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

diable

RacyRed wrote: »

Good luck diable. Don't under-rate yourself

Too right 3 month contract would sort me out.......... way hey.......

CCFC_80

diable wrote: »

My agent called me today, have interview on Wednesday slim chance of getting the job but £250 per day has motivated me to go for it.......

Good luck also Diable, hope that you didn't give any information away about other interviews you might have on the go..... Oh unless it was for an agent you can Trust:)

cavework

RacyRed wrote: »

In all honesty, whether of not Lily stamped her foot is irrelevent Cavework.

The consultant tried to undermine the job Lily had sourced herself. That was wrong no matter what the circumstances.

I personally do not think Lily stamped her foot. She warned the consultant BEFORE 2nd interview that she had been made an offer by another company. The consultant told her there were only 2 candidates for the position he was handling so a fast decision was quite likely, and it was only AFTER the second interview, when asking if a decision had been made, that she told the consultant the name of the company who had already offered her a job. It was at that point the consultant tried to pull a fast one. If she hadn't mentioned the name of the company the consultant could not have done that.

No matter how you look at it, that was a nasty thing to do to someone.

No it wasn't nice and that is not the way most Consultants work ..
But she decided not to tell on here about the pre second interview discussion with her consultant till much later . .
Why was he so interested after the second interview ? when Lilly called again to remind him of the deadline she had given and after she was told the decision had still not been made.Why was it, it had to be made that afternoon? She had held back from giving Company 1 a decision up until that day? 24 hrs would not have really made a difference..
She was after all interested enough attend
Why did she then volunteer the name of the Company which she had the job offer from after not giving them a decision, until after the 2nd interview through the Agency?
I'm not knocking the decision she made but like I said ,, my feeling is she played off both employers and got burned by the agency ..
I really hope she obtained the best job out of the two and is very happy in the new position

Sammyantha

RacyRed wrote: »

Sammyantha, this is NOT what is being said. What is being said is that:

1. There are good and bad recruitment agents and agencies.
2. Some of the morally challenged agents can seriously damage your work prospects.
3. A recruit signing up with a new agent may find it difficult to know if their new agent is unscrupulous or not.
4. It is best to be cautious about providing information about other jobs being sought, or providing full reference details with your CV in case this information is used to a candidate's detriment.

If you think this approach is misguided, then how would you suggest that RCs and candidates approach each other to ensure both get the best out of their relationship?

Racyred unfortunately that IS what was being said here from the start, and still is by an unpleasant few. You have only to look at the title, and the references to recruitment consultants being like child abusers and estate agents (an attack on yet another industry), and the tone of posts, to see how even the thickest skinned poster could be put off commenting in here.

You do seem to have had a slight calming influence on this thread over the last couple of pages (well done you!). I notice there are now a few more balanced replies from posters who not only know their stuff, but can articulate it in a manner conducive to progress.

In regards to knowing who is and who isn't unscrupulous, it comes down to common sense. It's always wise to think ahead and reason out in your mind why someone would need to know what other jobs you're applying for, what other candidates do you know who are applying, who is hiring etc. Most candidates put "references available upon request" on their CV, instead of publishing full details for all to see. It really isn't difficult to sort the good from the bad. As Alan posted above, you can check that the agency or agent is registered with the REC. There is also nothing to stop you from contacting their previous/ current candidates for references. To all intents and purposes, treat THEM as your employer in the interim, and do your research on them before making a decision.

Like you Alan, I work for a niche recruitment company (clinical/ medical). Our clients ask us to advertise vacancies specific to their industry, and to then search for, screen, and telephone/ face to face interview potential candidates.

Each consultant looks after one or to at most clients, and builds a strong relationship with them. When we advertise a vacancy, we know everything about what it will entail, and what sort of person is required, down to the last detail. Our clients depend on us, because their clients depend on them. There is a whole chain here, and if one link is bad, the lot will drop. For this reason, I will never put a candidate forward for a role I think they would be unsuitable for (throwing crap in the hope that some will stick as it were), and certainly never put them forward if there were any doubt that the position was still available. If for any reason they are unsuccessful, they will stay on our books until we find them something more suitable, or until they find another position. It is most definitely not high turnover, either of clients or candidates.

I take potential candidates through a fairly in depth telephone interview, which does include covering where they want to work, if they are currently working or applying anywhere else, and I also ask if they can refer anyone else to us who may benefit from our services. However, our company contract prevents us from attempting to "poach" either clients or candidates from any other company, giving out information which could harm job prospects (apart from in the case of failed/ negative CRB checks or references, but then we wouldn't be putting the candidate forward anyway) etc, so this sort of thing just doesn't happen.

You will find that the majority of negative aspects of the recruitment service highlighted in the posts on this thread, are the by-product of a highly targeted, fast paced, commercialised working environment, and not a direct attempt to harm, beguile, or deceive.

This isn't an endorsement of the treatment received by some unhappy posters here, but it is a plea to please use common sense. Treat a recruitment agency like a potential child minder, or anything else you'd need to check out thoroughly before placing your trust in.

cavework

Sammyantha wrote: »

Racyred unfortunately that IS what was being said here from the start, and still is by an unpleasant few. You have only to look at the title, and the references to recruitment consultants being like child abusers and estate agents (an attack on yet another industry), and the tone of posts, to see how even the thickest skinned poster could be put off commenting in here.

You do seem to have had a slight calming influence on this thread over the last couple of pages (well done you!). I notice there are now a few more balanced replies from posters who not only know their stuff, but can articulate it in a manner conducive to progress.

In regards to knowing who is and who isn't unscrupulous, it comes down to common sense. It's always wise to think ahead and reason out in your mind why someone would need to know what other jobs you're applying for, what other candidates do you know who are applying, who is hiring etc. Most candidates put "references available upon request" on their CV, instead of publishing full details for all to see. It really isn't difficult to sort the good from the bad. As Alan posted above, you can check that the agency or agent is registered with the REC. There is also nothing to stop you from contacting their previous/ current candidates for references. To all intents and purposes, treat THEM as your employer in the interim, and do your research on them before making a decision.

Like you Alan, I work for a niche recruitment company (clinical/ medical). Our clients ask us to advertise vacancies specific to their industry, and to then search for, screen, and telephone/ face to face interview potential candidates.

Each consultant looks after one or to at most clients, and builds a strong relationship with them. When we advertise a vacancy, we know everything about what it will entail, and what sort of person is required, down to the last detail. Our clients depend on us, because their clients depend on them. There is a whole chain here, and if one link is bad, the lot will drop. For this reason, I will never put a candidate forward for a role I think they would be unsuitable for (throwing crap in the hope that some will stick as it were), and certainly never put them forward if there were any doubt that the position was still available. If for any reason they are unsuccessful, they will stay on our books until we find them something more suitable, or until they find another position. It is most definitely not high turnover, either of clients or candidates.

I take potential candidates through a fairly in depth telephone interview, which does include covering where they want to work, if they are currently working or applying anywhere else, and I also ask if they can refer anyone else to us who may benefit from our services. However, our company contract prevents us from attempting to "poach" either clients or candidates from any other company, giving out information which could harm job prospects (apart from in the case of failed/ negative CRB checks or references, but then we wouldn't be putting the candidate forward anyway) etc, so this sort of thing just doesn't happen.

You will find that the majority of negative aspects of the recruitment service highlighted in the posts on this thread, are the by-product of a highly targeted, fast paced, commercialised working environment, and not a direct attempt to harm, beguile, or deceive.

This isn't an endorsement of the treatment received by some unhappy posters here, but it is a plea to please use common sense. Treat a recruitment agency like a potential child minder, or anything else you'd need to check out thoroughly before placing your trust in.

and that says it all really ..Sammyantha you really have earned my respect

Sammyantha

williacg wrote: »

What concerns me most is the self deluded notion that any negative accounts of personal experiences are only made by disgruntled temps, when the thread quite clearly states otherwise.

Oh dear. I only wish I hadn't gone back and spotted this. williacg if you would like to point out any posts where I have evidenced self-delusion please go ahead. It also interests me that you quite wrongly accuse me of stating that negative experiences have only been posted by disgruntled temps. That is the second time that somebody on this post has put words in my mouth which I have neither said nor thought.

Sammyantha

cavework wrote: »

and that says it all really ..Sammyantha you really have earned my respect

Thanks cavework but I posted that after reading the last few great posts by considered and considerate posters.

cavework

Neither will I..

ellie101

Sammyantha wrote: »

In regards to knowing who is and who isn't unscrupulous, it comes down to common sense. It's always wise to think ahead and reason out in your mind why someone would need to know what other jobs you're applying for, what other candidates do you know who are applying, who is hiring etc. Most candidates put "references available upon request" on their CV, instead of publishing full details for all to see. It really isn't difficult to sort the good from the bad. As Alan posted above, you can check that the agency or agent is registered with the REC. There is also nothing to stop you from contacting their previous/ current candidates for references. To all intents and purposes, treat THEM as your employer in the interim, and do your research on them before making a decision.


Like you Alan, I work for a niche recruitment company (clinical/ medical). Our clients ask us to advertise vacancies specific to their industry, and to then search for, screen, and telephone/ face to face interview potential candidates.

Okay... I tried to stay off this thread, but as I deal with recruitment agents a lot I decided to.

The advice you are giving is not wholly applicable to how I'd deal with recruitment agents. Is it something that's relevant to your field as it's a niche area? As I'm not sure why anyone should use their common sense when it comes to giving out references to agents or telling them where they are interviewing. I was told very early on by a recruitment agent to never tell another agency where I was being interviewed by (as I'd just done with him) as they would send other candidates in my place. It's a big no-no in what I do. Not only for the candidate's chances but the chances of the agent that is trying to place you. They don't want everyone to know about the possible job it may have taken them ages to research/build up a relationship with the hiring manager.

In the contracting field I'm in, I'd never give out references (until it came to a job offer). Even for permanent jobs, I'd be loathe until an offer was made. It would be a rare occurrence, for me, or the majority of the people I contract with to do this. You just don't do it, it hacks off your ex-hiring managers when they are called by someone trying to get sales leads from them. And yes, it does hack them off, I've also sat next to hiring managers who get cold-called by agencies 20 times a day. It really annoys them.

However, what doesn't annoy the hiring manager is when they are given recommendations, or see that another contractor in another team is doing a good job, they will then ask what agency they came through. Or if an agent takes time to develop relationships, they respect that.

I am aware that agencies will fish for leads out of me, and I'm happy to do that under certain circumstances e.g if I've worked with them for a while, and they are asking me for some details, and I'm confident they will approach someone respectfully.

It may sound like a given that an agent would be respectful and have good social skills, but doesn't always happen, and I don't want to give away my ex-bosses details to someone who isn't putting me forward for a job, particularly after a 2 minute conversation when I can't really tell if someone will then start phoning my ex-boss time and again.

Agree with you about researching agencies especially if I've never heard of them (as I want to get paid, and on time), I'll do this by going on IT message boards. For general experience of how the agency is at finding you the right jobs and how they treat you I look at a bit differently, as you can find that some people have great experiences depending upon the agent they spoke to. Not always the agency as a whole (though if a lot of people are saying they are rubbish I'd be careful).

Sammyantha wrote: »

You will find that the majority of negative aspects of the recruitment service highlighted in the posts on this thread, are the by-product of a highly targeted, fast paced, commercialised working environment, and not a direct attempt to harm, beguile, or deceive.

It may be that the negative aspects of the recruitment industry are driven by the targeted environment some agents work in, however they can be a direct attempt to deceive (because they are not being truthful about why they want information). And they can cause harm... whether that's affecting your chance of getting a job, or annoying your ex-managers. Doesn't matter if it's not a direct attempt if that's the outcome.

Sammyantha wrote: »

This isn't an endorsement of the treatment received by some unhappy posters here, but it is a plea to please use common sense. Treat a recruitment agency like a potential child minder, or anything else you'd need to check out thoroughly before placing your trust in.

I do use my common sense, as I'm sure do others, like when the OP says "don't give out details of where you are interviewing" to an agent. May not be applicable in the recruitment area you work in, but as general advice I'd always say that for IT work.

And I don't necessarily put my trust in an agency, I don't mean that nastily, for me, it's a contract, it's business. I'm polite, and if they are to me that's fine. Not comparable to a future child minder in any shape or form.

I did have a lot of negative experiences, including being shouted at in an attempt to bully me for sales leads (more that once), and someone lying to me about the terms of a job. No point in me going about them as I know not every experience I have is like that. I've learnt from my negative experiences to be careful about what I say to an agent about jobs I'm going for, however I always make sure I'm respectful to the agent too e.g always attend interviews, let them know asap if I've accepted something else etc. And it's generally fine.

I do think that most of the agencies I deal with now are okay. My current one is great.

RedSoleShoes

RacyRed wrote: »

In all honesty, whether or not Lily stamped her foot is irrelevent Cavework.

The consultant tried to undermine the job Lily had sourced herself. That was wrong no matter what the circumstances.

I personally do not think Lily stamped her foot. She warned the consultant BEFORE 2nd interview that she had been made an offer by another company. The consultant told her there were only 2 candidates for the position he was handling so a fast decision was quite likely, and it was only AFTER the second interview, when asking if a decision had been made, that she told the consultant the name of the company who had already offered her a job. It was at that point the consultant tried to pull a fast one. If she hadn't mentioned the name of the company the consultant could not have done that.

No matter how you look at it, that was a nasty thing to do to someone.

Thank you RacyRed. I honestly can't believe that cavework is STILL putting her own little ideas into what happened. I am not wasting my time explaining to her again as you have obviously understood what I said and got it spot on here :beer: