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.
Location: Chi-Town soon to be NYC and eventually Ireland
291 posts, read 1,075,333 times
Reputation: 371
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by glxyman21
I usually bypass recruiters by only going directly to to the companies. If I see a job that is listed by a recruiter, I call them to get as much information about the company as I can so I can deduce who it is by a simple internet search and go from there! It is beating them at their own game.
This is both stupid for you, and incredibly dishonest. I can only hope that the same thing happens to you, whatever your line of work is. That's a shady practice if you're dealing with designers, real estate agents, recruiters, or anyone else. I've been fortunate so far that I've not been burned yet, and I know the attorneys I worked with saw it as a matter of intergrity as well. They felt that if someone brought a position to their attention, and gave them all the dirty details, and spent time and energy on their questions, then [i]of course[i] they go through that person. It's better for them ANYWAY, because they go to the top of the list and get a real, hard look they might not have gotten. Be smart and conduct yourself with integrity.
This is both stupid for you, and incredibly dishonest. I can only hope that the same thing happens to you, whatever your line of work is. That's a shady practice if you're dealing with designers, real estate agents, recruiters, or anyone else. I've been fortunate so far that I've not been burned yet, and I know the attorneys I worked with saw it as a matter of intergrity as well. They felt that if someone brought a position to their attention, and gave them all the dirty details, and spent time and energy on their questions, then [i]of course[i] they go through that person. It's better for them ANYWAY, because they go to the top of the list and get a real, hard look they might not have gotten. Be smart and conduct yourself with integrity.
Unfortunatley, the recruitment industry is not known for their integrity - and that is no one elses fault other than their own. Why go through a middle man who I'm not sure would pass my resume on (even though they say they will) when I go can directly to the company when I know someone there will atleast read it and consider it? If the position is for a "print company" in " X town" and established since "1985" who is to say I can't go do a google search to see who this company is? The candidates are the ones who have to work for the company, and if they don't want to(or do) it is their right to decide. If the company wanted to be anonymous, they wouldn't publish that they were a print company in X town since 1985 on the internet. It also saves the companies money by not having to pay an agency. If two similar people came in; one from an agency and another on their own I can bet you 10 to 1 they would disregard the one from the agency just from the cost, so why would anyone put themselves in that position?
The recruitment industry gives the run around to many people, including their "clients". They're known for:
Over glorifying job positions to make a "sale"
Putting people forward for jobs they didn't agree to, to make a "sale"
Making up lies, wasting people's time
Pretending to be intersted in you only to gain info to fish for more job leads
Putting the wrong people forward to interview
Charging high fees for little service
No guarantee of low turnover
Poaching staff from companies they placed with for other positions
The only qualification exercise carried out by agencies is a basic word search. The result is that organisations are precluded from even seeing the most relevant, appropriate and talented people due to poor processes.
Location: Chi-Town soon to be NYC and eventually Ireland
291 posts, read 1,075,333 times
Reputation: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by glxyman21
Unfortunatley, the recruitment industry is not known for their integrity - and that is no one elses fault other than their own. Why go through a middle man who I'm not sure would pass my resume on (even though they say they will) when I go can directly to the company when I know someone there will atleast read it and consider it? If the position is for a "print company" in " X town" and established since "1985" who is to say I can't go do a google search to see who this company is? The candidates are the ones who have to work for the company, and if they don't want to(or do) it is their right to decide. If the company wanted to be anonymous, they wouldn't publish that they were a print company in X town since 1985 on the internet. It also saves the companies money by not having to pay an agency. If two similar people came in; one from an agency and another on their own I can bet you 10 to 1 they would disregard the one from the agency just from the cost, so why would anyone put themselves in that position?
The recruitment industry gives the run around to many people, including their "clients". They're known for:
Over glorifying job positions to make a "sale"
Putting people forward for jobs they didn't agree to, to make a "sale"
Making up lies, wasting people's time
Pretending to be intersted in you only to gain info to fish for more job leads
Putting the wrong people forward to interview
Charging high fees for little service
No guarantee of low turnover
Poaching staff from companies they placed with for other positions
The only qualification exercise carried out by agencies is a basic word search. The result is that organisations are precluded from even seeing the most relevant, appropriate and talented people due to poor processes.
It sounds like you've been badly burned in the past, and unfortunately, recruiting, like medicine, law, IT, the clergy, education, and just about every other profession out there has its share of shady practitioners. I will say that the things you've described here are absolutely, completely out of our code of ethics, and the people that I worked with were *extremely* candidate-oriented. Most discussions in my office involved how to make sure that we got the right fit for both sides, but especially how to make sure our candidates were making a good, positive move. I will only say this and then I'm done. The people I've placed are *very* loyal to me, because I was loyal to them. I had more referrals than I knew what to do with in this market. Recruiting has been around a long time, and is extremely profitable- which means that many, many other people (both clients and candidates) see quite clearly the value that we add to the process. If you don't. that's all well and good, but you clearly are not speaking for the "market," which has spoken time and again. Best of luck to you, and I hope you find returned to you all of the kindness, integrity and professional respect that you've shown to others along the way.
Last edited by Mojo Riley; 11-14-2008 at 07:55 PM..
Unfortunatley, the recruitment industry is not known for their integrity - and that is no one elses fault other than their own. Why go through a middle man who I'm not sure would pass my resume on (even though they say they will) when I go can directly to the company when I know someone there will atleast read it and consider it? If the position is for a "print company" in " X town" and established since "1985" who is to say I can't go do a google search to see who this company is? The candidates are the ones who have to work for the company, and if they don't want to(or do) it is their right to decide. If the company wanted to be anonymous, they wouldn't publish that they were a print company in X town since 1985 on the internet. It also saves the companies money by not having to pay an agency. If two similar people came in; one from an agency and another on their own I can bet you 10 to 1 they would disregard the one from the agency just from the cost, so why would anyone put themselves in that position?
The recruitment industry gives the run around to many people, including their "clients". They're known for:
Over glorifying job positions to make a "sale"
Putting people forward for jobs they didn't agree to, to make a "sale"
Making up lies, wasting people's time
Pretending to be intersted in you only to gain info to fish for more job leads
Putting the wrong people forward to interview
Charging high fees for little service
No guarantee of low turnover
Poaching staff from companies they placed with for other positions
The only qualification exercise carried out by agencies is a basic word search. The result is that organisations are precluded from even seeing the most relevant, appropriate and talented people due to poor processes.
glxyman21, you named them so well !!! I'm 1000% agree with you.
Mojo, recruiter <=> real estate agent => you can leave very well without them PLUS you keep lots of money in your pocket.
djkkt6 , Yes, this is what I'm trying to say: HR is at least as good as IT recruiter, PLUS that company saves LOTS of money using its own HR. Am I right ?
It sounds like you've been badly burned in the past, and unfortunately, recruiting, like medicine, law, IT, the clergy, education, and just about every other profession out there has its share of shady practitioners.
Quote:
Mojo, recruiter <=> real estate agent => you can leave very well without them PLUS you keep lots of money in your pocket.
Medicine, law and engineering require extensive, long and tough licensing, which the gov't can take back for shady or unethical practices.
In these fields, you can't practice without a license.
OTOH, recruiting and real estate (i.e. our current mess) require much less or none, which is why they have much less credibility and accountability.
Quote:
I don't disagree with what you're saying, and I don't disagree with your logic. I'm just saying that doing what you do will often times cause you to miss out on opportunities.
The reason above is why I take my chances to not give any references before interview.
glxyman21, you named them so well !!! I'm 1000% agree with you.
Mojo, recruiter <=> real estate agent => you can leave very well without them PLUS you keep lots of money in your pocket.
djkkt6 , Yes, this is what I'm trying to say: HR is at least as good as IT recruiter, PLUS that company saves LOTS of money using its own HR. Am I right ?
You're right that they save money, but that's about the only benefit for using your Generalist as opposed to going to a specialty firm.
Tell me why it is that you think an HR Generalist for a Fortune 500 company can find a better IT guy than a recruiter at an IT staffing firm.
Tell me why it is that you think an HR Generalist for a Fortune 500 company can find a better IT guy than a recruiter at an IT staffing firm.
The HR person would have much more interest to hire good people because they care about their company plus sooner or later they have to deal wiht the new hired people... so they want to deal wiht good quality persons. The recruiters are working for many companies so they do not really care about what persons would be hired by companies X, Y, Z as long as they get the payment for those persons.
However, the key is: both recruiter and HR do not have the techincal skills to start and end the hiring process by themselves, so they need to get involved at least one more person to evaluate the candidate knwoledge.
Am I right?
The HR person would have much more interest to hire good people because they care about their company plus sooner or later they have to deal wiht the new hired people... so they want to deal wiht good quality persons. The recruiters are working for many companies so they do not really care about what persons would be hired by companies X, Y, Z as long as they get the payment for those persons.
However, the key is: both recruiter and HR do not have the techincal skills to start and end the hiring process by themselves, so they need to get involved at least one more person to evaluate the candidate knwoledge.
Am I right?
You couldn't be more wrong about the recruiter not caring about the candidate. Staffing firms aren't just looking to fill today's opening, at least not the good ones. They're concerned with being a long-term resource to their client. If they continue to send over crap candidates, the client will just move on to one of the other 1000's of staffing firms. The staffing industry is insanely competitive.
You couldn't be more wrong about the recruiter not caring about the candidate. Staffing firms aren't just looking to fill today's opening, at least not the good ones. They're concerned with being a long-term resource to their client. If they continue to send over crap candidates, the client will just move on to one of the other 1000's of staffing firms. The staffing industry is insanely competitive.
Final conclusion: We can leave without them ! Tough times, we have to eliminate extra-costs.
You are so very wrong about this. The reason we ask is so we don't risk our reputations and waste our clients' time with resumes they have already seen. I always ask, and I've still been burned on this. It makes me AND the candidate look bad. It's a questions ANY quality recruiter asks.
If you have a vacancy at any given firm, why not ask the candidate if they're interested before presenting their resume to the client? If the candidate's already applied to that firm, they'll probably tell you then or just say no.
A resume shouldn't be presented to a prospective employer without the candidate's consent, anyway. A firm that interviewed but didn't hire me, passed my resume to another firm I'd never heard of. So when Firm #2 called me, I had no idea who they were.
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.
