It doesn't make what they do any less scummy.
My clients were very happy to speak with me as I was there to solve their problems. I always made a point of also developing a friendly relationship with their secretaries. If the client didn’t have a requirement at that time that was also fine. The situation is always changing.
I had to use subterfuge to get through to candidates I wanted to headhunt for roles with other firms. I don’t think explaining to their secys that I wanted to headhunt her boss for another firm would have worked.
If you really think that the whole of a £32 billion + industry is all scummy that’s up to you. What’s your view of estate agents, financial advisors, car salesmen, insurance sales, banks etc. All scummy?
Is that agency turnover total or recruitment spend and value total for the UK. REC isn't exactly clear.
Companies spend and recruit themselves massively. I doubt total recruitment spend is well over 30bn. That'd be a bogus figure so it makes sense that it's total recruitment value and spend from all sources.
Companies spend and recruit themselves massively. I doubt total recruitment spend is well over 30bn. That'd be a bogus figure so it makes sense that it's total recruitment value and spend from all sources.
bad company said:
OK, I’ll spell it out.
My clients were very happy to speak with me as I was there to solve their problems. I always made a point of also developing a friendly relationship with their secretaries. If the client didn’t have a requirement at that time that was also fine. The situation is always changing.
I'll reiterate - if your clients wanted to speak to you you wouldn't need subterfuge to get past their gatekeepers. If you've developed a friendly relationship with their secretaries then again, no subterfuge would be required. If your client has a requirement it's far more efficient for them to contact you directly than for you to cold-call them. They know where you are, if they think you're good enough they'll be in touch. Speculative calling is incredibly fekking annoying, that's precisely why secretaries are asked to stop speculative calls from RAs.My clients were very happy to speak with me as I was there to solve their problems. I always made a point of also developing a friendly relationship with their secretaries. If the client didn’t have a requirement at that time that was also fine. The situation is always changing.
The way I see it is really simple. If it wasn't scummy behaviour subterfuge wouldn't be required
bad company said:
I had to use subterfuge to get through to candidates I wanted to headhunt for roles with other firms. I don’t think explaining to their secys that I wanted to headhunt her boss for another firm would have worked.
If you're working for a candidate then why are you needing to go through their work phone? 
Surely you'd call them on their personal mobile or email? And actually, if the secretary likes her boss she would want him to get a better job. If she didn't like him, she'd want him to leave. You're really kidding yourself if you think the secretary is somehow acting in the greater interests of the company in terms of talent retention when she blocks your calls. 
bad company said:
If you really think that the whole of a £32 billion + industry is all scummy that’s up to you. What’s your view of estate agents, financial advisors, car salesmen, insurance sales, banks etc. All scummy?
Not all of them, no. A lot of them yes. That's why a lot of those industries have a bad reputation, too many shysters whose definition of success means using whatever method possible to earn money.Apart from having an additional logo along with Investors in People etc for gravitas I don't think REC actually did anything for us.
I doubt their marketing department has the full facts.
32bn is a massive amount annually. Company 'A' has a recruitment spend of say 100m and it's agency spend is 20m.
We always delved didn't we. Asking how much, with who etc etc. To try and soak up max business.
I'd say REC has taken the top line figures.
I doubt their marketing department has the full facts.
32bn is a massive amount annually. Company 'A' has a recruitment spend of say 100m and it's agency spend is 20m.
We always delved didn't we. Asking how much, with who etc etc. To try and soak up max business.
I'd say REC has taken the top line figures.
Countdown said:
bad company said:
OK, I’ll spell it out.
My clients were very happy to speak with me as I was there to solve their problems. I always made a point of also developing a friendly relationship with their secretaries. If the client didn’t have a requirement at that time that was also fine. The situation is always changing.
I'll reiterate - if your clients wanted to speak to you you wouldn't need subterfuge to get past their gatekeepers. If you've developed a friendly relationship with their secretaries then again, no subterfuge would be required. If your client has a requirement it's far more efficient for them to contact you directly than for you to cold-call them. They know where you are, if they think you're good enough they'll be in touch. Speculative calling is incredibly fekking annoying, that's precisely why secretaries are asked to stop speculative calls from RAs.My clients were very happy to speak with me as I was there to solve their problems. I always made a point of also developing a friendly relationship with their secretaries. If the client didn’t have a requirement at that time that was also fine. The situation is always changing.
The way I see it is really simple. If it wasn't scummy behaviour subterfuge wouldn't be required
bad company said:
I had to use subterfuge to get through to candidates I wanted to headhunt for roles with other firms. I don’t think explaining to their secys that I wanted to headhunt her boss for another firm would have worked.
If you're working for a candidate then why are you needing to go through their work phone? Surely you'd call them on their personal mobile or email? And actually, if the secretary likes her boss she would want him to get a better job. If she didn't like him, she'd want him to leave. You're really kidding yourself if you think the secretary is somehow acting in the greater interests of the company in terms of talent retention when she blocks your calls. bad company said:
If you really think that the whole of a £32 billion + industry is all scummy that’s up to you. What’s your view of estate agents, financial advisors, car salesmen, insurance sales, banks etc. All scummy?
Not all of them, no. A lot of them yes. That's why a lot of those industries have a bad reputation, too many shysters whose definition of success means using whatever method possible to earn money.A client is the end user or contact at the end user, they’re who we’re recruiting for and they pay the bills. No problems calling them.
A candidate is someone we want to place. We had to be very careful and use subterfuge to get passed the secys etc largely because of confidentiality. If we had their mobile or direct line numbers obviously that would have been preferable.
Anyway you carry on in what sounds like a public sector bubble. The commercial world is probably not for you.
bad company said:
I’ll spell it out yet again.
A client is the end user or contact at the end user, they’re who we’re recruiting for and they pay the bills. No problems calling them.
A candidate is someone we want to place. We had to be very careful and use subterfuge to get passed the secys etc largely because of confidentiality. If we had their mobile or direct line numbers obviously that would have been preferable.
That's exactly the opposite to my own experiences. I get cold-called at least a couple of times per week by RAs asking if there's anything that we've got coming up with which they can help. The vast majority of these get stopped by the switchboard or transferred to voicemail. Whereas agencies who want to let me know if there are vacancies that I might be interested in never phone on my work line. It would always be to my mobile or to my personal email.A client is the end user or contact at the end user, they’re who we’re recruiting for and they pay the bills. No problems calling them.
A candidate is someone we want to place. We had to be very careful and use subterfuge to get passed the secys etc largely because of confidentiality. If we had their mobile or direct line numbers obviously that would have been preferable.
In fact your experience doesn't make sense. Why would a candidate put barriers in place for opportunities that would benefit them personally and yet encourage cold-calls which 99% are a complete waste of their time?
bad company said:
Anyway you carry on in what sounds like a public sector bubble. The commercial world is probably not for you.
If you're suggesting that a world where lying regularly to both candidate and client is considered "acceptable behaviour" you'd be spot on.Countdown said:
bad company said:
I’ll spell it out yet again.
A client is the end user or contact at the end user, they’re who we’re recruiting for and they pay the bills. No problems calling them.
A candidate is someone we want to place. We had to be very careful and use subterfuge to get passed the secys etc largely because of confidentiality. If we had their mobile or direct line numbers obviously that would have been preferable.
That's exactly the opposite to my own experiences. I get cold-called at least a couple of times per week by RAs asking if there's anything that we've got coming up with which they can help. The vast majority of these get stopped by the switchboard or transferred to voicemail. Whereas agencies who want to let me know if there are vacancies that I might be interested in never phone on my work line. It would always be to my mobile or to my personal email.A client is the end user or contact at the end user, they’re who we’re recruiting for and they pay the bills. No problems calling them.
A candidate is someone we want to place. We had to be very careful and use subterfuge to get passed the secys etc largely because of confidentiality. If we had their mobile or direct line numbers obviously that would have been preferable.
In fact your experience doesn't make sense. Why would a candidate put barriers in place for opportunities that would benefit them personally and yet encourage cold-calls which 99% are a complete waste of their time?
bad company said:
Anyway you carry on in what sounds like a public sector bubble. The commercial world is probably not for you.
If you're suggesting that a world where lying regularly to both candidate and client is considered "acceptable behaviour" you'd be spot on.2). Where did I say I lied to candidates or clients?
bad company said:
2). Where did I say I lied to candidates or clients?
I was talking about the industry in general and a few others have given examples where RAs aren't honest with either the clients or the candidates.However, to give you a specific example, you say it's acceptable practice to ask a candidate where else they are applying (in order to enable you to contact the other organisations and put forward other candidates).
Do you tell the candidates the real reason why you're asking them or do you pretend it's to stop you forwarding your CV on to them?
bad company said:
2). Where did I say I lied to candidates or clients?
bad company said:
My other ruse was to get round the PA by asking the telephoning for the post room. When they answered I’d say I don’t know why they put me through to you I wanted John Jones, viola straight through as an internal call.
No doubt someone will be along any minute to call me a lying bar steward. Getting through to the right people was/is all part of the job.
No doubt someone will be along any minute to call me a lying bar steward. Getting through to the right people was/is all part of the job.
Countdown said:
bad company said:
2). Where did I say I lied to candidates or clients?
I was talking about the industry in general and a few others have given examples where RAs aren't honest with either the clients or the candidates.However, to give you a specific example, you say it's acceptable practice to ask a candidate where else they are applying (in order to enable you to contact the other organisations and put forward other candidates).
Do you tell the candidates the real reason why you're asking them or do you pretend it's to stop you forwarding your CV on to them?
No I didn’t say that but I’d still ask where else they’d applied. As I said market intelligence is of paramount importance.
Doofus said:
bad company said:
2). Where did I say I lied to candidates or clients?
bad company said:
My other ruse was to get round the PA by asking the telephoning for the post room. When they answered I’d say I don’t know why they put me through to you I wanted John Jones, viola straight through as an internal call.
No doubt someone will be along any minute to call me a lying bar steward. Getting through to the right people was/is all part of the job.
No doubt someone will be along any minute to call me a lying bar steward. Getting through to the right people was/is all part of the job.
Before this thread I was quite happy to believe that not all agents were amoral shysters who will do practically anything in their pursuit of 'success'. Having read (more than) a few of BCs posts, I now discover even the self-proclaimed 'good' agents are, in fact, amoral shysters. Somehow that's quite a comforting thought.
Doofus said:
bad company said:
2). Where did I say I lied to candidates or clients?
bad company said:
My other ruse was to get round the PA by asking the telephoning for the post room. When they answered I’d say I don’t know why they put me through to you I wanted John Jones, viola straight through as an internal call.
No doubt someone will be along any minute to call me a lying bar steward. Getting through to the right people was/is all part of the job.
No doubt someone will be along any minute to call me a lying bar steward. Getting through to the right people was/is all part of the job.
Countdown said:
bad company said:
No I didn’t say that but I’d still ask where else they’d applied. As I said market intelligence is of paramount importance.
If your candidates asked you why you wanted to know what would you tell them?deckster said:
Come now. He wasn't lying to candidates or clients, just to other people so that he can fake his way through the company to get to the people who are clearly salivating to know about his tasty jobs. Semantics are important, innit.
Before this thread I was quite happy to believe that not all agents were amoral shysters who will do practically anything in their pursuit of 'success'. Having read (more than) a few of BCs posts, I now discover even the self-proclaimed 'good' agents are, in fact, amoral shysters. Somehow that's quite a comforting thought.
I never lied. I never stretched the truth or forced anyone to do anything. If I had I would have either lasted 18months or made riches and owned an agency. Before this thread I was quite happy to believe that not all agents were amoral shysters who will do practically anything in their pursuit of 'success'. Having read (more than) a few of BCs posts, I now discover even the self-proclaimed 'good' agents are, in fact, amoral shysters. Somehow that's quite a comforting thought.
Neither was within my moral compass.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff