Trials of Finding New Job

[PorkInsider]

Thesprucegoose said:

My temp job I've had last 1.5 years may be coming to an end. Been applying for everything and anything but nothing back, very frustrating these are low salary roles.

Sorry to hear that, mate. Must be very demoralising.

Is it a specific line of work you're looking for?

[bad company]

Flibble said:

Countdown said:

I use RC all the time for agency staff. Lots of businesses need short-term staff quickly. I don't think anybody disputes that so there will always be a need for Recruitment Companies. However what leaves a sour taste in the mouth is the scummy way in which they operate. They will lie to you blatantly in the hope they don't get found out, and if they DO get found out, they'll blame the candidate.

bad company said:

On various occasions we were accused of the stuff you outline. Usually it was because the candidate lied to us.

Perhaps the reason was because the candidate lied?

[Countdown]

bad company said:

Flibble said:

Countdown said:

I use RC all the time for agency staff. Lots of businesses need short-term staff quickly. I don't think anybody disputes that so there will always be a need for Recruitment Companies. However what leaves a sour taste in the mouth is the scummy way in which they operate. They will lie to you blatantly in the hope they don't get found out, and if they DO get found out, they'll blame the candidate.

bad company said:

On various occasions we were accused of the stuff you outline. Usually it was because the candidate lied to us.

Perhaps the reason was because the candidate lied?

You can normally tell if it's the candidate that's lied (waffling, dissimulation, vague answer) or if the Agency has lied and not told them (shock, surprise, confusion, puzzled looks).

[bad company]

Countdown said:

You can normally tell if it's the candidate that's lied (waffling, dissimulation, vague answer) or if the Agency has lied and not told them (shock, surprise, confusion, puzzled looks).

Absolutely, of course you can tell 100%. It’s really easy to tell.

At interview stage the client is there and so is the candidate but not the agent. Guess who it’s easy to blame if something isn’t right.

Having said that the agency should be checking as far as possible that the information given by the candidate is accurate. As I said previously my firm worked with the legal profession so before making an introduction we had to check that the lawyer (usually a solicitor) had the qualifications, the date they qualified, whether they had a disciplinary record and that they held a current practicing certificate. Rather like checking that someone going for a driving job has the required license. I can’t believe other agents didn’t do similar and certainly didn’t hear of such complaints.

Edited by bad company on Friday 23 August 17:00

[Countdown]

bad company said:

Countdown said:

You can normally tell if it's the candidate that's lied (waffling, dissimulation, vague answer) or if the Agency has lied and not told them (shock, surprise, confusion, puzzled looks).

Absolutely, of course you can tell 100%. It’s really easy to tell.

Not 100% but reasonably accurately. Given your experience as a Recruitment Agent are you saying you can't tell when somebody's lying?

Edited by Countdown on Friday 23 August 18:53

[bad company]

Countdown said:

bad company said:

Countdown said:

You can normally tell if it's the candidate that's lied (waffling, dissimulation, vague answer) or if the Agency has lied and not told them (shock, surprise, confusion, puzzled looks).

Absolutely, of course you can tell 100%. It’s really easy to tell. [/url]

Not 100% but reasonably accurately. Given your experience as a Recruitment Agent are you saying you can't tell when somebody's lying?

No I can’t always and reliably tell if someone’s lying, that’s pretty much impossible to do. That’s why I checked.

If I sent a candidate for an interview for Corporate Solicitor job and it interview it transpired that his only qualification was an ‘O’ Level in woodwork I’d look a bit silly. That’s obviously an extreme and ridiculous example but seriously if the agent misrepresented the candidate what are the chances of a successful placement? Almost none I’d say.

Edited by bad company on Friday 23 August 17:57

[Countdown]

bad company said:

No I can’t always and reliably tell if someone’s lying, that’s pretty much impossible to do. That’s why I checked.

I can’t always but when it’s a technical question I can.

[quote-Bad Company]If I sent a candidate for an interview for Corporate Solicitor job and it interview it transpired that his only qualification was an ‘O’ Level in woodwork I’d look a bit silly. That’s obviously an extreme and ridiculous example but seriously if the agent misrepresented the candidate what are the chances of a successful placement? Almost none I’d say.

Apples and pears. If the client asks the Agency to send somebody with “advanced Excel and 5 years experience of preparing annual accounts” some of the less reputable ones will send somebody who doesn’t have that amount of experience just in case the client is desperate enough. That’s just annoying; its a waste of the Client’s time and the candidate’s time. The interviewer points to the CV and the candidate apologises, explaining they had never told the Agency that. That’s why I much prefer to see the candidates own CVs rather than the Agency ones.

One one occasions Ive received an anonymised CV from an Agnecy and a direct application from the candidate for the same role. They were broadly similar CVs but the agency one had been embellished, just slightly., but enough to show the tricks agencies use to give their candidates an advantage.

[bad company]

Countdown said:

One one occasions Ive received an anonymised CV from an Agnecy and a direct application from the candidate for the same role. They were broadly similar CVs but the agency one had been embellished, just slightly., but enough to show the tricks agencies use to give their candidates an advantage.

What do you mean by ‘embellished’? We moved stuff on cv’s but never added experience/qualifications that weren’t there.

An example springs to mind of a Legal Executive who listed their A levels/qualifications in an order with their violin grades at the top. Our version of the CV had the same content but the most relevant stuff st the top. Was that ‘scummy’ in your opinion?

[fridaypassion]

It's a shame you can't monetise arguing on the internet there would be no unemployment on here!

[Fer]

fridaypassion said:

It's a shame you can't monetise arguing on the internet there would be no unemployment on here!

Oh yes there would!


Or for the grammatically challenged - Oh yes their wood.

[rscott]

bad company said:

Countdown said:

One one occasions Ive received an anonymised CV from an Agnecy and a direct application from the candidate for the same role. They were broadly similar CVs but the agency one had been embellished, just slightly., but enough to show the tricks agencies use to give their candidates an advantage.

What do you mean by ‘embellished’? We moved stuff on cv’s but never added experience/qualifications that weren’t there.

An example springs to mind of a Legal Executive who listed their A levels/qualifications in an order with their violin grades at the top. Our version of the CV had the same content but the most relevant stuff st the top. Was that ‘scummy’ in your opinion?

I've seen similar behaviour by recruiters - we had a candidate who, according to the recruitment agency CV, had several years experience in developing and supporting a commercial grade PHP application. However, his own CV (which he helpfully brought with him) showed he'd actually just done some coding at home and built a really simple website.

Or the "formal Google Cloud training" which actually meant they'd attended a single freebie Google day where you got a certificate just for attending.

Then there's the utterly inappropriate candidates - we asked for minimum X years commercial experience in Java & PLSQL, they send us CVs for a C# / SQL Server guy.

Seen the same behaviour from several agencies - not a single one seems any less useless than the others.

[bad company]

rscott said:

I've seen similar behaviour by recruiters - we had a candidate who, according to the recruitment agency CV, had several years experience in developing and supporting a commercial grade PHP application. However, his own CV (which he helpfully brought with him) showed he'd actually just done some coding at home and built a really simple website.

Or the "formal Google Cloud training" which actually meant they'd attended a single freebie Google day where you got a certificate just for attending.

Then there's the utterly inappropriate candidates - we asked for minimum X years commercial experience in Java & PLSQL, they send us CVs for a C# / SQL Server guy.

Seen the same behaviour from several agencies - not a single one seems any less useless than the others.

So why do you use agents if they’re so terrible?

[Countdown]

bad company said:

So why do you use agents if they’re so terrible?

Not ALL of them behave in a scummy fashion, some are quite honest. Also it’s the quickest way of finding temporary or specialist staff.

[bad company]

Countdown said:

bad company said:

So why do you use agents if they’re so terrible?

Not ALL of them behave in a scummy fashion, some are quite honest. Also it’s the quickest way of finding temporary or specialist staff.

I’d say MOST are honest. Otherwise they wouldn’t last long.

[rscott]

bad company said:

rscott said:

I've seen similar behaviour by recruiters - we had a candidate who, according to the recruitment agency CV, had several years experience in developing and supporting a commercial grade PHP application. However, his own CV (which he helpfully brought with him) showed he'd actually just done some coding at home and built a really simple website.

Or the "formal Google Cloud training" which actually meant they'd attended a single freebie Google day where you got a certificate just for attending.

Then there's the utterly inappropriate candidates - we asked for minimum X years commercial experience in Java & PLSQL, they send us CVs for a C# / SQL Server guy.

Seen the same behaviour from several agencies - not a single one seems any less useless than the others.

So why do you use agents if they’re so terrible?

Because it's hard to find skilled technical people. Advertising on job sites is a waste of time - we either get people with completely inappropriate qualifications or recruiters who ignore the "no recruitment companies" statement in the ad.

We have about 8 or 9 agencies who are trying to fill a couple of vacancies - some agencies send through vaguely decent candidates, others just send whoever they've got on their books, whether they match the requirement or not.

[Countdown]

bad company said:

I’d say MOST are honest. Otherwise they wouldn’t last long.

No, as I said before, the two things aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s quite possible for organisations to operate in a scummy fashion and still last long, because there will always be companies and candidates who don’t know what they’re like.

[bad company]

rscott said:

Because it's hard to find skilled technical people. Advertising on job sites is a waste of time - we either get people with completely inappropriate qualifications or recruiters who ignore the "no recruitment companies" statement in the ad.

We have about 8 or 9 agencies who are trying to fill a couple of vacancies - some agencies send through vaguely decent candidates, others just send whoever they've got on their books, whether they match the requirement or not.

It’s frustrating if the agents send cvs for inappropriate candidates though that’s not the same as lying about the experience or qualifications.

If the job’s hard to fill the agents will send you the best they can find. So if you specify 5 years experience dealing with xxx and they have someone with say 3 years experience they’ll make the introduction. That often results in an interview & placement.

If you’re having trouble finding good people why not try a search & selection agent?

By the way if recruiters ignore ‘no recruitment companies’ in an advertisement and send you candidates you’ll not be obliged to arrange interviews through them or pay their fees for those candidates.

Edited by bad company on Sunday 25th August 19:29

[lyonspride]

rscott said:

bad company said:

Countdown said:

One one occasions Ive received an anonymised CV from an Agnecy and a direct application from the candidate for the same role. They were broadly similar CVs but the agency one had been embellished, just slightly., but enough to show the tricks agencies use to give their candidates an advantage.

What do you mean by ‘embellished’? We moved stuff on cv’s but never added experience/qualifications that weren’t there.

An example springs to mind of a Legal Executive who listed their A levels/qualifications in an order with their violin grades at the top. Our version of the CV had the same content but the most relevant stuff st the top. Was that ‘scummy’ in your opinion?

I've seen similar behaviour by recruiters - we had a candidate who, according to the recruitment agency CV, had several years experience in developing and supporting a commercial grade PHP application. However, his own CV (which he helpfully brought with him) showed he'd actually just done some coding at home and built a really simple website.

Or the "formal Google Cloud training" which actually meant they'd attended a single freebie Google day where you got a certificate just for attending.

Then there's the utterly inappropriate candidates - we asked for minimum X years commercial experience in Java & PLSQL, they send us CVs for a C# / SQL Server guy.

Seen the same behaviour from several agencies - not a single one seems any less useless than the others.

I'd rather that, than some bellend who blagged his way into a job straight out of Uni, then blagged through the job for years getting everyone else to do all all the work.
If someone is interested enough in a subject to actually do it in their own time, THAT to me is worth more than 5 graduates who only attended uni for the social life.

I myself i'm an electronics engineer by hobby and by trade, I work for quite a large electronics business, but I can categorically state that my home workshop is far better equipped than where I work, in both tools/equipment AND parts. My tool purchasing isn't restricted by an accountant who thinks that cheap tools should last forever, so when I need tools that actually work I end up bringing work home.

Don't discount the hobbiest, they might not have the commercial experience, but they'll get up to speed quickly and likely exceed expectations, because their capacity for learning isn't limited by text books.

Edited by lyonspride on Sunday 25th August 23:10

[rscott]

lyonspride said:

rscott said:

bad company said:

Countdown said:

One one occasions Ive received an anonymised CV from an Agnecy and a direct application from the candidate for the same role. They were broadly similar CVs but the agency one had been embellished, just slightly., but enough to show the tricks agencies use to give their candidates an advantage.

What do you mean by ‘embellished’? We moved stuff on cv’s but never added experience/qualifications that weren’t there.

An example springs to mind of a Legal Executive who listed their A levels/qualifications in an order with their violin grades at the top. Our version of the CV had the same content but the most relevant stuff st the top. Was that ‘scummy’ in your opinion?

I've seen similar behaviour by recruiters - we had a candidate who, according to the recruitment agency CV, had several years experience in developing and supporting a commercial grade PHP application. However, his own CV (which he helpfully brought with him) showed he'd actually just done some coding at home and built a really simple website.

Or the "formal Google Cloud training" which actually meant they'd attended a single freebie Google day where you got a certificate just for attending.

Then there's the utterly inappropriate candidates - we asked for minimum X years commercial experience in Java & PLSQL, they send us CVs for a C# / SQL Server guy.

Seen the same behaviour from several agencies - not a single one seems any less useless than the others.

I'd rather that, than some bellend who blagged his way into a job straight out of Uni, then blagged through the job for years getting everyone else to do all all the work.
If someone is interested enough in a subject to actually do it in their own time, THAT to me is worth more than 5 graduates who only attended uni for the social life.

I myself i'm an electronics engineer by hobby and by trade, I work for quite a large electronics business, but I can categorically state that my home workshop is far better equipped than where I work, in both tools/equipment AND parts. My tool purchasing isn't restricted by an accountant who thinks that cheap tools should last forever, so when I need tools that actually work I end up bringing work home.

Don't discount the hobbiest, they might not have the commercial experience, but they'll get up to speed quickly and likely exceed expectations, because their capacity for learning isn't limited by text books.

Edited by lyonspride on Sunday 25th August 23:10

Got nothing against the hobbyist coder - that's how I started.

My point was that the agency had "embellished" his CV, completely changing what he'd told them.

[rscott]

bad company said:

rscott said:

Because it's hard to find skilled technical people. Advertising on job sites is a waste of time - we either get people with completely inappropriate qualifications or recruiters who ignore the "no recruitment companies" statement in the ad.

We have about 8 or 9 agencies who are trying to fill a couple of vacancies - some agencies send through vaguely decent candidates, others just send whoever they've got on their books, whether they match the requirement or not.

It’s frustrating if the agents send cvs for inappropriate candidates though that’s not the same as lying about the experience or qualifications.

If the job’s hard to fill the agents will send you the best they can find. So if you specify 5 years experience dealing with xxx and they have someone with say 3 years experience they’ll make the introduction. That often results in an interview & placement.

If you’re having trouble finding good people why not try a search & selection agent?

By the way if recruiters ignore ‘no recruitment companies’ in an advertisement and send you candidates you’ll not be obliged to arrange interviews through them or pay their fees for those candidates.

Edited by bad company on Sunday 25th August 19:29

Rewriting the CV as I described is lying though.

Equally, if I ask for someone with 5 years experience, I don't mind if they say something like "it's hard to find that, but here's someone with 3 years". However, they don't - they send someone with zero experience whatsoever.

We have a policy not to deal with recruiters who can't comprehend that instruction in job ads - our view is if they can't follow that instruction, what other details do they ignore.