Recruiter bashing

wimblewomble_2

The more I read the various threads on how evil the recruitment companies are, the more I want to become a recruiter.

The grievances seem to fall into 3 main sections:

a: the apparent expensiveness of their service;
(relative to the perceived effort required)

b: forwarding inappropriate candidates;
(when compared to the original job description)

c: the hard-sell, pushy, cold-calling, irritants that they are;

There is another component, that of callousness towards the candidates themselves.

I still want to become one!
I reckon I can defend recruiters from just about all the main, general gripes.


Firstly, the expense. Why are the fees deemed to be high?
Why isn't 15-25% of a starting salary acceptable?

If the company doing the looking had to start their own recruiting campaign, the expense of posting to job boards, and assigning personnel to manage the task of finding a new employee would cost as much?
So, recruiters are just off-shored Human Resources, aren't they?
Saves the company from having a dedicated HR department, and the cost overheads they would be.

There is also the gripe that recruiters aren't always savvy with what candidates can or can't do (I have experienced this myself).
But, would an HR person be any more able to interview, for example, an SAP consultant or PHP developer meaningfully?

wimblewomble_2

ok, b:
some lazy recruiters may decide not to spend money on advertising for a specific role, and therefore start data-mining their databases for likely candidates.
this, I think, is unacceptable.
each new campaign should be fresh, and a fresh trawl should be started.
however, this implies a cost overhead to the recruiter.

a question I would like to pose to hiring managers: would you be happy being sent a CV that has been in someones database for several weeks? I mean, surely you want a fresh name? yes? no?

wimblewomble_2

ok, c:
well, they are a business, aren't they?
what particular aspects of the cold-calling is most irritating?
do you not have a dedicated sales team phoning likely prospects?
do you not have Business Development Teams seeking out new pastures?
whats the difference?

katsu

the cold calling is irritating as they keep ringing and waste time - and some are quite rude when I say "no thanks". Some also try to call other people in the company to get them to say yes! Very irritating.

The HR person doesn't decide what SAP person/whoever to hire, neither does the agency. Both work with managers.

That said, I don't bash agencies, I recognise their place - I just wish less of them constantly rang up!

tizerbelle

Not worth the money or hassle - we never ever use recruitment agencies.

Standard clerical/admin/warehousing jobs - jobcentre online - it's free and takes 5 minutes to put the advert up. More specialised roles we'll also use totaljobs or something similar depending on the nature of the role - £50-£100. So that's the advertising costs.

Applications come in and are then shortlisted against the job spec by the HR lead and the recruiting manager - even with 100 cvs this can be done in 2-3 hours - lets say half a day each person allowing for comparing results and finalising interview list.

Interviewing - even with a recruitment company you would want to do that yourself. I don't know anyone that would appoint a candidate simply on the basis that the recruitment agency say they are the best candidate. So no savings there anyway.

So compare the recruiters 20% on a very modest £15k salary - cost £3000 against very generous inhouse costs of £300. See why I'm not interested.

Generally interviews aren't held by HR people alone - in most organisations it is at a minimum a HR person and the recruiting manager who will understand the role inside out and if they don't they'll bring in a third person who does. There is no way on this god's earth that a recruiter is going to understand not only the skills required for the role but the type of personality that will fit in with the team and company culture and yes, it does play a part in recruiting decision - a big part.

No way can recruiters be classed as outsourced HR. They don't have the knowledge or skills - HR is much much more than recruitment.

wimblewomble_2

katsu wrote: »

the cold calling is irritating as they keep ringing and waste time - and some are quite rude when I say "no thanks". Some also try to call other people in the company to get them to say yes! Very irritating.

The HR person doesn't decide what SAP person/whoever to hire, neither does the agency. Both work with managers.

That said, I don't bash agencies, I recognise their place - I just wish less of them constantly rang up!

rudeness is not acceptable; thats a function of the person, not the job.
it is certainly time-wasting if the same person is constantly calling after being given a clear, negative response.

agree that HR doesn't decide who to hire. neither do recruiters. they merely sift the applications and provide short-lists.
my point was that some recruiters have no idea what specific skills actually refer to, and are groping in the dark when sourcing candidates. this can be equally true when considering what an HR person does.
true, ultimately the decision is with the manager doing the hiring.
I suspect I worded my response incorrectly.

in this scenario, an HR person wouldn't necessarily be any better than a recruiter. I was comparing and justifying costs in that example.

just out of curiosity, how many recruiter cold-calls do you field per week?

CCFC_80

tizerbelle wrote: »

Not worth the money or hassle - we never ever use recruitment agencies.

Standard clerical/admin/warehousing jobs - jobcentre online - it's free and takes 5 minutes to put the advert up. More specialised roles we'll also use totaljobs or something similar depending on the nature of the role - £50-£100. So that's the advertising costs.

Applications come in and are then shortlisted against the job spec by the HR lead and the recruiting manager - even with 100 cvs this can be done in 2-3 hours - lets say half a day each person allowing for comparing results and finalising interview list.

Interviewing - even with a recruitment company you would want to do that yourself. I don't know anyone that would appoint a candidate simply on the basis that the recruitment agency say they are the best candidate. So no savings there anyway.

So compare the recruiters 20% on a very modest £15k salary - cost £3000 against very generous inhouse costs of £300. See why I'm not interested.

Generally interviews aren't held by HR people alone - in most organisations it is at a minimum a HR person and the recruiting manager who will understand the role inside out and if they don't they'll bring in a third person who does. There is no way on this god's earth that a recruiter is going to understand not only the skills required for the role but the type of personality that will fit in with the team and company culture and yes, it does play a part in recruiting decision - a big part.

In no way on this earth can recruiters be classed as outsourced HR. They don't have the knowledge or skills - HR is much much more than recruitment.

Don't get why any employer would want to pay these muppets a 3k placement fee for a non skilled 15k a year role.

tizerbelle

CCFC_80 wrote: »

Don't get why any employer would want to pay these muppets a 3k placement fee for a non skilled 15k a year role.

I'm not saying they would but I wanted to give a fair/balanced comparison of costs. For us if it were a 45K role and assuming I upped the inhouse costs we'd be looking at 9k to an agency and at maximum very generous inhouse costs of £2k - still doesn't stack up does it?!

wimblewomble_2

thanks tizerbelle, a fulsome reply.

so, why do some companies spend such a ridiculous amount on recruiting?
I absolutely agree that an in-house, company funded campaign can be cost effective, when you look at the costs of job boards, time spent by personnel on the task, etc.

totally agree that the interview process involves many people.
I think I failed to clearly state my case there. so my error. I will try to re-state it at another time, if the issue crops up.

there are some companies that do fixed flat-fee recruiting, for as low as sub £1K. Why aren't they scooping up all the business?

tizerbelle

wimblewomble wrote: »

thanks tizerbelle, a fulsome reply.

so, why do some companies spend such a ridiculous amount on recruiting?
I absolutely agree that an in-house, company funded campaign can be cost effective, when you look at the costs of job boards, time spent by personnel on the task, etc.

totally agree that the interview process involves many people.
I think I failed to clearly state my case there. so my error. I will try to re-state it at another time, if the issue crops up.

there are some companies that do fixed flat-fee recruiting, for as low as sub £1K. Why aren't they scooping up all the business?

Probably because that will be the level of the service you get: sub-standard.

wimblewomble_2

tizerbelle wrote: »

Probably because that will be the level of the service you get: sub-standard.

LOL
so there is some kind of perception of value then?

companies seeking help would expect to pay a certain level of a fee, to justify to themselves they are getting quality?