Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why can't company HR perform the same function? What's so hard about looking up Linkedin, Monster, for candidates based on requirements then call? Most recruiters are about as knowledgeable as any HR generalist.
Weird thing is that I see a job posting online, I applied to it and get no calls or emails back. Then recruiter calls and tells me about the same job and takes my resume and submit it. I get phone call from the recruiter back the next day asking for in-person interview.
Then I get a phone call 2 weeks later from the hiring company asking for phone interview and I said I've already interviewed in-person with them through an agency.
I didn't get the job because the sign is there that while I am being considered for the role after interviews they still went out looking for other candidates and not narrowing down their selection.
Makes you wonder what HR does these days. They use staffing agencies to find workers and background check companies to vet them. And when a worker quits or is fired, they either send out some form letter or do nothing at all. Sounds like a sweet gig actually. I think all they do is send out mass e-mails to the company telling workers about the holiday party or whatever.
Because HR and the hiring process in general is a total cluster F. Unless you know someone, HR at most companies is going to either lose your resume, throw hurdles at you, find some lame reason not related to your skills to reject you and otherwise make a mess out of something that should be a simple and straightforward process.
I have conflicting opinions on this topic. On the one hand, I totally agree- external recruiters are such a drag on the economics of hiring a new employee. It seems like a company should have a huge team of internal recruiters since all they really need to do is place two or three people for the year and their salaries are paid off in terms of saved recruiter fees.
However, after having worked with internal recruiters, there is just some sort of weird disconnect that seems to happen once they go in-house. They take on the persona of a gate-keeper and just really don't have the motivation to fill roles with the best people.
External recruiters, on the other hand, are looking for business and repeat business, so they fight hard to place really good candidates and do their best to please the client in order to get more business. As a job seeker, I greatly prefer going through an external recruiter since you really feel them fighting for you. Strangely it doesn't seem to hurt the salary negotiation either even though they're getting a big fee.
All that said, my current job went through an internal recruiter who treated me well, like an external recruiter would. So I guess I just said a lot of nothing.
Some HR have recruiters in the dept, some don't. Generally, it's the hiring manager who should take the lead on recruiting for the position, sometimes with HR assist, sometimes not.
Makes you wonder what HR does these days. They use staffing agencies to find workers and background check companies to vet them. And when a worker quits or is fired, they either send out some form letter or do nothing at all. Sounds like a sweet gig actually. I think all they do is send out mass e-mails to the company telling workers about the holiday party or whatever.
Mediate petty disputes between coworkers, deal with unprofessional employees, listen to employees complain about how the company is screwing them. All in all be the hall monitor of the workforce.
Mediate petty disputes between coworkers, deal with unprofessional employees, listen to employees complain about how the company is screwing them. All in all be the hall monitor of the workforce.
There are many recruiters because there are few business costs involved. All you need to be a recruiter is a computer with internet access and a phone.
Many businesses will NOT pay a finder fee unless it's a job that has some high level technical skills that are hard to find. Example: nobody will pay ten thousand dollars to find a mail clerk.
99% of recruiters are sleazy scum. We need plenty of the other 1%. But the math makes the total number 100 times higher than it should be. If we need 1000 good recruiters throughout the USA, but 99% are sleazy scum, we need 100,000 total, for 1000 of them to be good recruiters.
It's a low level job and easy to get into. I think they make commission depending on each successful candidate they submit to a company that gets hired. I've also noticed most recruiters are women, and there seems to be a growing number of these resume vacuums.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
