|
Home > Archive > Unix administration > February 2004 > Re: unfair job interview-thru recruiter vs. direct application
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: unfair job interview-thru recruiter vs. direct application
|
|
| RonJeremy@hotmail.com 2004-01-31, 12:34 pm |
| ibiz@optonline.net (Unix_adm) wrote:
quote:
> Recently, I got a job interview thru a recruiter that I NEVER signed
> anything with. They called me over the phone a few times and than send
> me for the interview.
> I did very well on the interview. After 5-6 days, I called the
> recruiter to find out what happened and she kept on refraining from
> giving me an answer. Upon my insistence she finally said that the
> employer really liked me but made an offer to someone else. I was
> amazed.
> They offered the job to somebody they were not even sure could perform
> the job but did so because if they hired me they would have to pay the
> recruiter $13,000 as their fee. The guy they made the offer to was
> 'direct', thru Craigslist or something. And my "recruiter" lifted my
> resume' from Monster. The technical Admin under the hiring manager
> turned
> out to be a friend's friends' friend... but anyhow he himself told me
> the truth.
>
> Now my question: how could one compete in such situations. The
> employee
> would have paid $13K extra to hire me vs. the guy who didn't carry any
> extra
> price tag. IT IS AN UNFAIR practise for so called bloodsucking
> recruiters.
>
> I was wondering if there is any legal action I can take?
Move to India you crybaby.
| |
| joe durusau 2004-02-02, 12:34 am |
|
RonJeremy@hotmail.com wrote:
quote:
> ibiz@optonline.net (Unix_adm) wrote:
>
>
> Move to India you crybaby.
Well, fundamentally, never deal with recruiters. Deal only with
employers directly, with the sole exception being you may wish to
offer your services via a 'job-shop'. Employers hiring under the
'employee at will' doctrine are free to hire the cheapest employee
that they can get.
Speaking only for myself,
Joe Durusau
| |
| Jay Best 2004-02-02, 3:34 pm |
| It is an unusual situation, and one that I must admit that I am biased in (I
work full time as a recruiter) but a couple of thoughts that I had based on
your posting:
My question is; Were you aware of the job or would you have known about the
job if it hadn't have been for the recruiter company?
If you hadn't known, then do you think that missing an opportunity that
wouldn't have existed if it hadn't have been for the recruitment company in
the first place is really that bad?
(Sounds far too philosophical, but you get the general idea!)
We generally work to the premise that we can do all this work, and not
actually place a candidate so for example, the recruiter may have actually
sorted through 30 - even 200 applicants to get to your CV, (this is not too
uncommon) so from that perspective, it is making the client's (the company
that interviewed you) job much simpler - they just have to interview 2
really good candidates, and if they want to sort through candidates
themselves, then they can, but it might take them a full month (and might
not be worth the time, or lost revenue for a manager to spend the time doing
that)
I like to think that from my side, I am able to get candidates jobs that
they wouldn't have been able to get, simply because the client knows that I
really take the time to sort through the candidates.
EG a CV sent from me would automatically make the shortlist, based on the
quality of previous candidates that I have sent - also we improve the CV
layout, help with their interview style and help prep the candidate with
details about the company that you just couldn't have got from researching
them on the net.
Recruiters as a general rule are here to provide a service, which people may
or may not need to use. An example of a similar service is Travel agencies.
In this day and age it works out cheaper to use the net and sort out the
trip, but people still use the agencies and are happy to pay more because
they know that they can relax and they don't need to be an expert in
something that they don't do daily.
(That said it could be argued that our days are numbered)
One thing that I have found in my experience, the companies that value
higher quality staff over the cost of say $13,000 are generally much better
employers to work for.
If finding the best staff in the market at whatever price is the way that a
company works, then the people that work there are often of a higher
standard, and are more pleasant to work for also.
Another point on this concept is a company that is too tight to pay $13K for
a really good staff member would generally be less inclined to pay well when
it comes to salary.
The point is: If they value staff more than money they might be a better
place to work.
That said this is all a bit of a generalisation, and is based on the NZ
market, and IMHO this has been what I have seen. I have been on both sides
of the recruiting table - working for the company *using* a recruitment
company and also for a recruitment company, and I can see the benefits of
having the service.
That said I *certainly* understand your frustration. I can't personally
recall a situation where a candidate has lost out because of the recruiters
fee, though that may happen, it might have been for the best for you anyway!
If you wanted to continue the discussion feel free to email me directly
also.
--
Warmest Regards
Jay Best
De Winter International
09-366-1944 or 021-1655-313
<RonJeremy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:401C1666.21326.468D578@localhost...quote:
> ibiz@optonline.net (Unix_adm) wrote:
>
>
> Move to India you crybaby.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|