Recruitment agencies: they have gone mad

Mikel · 27-02-2008 12:29AM

stepbar wrote: »

+1 to that.

+2
HR are the greatest waste of space in any organisation. Are incapable of screening cvs properly. Trained monkeys would do better.

Agencies are even worse, posting non existent jobs, incapable of understanding what the employer wants or what roles you are suited to or even want. It's a numbers game to them, you should see the under qualified cvs they send in. They latch on to one or two words in the spec and send you ten unsuitable people.
They don't do anyone any favours.
Wasters!

DublinWriter · 27-02-2008 06:53AM

Just be aware of the following scam played by agencies.

Agency ring you up, say they have an ideal role for you, but could you give names of two references. Agency never had role in the first place and proceeds to cold-call your given references to see if they have any requirements.

Also, avoid naming your references on your CV. Just put 'References available on request'.

27-02-2008 09:56AM

This post has been deleted.

inforfun · 27-02-2008 10:27AM

Isn't it als o the case that those recruiters already get paid when they sent someone out for an interview?
That would explain why they try to get people to apply for job that are not even remotely suitable if you look at their cv's.

In Holland they might ask 100% but as this recruitement business is not by far as big in Holland as it is here.
It almost seems to me you cant get a job here without going through an agency while in Holland you hardly ever deal with them.
Unless you are chased around by head hunters.. and that might explain the 100% fee.

MIN2511 · 27-02-2008 10:30AM

Wow.... that's a lot, they must be headhunters not recruitment agencies

27-02-2008 11:07AM

This post has been deleted.

Kiya · 27-02-2008 01:24PM

my oh's firm has been charged 35% by a well known agency!

all they have to do for this % is forward cv's to his firms useless HR section. they supposedly forward cvs from "experienced" fund accountants.. eh but looking at the cvs its obvious that theyve just graduated, so wheres the experience?

basically greedy agencys are filling the gap in the market.
oh cant hire enough qualified staff & so HR are willing to pay extortionate fees instead of advertising direct.

Its really down to a companies HR dept being rubbish, theyre the ones losing staff, paying extortionate agency finders fees, costing a company time & money interviewing useless candidates.

told him to get his fellow managers to complain & just hire in some decent HR staff, who know how to do the job.

i'll tell you about one useless agency im with,
after trekking all the way into town to meet with them so they could assess my needs (!!!) they sent my cv to a client.
i had 2 interviews with the company who ultimately said they would have loved to hire me only the agency was looking for too high a percentage when they moved to offer me the position!!!!
now that means im not being given my ideal job, the agency isnt getting their money & my referrees are going to be hounded again.
whos winning in this situation? not me anyway.:mad:

asked the company why they just dont hire direct themselves..
response: our HR are too busy to screen candidates..

im really peeved.

run_Forrest_run · 27-02-2008 02:05PM

If HR are seen to be too busy then they must be busy massaging the ego of upper management and giving them some eye candy...simple as that.

99% or HR staff are useless, they are primarily there to look good and cater for the managers needs (:rolleyes:) and then if they have time left their secondary role is to tend to the poor plebs, AKA the employees.

People in HR are just failed rejects of some other industry/life.

oops, sorry I ranted on so much I forgot the main theme here, sorry, recruitment agencies are...actually just apply the comments above to recruitment agencies also.

homeOwner · 27-02-2008 02:57PM

I dont think you can tar all HR personel with the same brush. Not all HR people do recruiting. It is a specialised area and there is a serious lack of experienced people in Ireland in this field from what I have seen.

The fees paid to recruiting agencies is outrageous. Recruiters/HR staff in companies are lazy to trawl through CVs on websites like Irish Jobs (or even too unorganised to keep a current list of vacancies on their own website) so they basically delegate this work to an outside agency who will pick a handful of candidates by word matching the CVs they are in charge of (which will be different from the list of CVs the guy at the next desk will have). You are not seeing a full set of available candidates signed up to that agency (unless it is one of the very small ones).

There is also a serious lack of recruiters fact checking CVs and many candidates I have interviewed are outright lying on their CVs in terms of basic stuff like degrees, years experience etc....which can all be verified by a few phone calls or some determined questioning of the candidates.

Raekwon · 27-02-2008 09:07PM

run_Forrest_run wrote: »

99% or HR staff are useless

+1

By and large HR & recruitment 'consultants' are both utterly useless. They are both suppose to be good with people but the ones that I have dealt with have been the most socially inept mouth breathers that I have ever had the misfortune to meet. How they get hired in the first place is beyond me and these muppets have other peoples futures in their hands :eek: God help us!

flash harry · 27-02-2008 09:51PM

Kiya wrote: »

my oh's firm has been charged 35% by a well known agency!

all they have to do for this % is forward cv's to his firms useless HR section. they supposedly forward cvs from "experienced" fund accountants.. eh but looking at the cvs its obvious that theyve just graduated, so wheres the experience?

basically greedy agencys are filling the gap in the market.
oh cant hire enough qualified staff & so HR are willing to pay extortionate fees instead of advertising direct.

Its really down to a companies HR dept being rubbish, theyre the ones losing staff, paying extortionate agency finders fees, costing a company time & money interviewing useless candidates.

told him to get his fellow managers to complain & just hire in some decent HR staff, who know how to do the job..

surely its the managers who are dealing with the staff on a daily basis that are losing the staff??? maybe your oh??? just a thought........

and if you were interviewed by a company who had failed to agree a % in advance - they're as much to blame re th fee as anyone....plus if they really wanted you....no offence....

halkar · 28-02-2008 01:53PM

Does the jobseeker pay the agency or the employer? Or both? 27% is a lot of money :eek:

watna · 28-02-2008 01:56PM

halkar wrote: »

Does the jobseeker pay the agency or the employer? Or both? 27% is a lot of money :eek:

No, just the employer. If candidates had to pay for recruitment agencies to find them jobs they'd all close down!

AARRRGH · 28-02-2008 02:00PM

halkar wrote: »

Does the jobseeker pay the agency or the employer? Or both? 27% is a lot of money :eek:

The jobseeker does.

Departments have a particular budget for salaries. Let's imagine I am hiring a QA person and my budget is 50k.

If I have to give 27% of that to the agency, the most I can offer potential employees is 35k. Without the agency, I could offer up to 50k.

flash harry · 28-02-2008 02:08PM

dublindude wrote: »

The jobseeker does.

Departments have a particular budget for salaries. Let's imagine I am hiring a QA person and my budget is 50k.

If I have to give 27% of that to the agency, the most I can offer potential employees is 35k. Without the agency, I could offer up to 50k.

surely you're not suggesting that if I hire 2 QA's and one is got through an agency as described, they get €35K BUT if say someone else is referred say by a current employee, that one will get €50K????

Bit simplistic and not reflecting the real world in any shape!!!!

halkar · 28-02-2008 02:10PM

dublindude wrote: »

The jobseeker does.

Departments have a particular budget for salaries. Let's imagine I am hiring a QA person and my budget is 50k.

If I have to give 27% of that to the agency, the most I can offer potential employees is 35k. Without the agency, I could offer up to 50k.

Thanks Dublindude. Never done anything through an agency to know this but above example does not favour neither the jobseeker nor the employer. Damn scam that is. So does this paid every year or the first year? For example jobseeker A got a job from Employer B. Does A stuck with the 35k? It's a mistery for me how these things work

15k for an ad on the web and few phone calls sounds crazy. IMAO agency should pay the jobseeker too

watna · 28-02-2008 02:13PM

halkar wrote: »

Thanks Dublindude. Never done anything through an agency to know this but above example does not favour neither the jobseeker nor the employer. Damn scam that is. So does this paid every year or the first year? For example jobseeker A got a job from Employer B. Does A stuck with the 35k? It's a mistery for me how these things work 15k for an ad on the web and few phone calls sounds crazy. IMAO agency should pay the jobseeker too

I think DublinDude was being a bit too simplistic. It;s not that you get a job worth 50k and the agency dock you 15k for getting the job. He's saying that if a company has to pay an agency fee they are likely to pay you a lower salary. in some cases this is true, in some, it is not. You will not get docked any money or hand and money over. You get offered a salary and you ahve to decided if it is high enough or not. That's all. You will never be asked for money. The employer pays a fee to the recruitment agency. That's how they make their money.

AARRRGH · 28-02-2008 02:24PM

flash harry wrote: »

surely you're not suggesting that if I hire 2 QA's and one is got through an agency as described, they get €35K BUT if say someone else is referred say by a current employee, that one will get €50K????

Bit simplistic and not reflecting the real world in any shape!!!!

No, I am saying departments have budgets for wages, so if the agency is demanding 27%, that will affect the salary on offer.

I know this is true because it is how the department I work for operates, and how the previous company I worked for operated.

NewBalance · 11-04-2008 02:56PM

dublindude wrote: »

The jobseeker does.

Departments have a particular budget for salaries. Let's imagine I am hiring a QA person and my budget is 50k.

If I have to give 27% of that to the agency, the most I can offer potential employees is 35k. Without the agency, I could offer up to 50k.

27% is alomost twice the norm for non-specialised staff.

Specialised staff would be Legal, Compliance and FS Exec positions - and Snr Funds based candidates who would have to head hunted.

For Admin staff the norm for a fee should be between 15% to 18% with a moneyback period of 3-6 months.

Also, if you meet a bad consultant - let the Recruitment Co. know about it, they'll soon boot out someone who's useless and giving the Co a bad name.

AARRRGH · 11-04-2008 03:30PM

NewBalance wrote: »

27% is alomost twice the norm for non-specialised staff.

Yeah, the positions we were hiring for were not particularly specialised (i.e. salary less than 40k or thereabouts.)

The recruiter in question have lost a potential customer (they weren't willing to drop their rates) so it's their loss.

Recruitment agencies: they have gone mad

Comments