Probing Questions from Employment Agencies

Takeaway_Addict

wapow wrote: »

You might find that the person on the other end may become impatient and/or try to make you feel silly. Some recruitment agency's do this. They like to play games. Theyre always testing people on the phones. They like to see if you buckle under pressure or if you can keep your cool.
Most are just ****************

This sometimes helps them determine whether they should put you forward for a call centre role, for example.

You're sending out mixed messages then by stating the above....so maybe not wrong?

wapow

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

You're sending out mixed messages then by stating the above....so maybe not wrong?

You mentioned "you" as in "you" the potential employee.

I'm my post, I mention the "recruiter" to play games.

"Your" job is to not fall into their games but keep your control.

Please, look somewhere else to argue as you're not paying attention.

Takeaway_Addict

wapow wrote: »

You mentioned "you" as in "you" the potential employee.

I'm my post, I mention the "recruiter" to play games.

"Your" job is to not fall into their games but keep your control.

Please, look somewhere else to argue as you're not paying attention.

Ummm so if you the 'employee' annoy the recruiter by being obstructive (again whether rightly or wrongly) where are you likely to end up in the priority of the agency....near the bottom of the list of course.

Just pointing out that whilst techincally you may well be right agencies will take the least path of resistance when filling places and only use those that are most obstructive when they really have to.

wapow

That is a generalisation, but it isn't wrong. The possibility of that happening is there most definitely.


Even things like not succeeding at interviews they put you forward to, submitting the same CV over and over again, all this is noted against your account.


If things are not working for some time, just shake things up.

Takeaway_Addict

wapow wrote: »

That is a generalisation, but it isn't wrong. The possibility of that happening is there most definitely.


Even things like not succeeding at interviews they put you forward to, submitting the same CV over and over again, all this is noted against your account.


If things are not working for some time, just shake things up.

See we can get on

wapow

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

See we can get on

I wont be stringing anyone up for making a valid point! Credit where its due and all that. I remain fairly neutral in these conversations. A lesson is here for those who would like to understand how to turn something into a positive. Use it when you're bickering with a recruiter

I did however, initially read your sentence as
"See we can get it on"....

Men eh :cool:

Takeaway_Addict

wapow wrote: »

I wont be stringing anyone up for making a valid point! Credit where its due and all that. I remain fairly neutral in these conversations. A lesson is here for those who would like to understand how to turn something into a positive. Use it when you're bickering with a recruiter

I did however, initially read your sentence as
"See we can get it on"....

Men eh :cool:

Touche....

wapow

Not allowed. You can look though. Just like an art exhibit..

General_Grant

wapow wrote: »

The Data Protection Act of 1998 stipulates for what purpose information can be held about you. On this basis, an agency cannot place a condition that if you cannot provide bank details you cannot register.


This is where you can use the last part of my sentence and then let the agency correct you in stating the lawful reason for requiring your bank account details.

In post #1 you said that one cannot be refused a registration on the grounds of not providing bank details, to be held on a system.

You now seem to be agreeing that that is wrong - otherwise the agency could not "correct you".

Of course the agency could, if it so wished, refuse to register someone who would not provide the requested information.

wapow

General_Grant wrote: »

In post #1 you said that one cannot be refused a registration on the grounds of not providing bank details, to be held on a system.

You now seem to be agreeing that that is wrong - otherwise the agency could not "correct you".

Of course the agency could, if it so wished, refuse to register someone who would not provide the requested information.

Dude, if we're talking about data harvesting, as is evident from my first paragraph, then when I say " to be kept on a system" I imply for data collection purposes.


If an agency however states "we require your bank details in order to complete credit checks for a potential employer we wish to put you forward for" in which case you would go into asking whether they can remove these details once the credit check is passed etc.


Now if you're wondering that the agency is breaking the law by asking you for bank details and you think they wouldn't do this, then no. They mask this with the use of well constructed sentences in their T&C's. Hence it is fine to provide them the details but always question how long it will be used for and when It can be removed.


If they are paying your wages they may need this information, but again they need to clarify this. But if it is just for a credit check, then they should have no reason to maintain once the check is complete as they are not a financial institution.


They "make it seem" that as part of the registration you must provide personal details, but why not push back and see where it gets you? You'll be surprised.



They may say "we need your details incase we want to put you forward for a role which may require credit checks" in which case you can say you are happy to provide these once a role is presented, but they cannot use it as a condition to have you "register" with them. They can use it to register you for a potential employer, but not to them.


A lot of this is common sense.