Candidates - Things To Be Aware Of When Using A Recruitment Agency

1984ReturnsForReal_2

piratefairy wrote: »

In addition, one agency tried to up their fee after taking on a candidate

What fee?

They hourly fee or the final lump sum fee?


If it was the hourly fee that is set by what the temp wants so if they want more money you should expect a request for a rise.

piratefairy

The 'lump' sum 'finder's fee'.

The candidate did not request more money, this hadn't been a temp. position if i worded it wrong, it was a permanent position on a fixed salary. The candidate simply decided the job wasn't what he wanted after all, and walked out.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

piratefairy wrote: »

The 'lump' sum 'finder's fee'.

Well that is bang out of order.

Fair play to you for dumping the agency.

RacyRed

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

What speaks volumes in your continued failure of comprehend the role of a recruitment consultant & agency.

.... If you decide not to give information to a consultant so be it. However if the consultant decides you are deliberately hiding information & not telling the truth because you do not trust the consultant & they are aware of it (& its nearly always quite easy to spot this with experience) you should expect repercussions as a result.

...

No wonder someone wasn't bothered about working with you.

So we either provide information which may be used to our detriment, or we don't, and that is also used against us. Nice.

Who did I say wasn't bothered about working with me?

danothy

Having gone through this thread it seems to me that those on the side of recruitment agencies are seeking to justify the practices described here (and maybe successfully so when it comes to chasing employment opportunities etc.) however there appears to be a significant number of people (notably the people who use their service) that don't like these practices and highlight instances which are extreme enough that they could be classified as immoral in some respects.

Additionally I find it very distasteful that personal comments are made about people posting here regarding their "traits", especially as that seems to be being used as a justification for why these people deserve the treatment they have described. In my opinion you shouldn't treat people badly because they fail to meet some criteria you specify, I feel you should instead choose not to deal with them.

Personally I have never lied on a CV, to an employer, recruitment agent or even to an estate agent when house hunting. I'm certain that there are people who have done this but they are making their own bed and will have to lie in it, and it does not make it right to take advantage of them for your own gain because of it.

I have however on a number of occasions been both lied to and let down by recruitment agents (and estate agents), the consequences ranging from a waste of my time to me suffering financial loss. These experiences greatly outweigh the good experiences. (Incidentally none of the good experiences occurred with Hays).

My overwhelming personal experience is negative with recruitment agencies and agents. Coupling that with the descriptions of the opportunistic nature of the industry described within this thread and the apparent ability for certain people working within it to justify the forwarding of their own self interest at the cost of another person's I feel I am justified in saying that the risk of being metaphorically stabbed in the back by a recruitment service is real and therefore I agree with the sentiment of the thread, i.e. that it's advisable not to provide information beyond your requirements, availability and abilities to recruitment agents, because clearly some of them (enough of them) are unscrupulous and will take advantage of you when it suits them.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

RacyRed wrote: »

So we either provide information which may be used to our detriment, or we don't, and that is also used against us. Nice.

Who did I say wasn't bothered about working with me?

Like I said before.

You need to learn how to read.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

danothy wrote: »

Having gone through this thread it seems to me that those on the side of recruitment agencies are seeking to justify the practices described here (and maybe successfully so when it comes to chasing employment opportunities etc.) however there appears to be a significant number of people (notably the people who use their service) that don't like these practices and highlight instances which are extreme enough that they could be classified as immoral in some respects.

Additionally I find it very distasteful that personal comments are made about people posting here regarding their "traits", especially as that seems to be being used as a justification for why these people deserve the treatment they have described. In my opinion you shouldn't treat people badly because they fail to meet some criteria you specify, I feel you should instead choose not to deal with them instead.

Personally I have never lied on a CV, to an employer, recruitment agent or even to an estate agent when house hunting. I'm certain that there are people who have done this but they are making their own bed and will have to lie in it, and does make it right to take advantage of them for your own gain because of it.

I have however on a number of occasions been both lied to and let down by recruitment agents (and estate agents), the consequences ranging from a waste of my time to me suffering financial loss. These experiences greatly outweigh the good experiences. (Incidentally none of the good experiences occurred with Hays).

My overwhelming personal experience is negative with recruitment agencies and agents. Coupling that with the descriptions of the opportunistic nature of the industry described within this thread and the apparent ability for certain people working within it to justify the forwarding of their own self interest at the cost of another person's I feel I am justified in saying that the risk of being metaphorically stabbed in the back by a recruitment service is real and therefore I agree with the sentiment of the thread, i.e. that it's advisable not to provide information beyond your requirements, availability and abilities to recruitment agents, because clearly some of them (enough of them) are unscrupulous and will take advantage of you when it suits them.

Its a shame you can turn around all you said & relate it all to "candidates"

danothy

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Its a shame you can turn around all you said & relate it all to "candidates"

A candidate who misrepresents their self might be in your opinion not worth dealing with, however that deception reflects on them and wastes both your time, where as (as per the reports in this thread) a recruitment agent attempting to convince an employer to rescind a job offer they have made to someone in favour of a third party candidate for the benefit of the agent goes beyond poor service and becomes malicious when justified though criticism of the original candidate.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

danothy wrote: »

A candidate who misrepresents their self might be in your opinion not worth dealing with, however that deception reflects on them and wastes both your time, where as (as per the reports in this thread) a recruitment agent attempting to convince an employer to rescind a job offer they have made to someone in favour of a third party candidate for the benefit of the agent goes beyond poor service and becomes malicious when justified though criticism of the original candidate.

Agreed.


But I think you should have another flick through to see exactly what else the original poster has also written.

RacyRed

danothy wrote: »

A candidate who misrepresents their self might be in your opinion not worth dealing with, however that deception reflects on them and wastes both your time, where as (as per the reports in this thread) a recruitment agent attempting to convince an employer to rescind a job offer they have made to someone in favour of a third party candidate for the benefit of the agent goes beyond poor service and becomes malicious when justified though criticism of the original candidate.

Very well said. Thank you.