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.
I have applied directly to a company, set up an interview, then was contacted by a recruiter for a job that fit what I was looking for, as the recruiter gave the details, I told her that I already had an interview set up with that company on my own. The recruiter was really upset with me, insisted that I use their interview because they had worked so hard to get me in to a face to face. I figured, that since the company already had my resume and had already set up an interview with me directly, then set up an interview through the recruiter using my same resume and name, that HR really did not know what they were doing and that was a reflection on the company, thus I did not even bother to go.
I have applied directly to a company, set up an interview, then was contacted by a recruiter for a job that fit what I was looking for, as the recruiter gave the details, I told her that I already had an interview set up with that company on my own. The recruiter was really upset with me, insisted that I use their interview because they had worked so hard to get me in to a face to face. I figured, that since the company already had my resume and had already set up an interview with me directly, then set up an interview through the recruiter using my same resume and name, that HR really did not know what they were doing and that was a reflection on the company, thus I did not even bother to go.
G,
You had only the recruiter's word that they had skin in the game.
The company would not deliberately route you through an employment agency/search firm after you had applied to them directly. ***
Why would a company undo a direct application in favor of paying a recruiter to do what they had already done themselves?
The recruiter was blowing smoke and you bought it.
Lastly, if the recruiter did have a bona fide relationship and the referral really was going to go through their agency, why would the recruiter cop an attitude and work so hard to convince you of anything?
If they had a legitimate role in the referral process, they would have informed you of it instead of blustering and whining.
You took the wrong turn in the road and should have instead just hung up on the recruiter and gone on the interview.
And, of course, you had the option you never took- that of calling the company and asking if it was true they wanted you to be represented by the agency.
***Unless it was a retained search. In which case, the ad you saw would have specified the agency as the POC. In a retained search, all inquiries/applications are routed through the retained agency/search firm.
But the ad did not specify an agency so it was not retained and the agency did not have precedence.
Depends! My company uses a 3rd party recruiter for many positions. They end up handling requests from the website and source candidates. I'd stick with the recruiter for now.
Paul, like it or not, that is what happened. The company did not route me through an agency, I directly applied and then the agency also had set up an interview for me, gave me the details etc... they did not undo the initial interview, they scheduled two, one through direct contact and one through the agency. Heck, I've applied directly to a company, interviewed 3 times with 5 different people, at the end, I was offered a position. When they offered me the position, they said that all employees had to start by working through the agency they retained, this was never advertised, listed or even discussed. I advised them that if I wanted to work for an agency, I would have and turned down the job.
Yup, some of us are stubborn and one size jut does not fit all.
Paul, like it or not, that is what happened. The company did not route me through an agency, I directly applied and then the agency also had set up an interview for me, gave me the details etc... they did not undo the initial interview, they scheduled two, one through direct contact and one through the agency. Heck, I've applied directly to a company, interviewed 3 times with 5 different people, at the end, I was offered a position. When they offered me the position, they said that all employees had to start by working through the agency they retained, this was never advertised, listed or even discussed. I advised them that if I wanted to work for an agency, I would have and turned down the job.
Yup, some of us are stubborn and one size jut does not fit all.
Hi, G....
I read your post here three times and still don't understand the sequence of events. I am not being combative, I just don't follow the events as you described them.
I especially don't understand your saying, "...they said that all employees had to start by working through the agency they retained, this was never advertised, listed or even discussed. I advised them that if I wanted to work for an agency, I would have and turned down the job." because unless this was for a staffing position, I don't understand why you say, "...if I wanted to work for an agency..." since you would not be working for an agency, you were applying for a job at the company via the agency.
Anyway, the fact that there were two pathways for the same job (do I have that part right?) seems bizarre but as you say, it happened so there is not much I can say except, '...okay...'.
"...one through direct contact and one through the agency...."
That alone is strange enough to cause me to wonder what that was about.
That the agency was "retained" but there was a pathway to being interviewed and hired without the agency and with the agency is confusing.
If everyone was supposed to go through the agency, why would the company interview you separately from the agency?
Anyway, w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r is all I can think to say.
Thanks for letting me know about this. It's always good to know about another company's way of doing things, even if their methodology defies explanation.
If 'one size does not fit all' refers to how the events above do not fit into the scenarios as I described them, that is fine but it does not justify, explain or provide any rationale for how they managed the hiring process.
A company that chooses to do things in an odd way does not mean I'm going to memorize their weirdness for the future.
Although, I am now forewarned there are companies out there that are even more deviant in their procedures than I ever expected.
Thanks for taking the time to describe what happened.
No it isn't. Recruiters are paid to recruit canidates that the employer wouldn't otherwise have access to. And they don't typically give you the name of the company so things like that don't happen. Plus you're biased because you're a recruiter.
1st situation was as follows, I applied independently for a position, got scheduled for an interview. A day or two later, a recruiting agency I had also been working with contacted me and told me they had an interview set up for me and proceeded to give me the details, it was at the same company where I already had scheduled my own interview, thus I now had two interviews scheduled for the same company. Perhaps you are thinking actual recruiter (headhunter) but I meant more like Adecco, (not sure who they were now) when I said recruiter. The actual employer would have received my resume from both myself and the agency, clearly would have viewed it twice and apparently did not realize they had already seen the resume and scheduled an interview when they got the resume from the agency, maybe the agency hid my name, maybe there was more than one person viewing the resumes at the company, I don't know. In any case it left an impression of inefficiency in the company and I chose not to continue the interview(s).
The other incident, a completely different event, ( starting at Heck in my post) was to indicate that I had also applied directly to a company, went through all of their interviews with several people several times and was offered the position; however, it was at the time of the offer that the company told me all of their employees must start out working through an agency they had contracted with. I felt this was quite deceptive of the employer since I had never been given any indication that this was basically a temp to perm job, so to speak, I would never have applied for it to begin with had I known that fact.
Maybe that clears it up a bit. Sorry for the confusion
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.
Apply Direct or Go Thru Recruiter
