Trials of Finding New Job
Discussion
bad company said:
Yes they probably do have 2 databanks of live and potential candidates. We did just the same. We had a live database of people we knew are actively looking, these had been vetted and as lawyers we had checked their qualifications were up to date. We also had a database of who had registered with us previously but as far as we know were not currently in the market for a new job. We didn’t vet these candidates but we would write to them twice a year with a listing of current job opportunities. No doubt some on here think that’s unethical but I really can’t see why.
Isn't that just basically "junk mail" or spam?Countdown said:
bad company said:
Yes they probably do have 2 databanks of live and potential candidates. We did just the same. We had a live database of people we knew are actively looking, these had been vetted and as lawyers we had checked their qualifications were up to date. We also had a database of who had registered with us previously but as far as we know were not currently in the market for a new job. We didn’t vet these candidates but we would write to them twice a year with a listing of current job opportunities. No doubt some on here think that’s unethical but I really can’t see why.
Isn't that just basically "junk mail" or spam?bad company said:
Countdown said:
bad company said:
Yes they probably do have 2 databanks of live and potential candidates. We did just the same. We had a live database of people we knew are actively looking, these had been vetted and as lawyers we had checked their qualifications were up to date. We also had a database of who had registered with us previously but as far as we know were not currently in the market for a new job. We didn’t vet these candidates but we would write to them twice a year with a listing of current job opportunities. No doubt some on here think that’s unethical but I really can’t see why.
Isn't that just basically "junk mail" or spam?ETA I think Flooble made the same point above.
Countdown said:
Did I say it was unethical? Lots of businesses do it (although seemingly less now due to GDPR) and it’s one of the less annoying aspects of business (for me anyway since its quite easy to categorise junk email, others MMV). But I can’t say how spamming inboxes using potentially out-of-date information from a database = “vetted”.
ETA I think Flooble made the same point above.
I’m talking about contacting inactive candidates with current job opportunities. That’s not spamming as the candidate will have allowed that when they registered and there’s a very clear opt out option on the email. What exactly would you like us to have vetted?ETA I think Flooble made the same point above.
bad company said:
Countdown said:
Did I say it was unethical? Lots of businesses do it (although seemingly less now due to GDPR) and it’s one of the less annoying aspects of business (for me anyway since its quite easy to categorise junk email, others MMV). But I can’t say how spamming inboxes using potentially out-of-date information from a database = “vetted”.
ETA I think Flooble made the same point above.
I’m talking about contacting inactive candidates with current job opportunities. That’s not spamming as the candidate will have allowed that when they registered and there’s a very clear opt out option on the email. What exactly would you like us to have vetted?ETA I think Flooble made the same point above.
If you wanted to consider it “vetted” I’d expect you to contact the i each individual, confirm that their details were correct and confirm that they still wanted to be emailed with job vacancies BEFORE emailing them job vacancies.
Countdown said:
You seem to be under the impression that I think it’s a “bad thing” or that “you shouldn’t do it”. As I said above it doesn’t bother me. The only thing I’m struggling to understand is how you could argue that this spamming bulk emailing of people who possibly contacted you years if not decades ago is “vetted”.
If you wanted to consider it “vetted” I’d expect you to contact the i each individual, confirm that their details were correct and confirm that they still wanted to be emailed with job vacancies BEFORE emailing them job vacancies.
We had a database of active candidates who were vetted. If you wanted to consider it “vetted” I’d expect you to contact the i each individual, confirm that their details were correct and confirm that they still wanted to be emailed with job vacancies BEFORE emailing them job vacancies.
These mailings went to inactive/archived candidates who will not have been vetted for some time. I never said they had been.
In your reply to Zippy's post about Progressive HR sending out spam emails, you questioned the assumption that Progressive HR hadn't vetted their database. (see below)
bad company said:
zippy3x said:
https://www.progressiverecruitment.com/en-gb/emplo...
"Over the course of 25 years, we've built up a large database of skilled professionals, from mid-level to c-suite"
You'd think in 25 years, they could have vetted their "large database" wouldn't you.
I mean all agencies are honest aren't they? It's not like they lying and just advertise a role, match a list of buzzwords and chuck it over the fence is it?
What makes you think they haven’t vetted their database?"Over the course of 25 years, we've built up a large database of skilled professionals, from mid-level to c-suite"
You'd think in 25 years, they could have vetted their "large database" wouldn't you.
I mean all agencies are honest aren't they? It's not like they lying and just advertise a role, match a list of buzzwords and chuck it over the fence is it?
bad company said:
We had a database of active candidates who were vetted.
These mailings went to inactive/archived candidates who will not have been vetted for some time. I never said they had been.
Excellent. It looks like we're in agreement. My sincere condolences to the families of all those PHers who lost the will to live whilst reading our O/T discussion.These mailings went to inactive/archived candidates who will not have been vetted for some time. I never said they had been.
Countdown said:
Excellent. It looks like we're in agreement. My sincere condolences to the families of all those PHers who lost the will to live whilst reading our O/T discussion.
It’s probably time to call it a day but no we’re not in agreement. Zippy seemed to imply that Progressive HR should or claim to have vetted everyone they’ve dealt with over 25 years. Maybe they did but it’d be impossible to keep such a database up to date vetted.
Time to move on I’d say.
75Black said:
Since there's a bit of discussion when it comes to recruitment and recruitment agencies, I decided to turn my CV visibility on yesterday on Reed as an experiment. Obviously due to the BH everything was closed, but today within the space of about 90 minutes - 2 hours I received at least 6 phone calls/voicemails or emails (one was actually regarding a role I applied for a few weeks ago out of boredom). I know it'd be a godsend if you're actually looking, but wow it was like blood in the water to sharks. I've turned it off now to stop nuisance calls.
However, are these recruiters actually trying to find me a role or is it pure CV/detail farming?
I would imagine they were very insistent that in order to put you forward they needed your references up front?However, are these recruiters actually trying to find me a role or is it pure CV/detail farming?
It's likely about getting hold of your reference contact details from your former/current employer, if your looking for work or out of work, then there's likely to be a position for them to fill now or in future, so they can get in there fast and sell their services to your boss.
It's really common for them to come to you with very tempting contract positions and ask what sort of money you'd be looking for, what they're really after is for you to tell them what wage you are or were on, I don't know for5 sure, but it's probably so they can start putting up ads for your last job.
king-lujah Recruitment is a rogue industry full of rogue operators and a massive variance in quality. But Recruitment is necessary evil because nobody has come up with a better alternative.
Referrals and "networking" sound great, but few people have a mature network and even then it is unlikely to branch out to new areas you haven't previously worked.
Buyer beware and use caution. It's as simple as that. It's a given that their motivations and incentives do not align with employees/candidates - it's one big sales process - so simply bear that in mind when you are having a conversation with these agents.
Referrals and "networking" sound great, but few people have a mature network and even then it is unlikely to branch out to new areas you haven't previously worked.
Buyer beware and use caution. It's as simple as that. It's a given that their motivations and incentives do not align with employees/candidates - it's one big sales process - so simply bear that in mind when you are having a conversation with these agents.
Traditionally the cost of advertising for a temp member of staff made it cheaper/simpler to recruit using an Agency. However, with AWR, and the Internet making it much easier to advertise, and with jobhunters setting up mailing lists, I think the less professional end of the market will struggle.
lyonspride said:
75Black said:
Since there's a bit of discussion when it comes to recruitment and recruitment agencies, I decided to turn my CV visibility on yesterday on Reed as an experiment. Obviously due to the BH everything was closed, but today within the space of about 90 minutes - 2 hours I received at least 6 phone calls/voicemails or emails (one was actually regarding a role I applied for a few weeks ago out of boredom). I know it'd be a godsend if you're actually looking, but wow it was like blood in the water to sharks. I've turned it off now to stop nuisance calls.
However, are these recruiters actually trying to find me a role or is it pure CV/detail farming?
I would imagine they were very insistent that in order to put you forward they needed your references up front?However, are these recruiters actually trying to find me a role or is it pure CV/detail farming?
It's likely about getting hold of your reference contact details from your former/current employer, if your looking for work or out of work, then there's likely to be a position for them to fill now or in future, so they can get in there fast and sell their services to your boss.
It's really common for them to come to you with very tempting contract positions and ask what sort of money you'd be looking for, what they're really after is for you to tell them what wage you are or were on, I don't know for5 sure, but it's probably so they can start putting up ads for your last job.
In my experience 90% of these fall through, the SOP seems to be a phone call to discuss yourself and skills then send off your CV to the actual employer and nothing happens.
Only 1 recruiter in the last 6 months actually got me an interview and he was proactive updating me the whole way etc.
75Black said:
lyonspride said:
75Black said:
Since there's a bit of discussion when it comes to recruitment and recruitment agencies, I decided to turn my CV visibility on yesterday on Reed as an experiment. Obviously due to the BH everything was closed, but today within the space of about 90 minutes - 2 hours I received at least 6 phone calls/voicemails or emails (one was actually regarding a role I applied for a few weeks ago out of boredom). I know it'd be a godsend if you're actually looking, but wow it was like blood in the water to sharks. I've turned it off now to stop nuisance calls.
However, are these recruiters actually trying to find me a role or is it pure CV/detail farming?
I would imagine they were very insistent that in order to put you forward they needed your references up front?However, are these recruiters actually trying to find me a role or is it pure CV/detail farming?
It's likely about getting hold of your reference contact details from your former/current employer, if your looking for work or out of work, then there's likely to be a position for them to fill now or in future, so they can get in there fast and sell their services to your boss.
It's really common for them to come to you with very tempting contract positions and ask what sort of money you'd be looking for, what they're really after is for you to tell them what wage you are or were on, I don't know for5 sure, but it's probably so they can start putting up ads for your last job.
In my experience 90% of these fall through, the SOP seems to be a phone call to discuss yourself and skills then send off your CV to the actual employer and nothing happens.
Only 1 recruiter in the last 6 months actually got me an interview and he was proactive updating me the whole way etc.
lyonspride said:
Which is recruiter code for "pumping them for information", you don't then hear anything back because there was no position.
Another favourite is the never-ending offers to "come round for a catch-up and see what they can offer us" i.e. we want you to spend 45 minutes telling us the names and addresses of everybody in your team, everybody who works in your HR department, everywhere where you've applied to, everybody you've recruited in the last 12 months, which agencies you used, how much you paid them, which temps you have in.....Countdown said:
Another favourite is the never-ending offers to "come round for a catch-up and see what they can offer us" i.e. we want you to spend 45 minutes telling us the names and addresses of everybody in your team, everybody who works in your HR department, everywhere where you've applied to, everybody you've recruited in the last 12 months, which agencies you used, how much you paid them, which temps you have in.....
I’ve read some rubbish on this thread but that takes the biscuit. An agency wants to visit as they want your business, that’s it. You may or may not want to meet with them but they won’t be spying on you staff or HR records. Do you think the agency people will come with hidden cameras?
Seriously fella, get a grip.
Edited by bad company on Thursday 29th August 10:41
bad company said:
Countdown said:
Another favourite is the never-ending offers to "come round for a catch-up and see what they can offer us" i.e. we want you to spend 45 minutes telling us the names and addresses of everybody in your team, everybody who works in your HR department, everywhere where you've applied to, everybody you've recruited in the last 12 months, which agencies you used, how much you paid them, which temps you have in.....
I’ve read some rubbish on this thread but that takes the biscuit. An agency wants to visit as they want your business, that’s it. You may or may not want to meet with them but they won’t be spying on you staff or HR records.
They want me to tell them, usually with their email addresses and direct line phone numbers.Yes I know they want my business. No I don't meet with them because I haven't got time to waste. What's irritating is the way they dress it up as being "beneficial" to me.
In my old position as an IT Manager, I've had recruitment agents visit me as I'm on their books as looking for new opportunities. It starts out to "see how my job search is going" but in reality they told me there's nothing that matches what I need right now but what sort of positions was I hiring in the IT team and what projects are coming up in the roadmap that may need extra resource. Total sales pitch and information gathering exercise.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff