Recruitment Agencies -> Bad news!

rediguana

I just found out something disturbing (to me anyway, as a job hunter). A recruitment agent told my girlfriend that companies try to select from people who have applied directly to the company first and, ONLY IF THEY DON'T FIND SOMEONE SUITABLE FROM THAT BATCH, will they then turn to the recruitment agency's people!

Is this true? I've applied for posts through 3-4 different agencies. Once they've made representation on your behalf, it's seen as a big faux-pas to apply directly.

I've been distinctly underwhelmed with my recruitment-agency experiences. Is this the reason? Am I at the back of the queue before my CV is seen at all??

cold_filter

I doubt it, there's not much point paying an agency money to find someone for the job then not taking a look at their people. And lets be honest how many people actually check companies websites these days?? most people go to agency sites.

copacetic

of course companies would prefer someone who comes direct. We don't pay an agency to look for people, we only pay them if we hire them, and it can cost a big percentage of the persons salary..

Stark

cold_filter wrote:

I doubt it, there's not much point paying an agency money to find someone for the job then not taking a look at their people.

Well some recruitment agencies take a cut of your salary rather than a flat fee during the hiring process. If I was an employer looking to take on some high performing employees, I wouldn't want to be paying them a fortune, then having them become disgruntled and leaving because their net pay was ****e.

rediguana

Sorry, yeah, this is the point (I forgot to mention it) - companies will hire some non-agency person first (all things being equal) as they don't have to pay extra for them...

It makes sense, but I just never considered it before. . .

cold_filter

Ok they may pay the agency, but say they take on 5 people in a year, they'll probably need to have some hr person working full time doing that and chances are their salary will be higher than the fees they are paying the agency. I've been actively looking for work the last month. I've had a few meetings with agencies and have found them to be decent enough. One is particular gave me a great advice for my CV which has resulted in me getting a lot more interviews.

copacetic

cold_filter wrote:

Ok they may pay the agency, but say they take on 5 people in a year, they'll probably need to have some hr person working full time doing that and chances are their salary will be higher than the fees they are paying the agency. I've been actively looking for work the last month. I've had a few meetings with agencies and have found them to be decent enough. One is particular gave me a great advice for my CV which has resulted in me getting a lot more interviews.

you wouldn't need a HR person to hire 5 people a year and even if you did it'd be cheaper than using agencies!

Nothing wrong with agencies, esp from the job hunters point of view, but understand that a company would much rather not pay out 15-30% of your salary to an agency for the privilege of hiring you!

Always keep this in mind when negotiating the salary through an agency too, they don't care exactly how much you get, as long as you take the job.

There is usually a turning point in the relationship, the agency are working with you until you get the offer. Then they are working with the company to get you on board any way they can.

I've been on both sides of this and you have to take everything the agency tells you from their viewpoint - they don't make a penny unless you take the job.

cold_filter

daveym wrote:

There is usually a turning point in the relationship, the agency are working with you until you get the offer. Then they are working with the company to get you on board any way they can.

I've been on both sides of this and you have to take everything the agency tells you from their viewpoint - they don't make a penny unless you take the job.

Excellent point, i've never thought about it like that but its so true.

Stark

Recruitment agencies are good where you have a high turnover of low-skilled staff. They're a very bad idea when it comes to "permanent" positions.

copacetic

Stark wrote:

Recruitment agencies are good where you have a high turnover of low-skilled staff. They're a very bad idea when it comes to "permanent" positions.

I wouldn't entirely agree with this, we hire for very well paid permanent jobs but the skillset is very rare. We use 5 or 6 different agencies to try and get any CVs in at all. Without the larger reach of the agencies we would have difficulty filling positions, even using them it is difficult to find people. The Irish times ads get very little response and direct on Irish jobs gets you inundated with 100s of spam CVs.

We get all our people either through current staff, industry contacts or agencies..

rediguana

daveym wrote:

of course companies would prefer someone who comes direct. We don't pay an agency to look for people, we only pay them if we hire them, and it can cost a big percentage of the persons salary..

What happens if you receive a CV from someone that an agency has already contacted you about? In my particular case, I'm not sure that the recruitment agencies are as motivated to see ME (as opposed to just anyone from their books) placed, as I am myself. Days pass and no contact from them, and all the while I'm in a straitjacket about who I can't contact.

Any words of wisdom?

copacetic

rediguana wrote:

What happens if you receive a CV from someone that an agency has already contacted you about? In my particular case, I'm not sure that the recruitment agencies are as motivated to see ME (as opposed to just anyone from their books) placed, as I am myself. Days pass and no contact from them, and all the while I'm in a straitjacket about who I can't contact.

Any words of wisdom?

Usually once you get a CV from an agency you would really have to go through them, once the introduction happens the T&Cs usually say 6 months before you wouldn't have to pay them.

Having said that no harm you going direct to the company for an update, call them up and say you can't get a status off the agency. I've had people do this before and didn't mind, but bear in mind also that most companies aren't in a great rush to repsond to the constant queries from agencies. You could have 5/6 agencies with 10 or more 'consultants' on to you on a daily basis looking for updates when you haven't even had a chance to review the CVs yet. So it could be just the agency have heard nothing back.

It's up to company if they want to bypass the agency but most wouldn't.

00112984

I know a lot of recruitment agents (well 3) and they all make huge money, have excellent industry knowledge and work very hard. There's nothing bad to say about someone who provides a service and they do- recruitment agencies wouldn't be in existence if there wasn't a market for them.

One girl I know from college works as an IT recruiter for a big agency in the City Centre. She seems to work solely on high-level roles and does very well for herself. It seems to be an interesting job but I'd say the burnout time is pretty fast. She was telling me that she gets hundreds of CVs a day and a minimum of 50 phonecalls a day from people asking about their applications. Her mobile constantly rings at the weekend too with jobhunters so I don't think it's the kind of work I'd do- it seems to take up a lot of her time.
I did IT with her in college and she's on much, much higher money than me so doing well for herself.

Davem, you said-
"Always keep this in mind when negotiating the salary through an agency too, they don't care exactly how much you get, as long as you take the job."

If they work on a percentage, surely they're going to be inclined to get you as much money as possible to make their cut higher? Like, if they're getting 20%, surely they'd prefer 20% of, say, €50k than €45k?

It's like anything else- if I was going to change jobs, I'd prefer to speak to one person about 10 jobs than 10 companies about 1 job each. It makes sense.

copacetic

00112984 wrote:

Davem, you said-
"Always keep this in mind when negotiating the salary through an agency too, they don't care exactly how much you get, as long as you take the job."

If they work on a percentage, surely they're going to be inclined to get you as much money as possible to make their cut higher? Like, if they're getting 20%, surely they'd prefer 20% of, say, €50k than €45k?

Well of course they would, 10k is better than 9k. However you'll agree that 9k is much better than 0, the big thing for them is that you take the job rather than hold out for more money or turn it down because the money isn't good enough.

You'll never hear an agency tell you that a job isn't for you when they have an offer for you!

Millionaire

daveym wrote:

You'll never hear an agency tell you that a job isn't for you when they have an offer for you!

Believe it or not (I own a very small agency). I do this, if I feel the candidate has a niggling doubt about the role, I tell them to really reconsider going for the position...and I will tell you why...

After 10 years in this recruitment sector, I ve seen all the tricks, and the fast money cowboys come and go...

If I made someeone take a job, which they had a doubt about the job, what usually would happen is, after a few weeks or a few months, the person leaves the job. the candidate is disgruntled, the client company is mad, and I don't get paid, and would have to go and try and find someone all over again. A massive mess would be caused for all parties involved, based on the greed of the recruiter.

So your best being honest. being straight up, keep open lines of communication, and be honest. it is better for the long term. and you remind friends with canddiate and client, and both will usually use you again.

I learned over the years ist best to be helpful to all, and see their point of view 1st, as opposed to your own. that way things work out better in the long term, and personally you can look yourself in the mirror daily!

Also not all of us charge fee 's from 15-30%...

nesf

00112984 wrote:

If they work on a percentage, surely they're going to be inclined to get you as much money as possible to make their cut higher? Like, if they're getting 20%, surely they'd prefer 20% of, say, €50k than €45k?

No actually, and this is a point that people get confused about. Think of the difference between 30K and 31K for the agent assuming that they get 10%. At 30K they are getting 3,000 for you being hired. At 31K they are getting 3,100. Now, the amount of work it might take to get you that extra 1K might actually tie up a fair amount of their time in negotiation, however they will only get an extra hundred euro for it which proportionately isn't that much compared to if they just push you to accept the 30K offer.

The time they spend getting you that 1K extra they could spend getting someone else a job where they might get a far bigger return on their time.

Bulmers

Just recently been on the other side of a recruitment agency, after years myself at start of career trying to get jobs using recruiters, in my current position, we needed to hire people...very interesting, from my point of view as a manager, this is what i see.

We tried to recruit ourselves by advertising on website, didn't get a whole lot of hits initially as hard to get good people in this discipline at the moment. The job reqs were taken down off the company website so I went back to HR saying that we weren't getting many suitable applicants. They have a deal with two of the well known agencies in Ireland, sort of preferred supplier type thing but it turns out that these particular agencies get 10-15% comm of salary offered to the applicant if sourced through them so this is big business and why it is so cut throat. We were offering 40k+ so it's alot of money just for sourcing a CV so that's why it is such a big industry and a pure sales industry.

Anyway, re-advertised jobs on website and also had agency looking. They called me and spoke to me, pure sales crap talk, we can do this, we can do that etc etc. I had some specific requirements of what I wanted and he said no problem, we can do that.

Anyway, they started sending in CVs, absolute joke, i had to call him back and ask him if he listened to what i said as they were just sending in totally inadequate applicants.

Anyway, in meantime, we got some good applicants on our website, called them in for interview and made the offers so didn't need them. Agency still kept sending me in CVs, more or less for sport at this stage. It was so obvious to me they were in for the sale, that was it.

Also, I noticed that on their website, 2 weeks after we made offers and informed them, they re-adverstised the jobs again???. I called them and got really cold short answers off them, obviously now there was no chance of a sale, they didn't care.

This was a real eye opener for me, i'll never use them again if i'm looking for a job, it's all pure sales, get the 10-15% and that's it.

What I try to do more is use my current staff to recommend someone if possible or take applicants who applied through website.

What their websites are good for is seeing where the jobs are opening up, you can usually guess the company from the description anyway if you're familiar with the specific industry.

Also, in my experience, best way to get jobs in this country is through word of mouth, unfortunately, it's not what you know, it's who you know.It has been this way for me for my career anyway, have applied to recruiters, no joy, all my jobs have been through recommendations, word of mouth.

Anyway, just my two cents on this

rediguana

I don't expect recruitment agencies to magically place me in every job I show some interest in. It's the contact thing that concerns me. Even if three or four days go past and they hear nothing from the employer, just send me a one-line email telling me that. That way I'm not left wondering if I'm wasting my time by sitting tight.

And I understand that recruitment agencies are busy in these frothy times, and that my job is small in the grand scheme of things, but it's their BUSINESS. If they don't wish to spend time on someone at my modest post-college salary level, that's fine, but don't sign me up and waste my time.

At this point I'm dealing with three agencies, all of whom are supposed to be representing me and help me get into a small sector (so the jobs aren't so common) that really interests me. But calls / emails are rarely returned, my CV still isn't sent out days after they say they will. All the while I'm seeing the jobs I want on the internet with direct contacts (which hadn't appeared before I contacted the agencies) and the agencies implying I'll be damaging my case by making a personal contact with the company.

It was frustrating before but but then when that recruitment consultant let slip to my girlfriend that the company (that she was talking about about anyway) goes through all their own applications first before looking at the costly recruitment agencies' people..!

EDIT -> Just saw your post now, Bulmers. Very interesting...

markpb

My experience with recruitment agents is a very vague job spec with no company name and no idea who I'll be working for. When I emailed them, they immediately ask for my CV and then refuse to give out any more information by email. Everything has be by phone which is very awkward when you're working. Most of the phone calls (CPL are especially bad for this) are 99% waffle before telling you they'll email me back the job specs.

I told several recruiters what parts of Dublin I did and did not want to work in but they always sent me jobs in the exact locations I told them I didn't want. Even after this, CPL rang me to ask if I'd like a job in Galway.

I told several recruiters what type of work I was looking for and was constantly offered jobs in the wrong area. I still get mails from Real Recruitment offering me admin and network even though I told them I was a developer.

In the end I got two interviews through CPL and RCB. Immediately after the interviews, I left a voicemail with the recruiter to tell them how it went and I'd get back to them after I'd considered the company's offer. In both cases, I was plagued with phone calls, voice mails and emails asking me to call them to 'discuss' the interview. Between CPL and RCB, I racked up 26 missed calls in 3 days.

Before the interview, the guy from RCB insisted he was a nice guy, didn't pressure candidates, didn't want to force people to take jobs they don't want but as soon as the offer was made, he did exactly those things and harassed me until I made my decision. I came very close to rejecting the offer because of his behaviour.

I know the recruiters here will howl when I say this but:

* Tell me who the company are or at least what market they're in. Don't waste my time and yours making me apply and go through a long phone call only to find out I'm not interested.

* Tell me where the company are. Most recruiters put down 'Dublin Noth, South, West and City' or just Dublin. It's a big place, lots of people don't want to commute. Why do you waste my time making me apply before finding out the company is the other side of the city.

* Don't make me waste my time on the phone to you when you've nothing to say. You might be paid by the word but I'm not. Tell me about the job, ask any questions you have to and then get off the phone. Better still, answer my emails with something other than 'call me to discuss'

* Why do you hide your numbers when you ring? I'm less likely to answer a phone to a hidden number. It's not a good ploy to trick me into answering my phone.

* If you ring and ring and ring and I don't answer, it's because I can't or don't want to talk to you. Ringing 5-6 times a day and following up with 'call me' emails and texts won't change that. In fact, I'm more likely to ignore you completely. What's so important that you can't email it to me?

flash harry

markpb wrote:

I know the recruiters here will howl when I say this but:

* Tell me who the company are or at least what market they're in. Don't waste my time and yours making me apply and go through a long phone call only to find out I'm not interested.

* Tell me where the company are. Most recruiters put down 'Dublin Noth, South, West and City' or just Dublin. It's a big place, lots of people don't want to commute. Why do you waste my time making me apply before finding out the company is the other side of the city.

* Don't make me waste my time on the phone to you when you've nothing to say. You might be paid by the word but I'm not. Tell me about the job, ask any questions you have to and then get off the phone. Better still, answer my emails with something other than 'call me to discuss'

* Why do you hide your numbers when you ring? I'm less likely to answer a phone to a hidden number. It's not a good ploy to trick me into answering my phone.

* If you ring and ring and ring and I don't answer, it's because I can't or don't want to talk to you. Ringing 5-6 times a day and following up with 'call me' emails and texts won't change that. In fact, I'm more likely to ignore you completely. What's so important that you can't email it to me?

Haha I'm a recruiter and I liked that!!!!

Seriously though - reason cant give company name is we have no power to stop you OR a competitior sending cv, if we managed to attract your attention on a very expensive to use job site or ad - surely we deserve the chance to put you forward once we are acting professionally.

I own a small agency and we operate VERY differently to the big ones - so if anyone wants to know why some agencies do certain things - post the question and I'll answer it; also if your an employer using agencies on a PSL agreement that you've agreed a lower rate on - your probably seeing their worst candidates!!!!

copacetic

Millionaire wrote:

Believe it or not (I own a very small agency). I do this, if I feel the candidate has a niggling doubt about the role, I tell them to really reconsider going for the position...and I will tell you why...

After 10 years in this recruitment sector, I ve seen all the tricks, and the fast money cowboys come and go...

If I made someeone take a job, which they had a doubt about the job, what usually would happen is, after a few weeks or a few months, the person leaves the job. the candidate is disgruntled, the client company is mad, and I don't get paid, and would have to go and try and find someone all over again. A massive mess would be caused for all parties involved, based on the greed of the recruiter.

So your best being honest. being straight up, keep open lines of communication, and be honest. it is better for the long term. and you remind friends with canddiate and client, and both will usually use you again.

I learned over the years ist best to be helpful to all, and see their point of view 1st, as opposed to your own. that way things work out better in the long term, and personally you can look yourself in the mirror daily!

Also not all of us charge fee 's from 15-30%...

Well, good for you. It was a generalisation I'll admit and I do know one guy in CPL who has given me such advice in the past. There are a few good people out there but they are in the minority in my opinion.

Especially in the bigger agencies they seem to have a bottom level of pressurised 'consultants' who will say anything to get people into a position.

What kind of fees do you charge? We negotiate a flat rate of 15% with all the agencies, some of them won't agree to that though so there are a couple we don't use.

I certainly don't think agencies are 'evil' and wouldn't complain about them doing their job like we can see. They have their place you just have to keep in mind what their motivation is at all times. Like anything else in life really.

dazberry

rediguana wrote:

It was frustrating before but but then when that recruitment consultant let slip to my girlfriend that the company (that she was talking about about anyway) goes through all their own applications first before looking at the costly recruitment agencies' people..!

Your looking at this as company = good and honest, agency = bad and dishonest, but regardless of the motivation of agencies some companies are just wan4ers to deal with...

... I have a lot of pretty bad experience with agencies, but my last application really opened my eyes to what companies can be like:

*took a month to come back on an application
*wanted immediate phone interview
*wanted next day actual interview
*interviewed me for a different job than advertised (trying to fill a more senior position on the cheap - saving 30/40K)
*turn me down for the job because I didn't have that senior experience (obviously if I did - I wouldn't have been applying in the first place)
*offer me a more junior position 20K less than my current salary

A company acting like that would make any agency look like cowboys - and really the guy in the agency was faultless, and its not as if its easy to find someone with my skillset and experience - I've so little respect for the company now I wouldn't want to work there...

D.

cold_filter

Met 2 recruiters yesterday and instead of the usual come to our office to meet. They came to meet me we had a coffee and a chat about the job etc. Both are small recruitment companies. One interview for a job today and i got a call from the recruiter wishing me good luck.
I haven't had too bad an experience with recruiters and one in particular for a big dublin recruiter gave me great advice for re-jigging my CV.

pwd

I got my current job through an agency who advised me on my cv, coached me for the interview, negotiated me a good salary - so no complaints there.
I've had negative experiences with agencies also. I remember the difference in how I was treated in one place when I was fresh out of college and when I had some experience - they were snobby baxtards.
Some companies have a policy of only using agency staff. There's one person in my dept who was given his job on my recommendation, but still had to sign up to an agency who take a big chunk of his pay - even though they never even heard of him until after he was hired.

i71jskz5xu42pb

nesf wrote:

No actually, and this is a point that people get confused about. Think of the difference between 30K and 31K for the agent assuming that they get 10%. At 30K they are getting 3,000 for you being hired. At 31K they are getting 3,100. Now, the amount of work it might take to get you that extra 1K might actually tie up a fair amount of their time in negotiation, however they will only get an extra hundred euro for it which proportionately isn't that much compared to if they just push you to accept the 30K offer.

The time they spend getting you that 1K extra they could spend getting someone else a job where they might get a far bigger return on their time.

Yes and no. You're right that nobody is going to break their back for 100e. But you're wrong to assume that recruiters work of a fixed percentage. Most have salary ranges like (figures made up)
10% to 30,000
15% from 30,001 - 34,999
20% from 35,000 - 45,000 etc, etc.

So if you were offered 30,000 but are holding out for 35,000 the agency is has an interest to help you.

That said I agree with daveym's earlier comment that the agency will be looking the potential of getting nothing if you are holding out for too much. Bird in the hand and all that.

Millionaire

I think 10% on all salary levels is a fair fee. why should the % fee I charge, go up just because the salary is higher.

Back in 1998 and on Punts not Euro Computer Futures charged these fees in Ireland.

0 - 19,999 punt 20%
20 - 24,999 22.5%
25 - 29,999 25%
30 - 34,999 30%
35 and over 35% (i think that was the fee on over 35K....just cannot remember 100% on that one).

There used to be massive rows with IT Manager and HR Manager, and thats near 10 years ago now!

copacetic

PaschalNee wrote:

Yes and no. You're right that nobody is going to break their back for 100e. But you're wrong to assume that recruiters work of a fixed percentage. Most have salary ranges like (figures made up)
10% to 30,000
15% from 30,001 - 34,999
20% from 35,000 - 45,000 etc, etc.

thats a good point, I'm not sure a lot of candidates realise this, now we have a flat rate but the standard T&Cs of the agencies we use are like the above.

Of course the company will realise in the above example that offering the candidate 35 rather than 34 is going to cost them, 3k or so rather than 1k.
If anything by using the agency in this case the candidate has much less
chance of getting to 35 rather than say 34.

It actually gets a lot worse the higher you go and the more each % is worth.

A lot of agencies have a breakpoint at 60k, the advice I would give is to find out what the agencies arrangement is with the compnay on fees.

Knowing it will cost the company 4k extra to offer you 60k rather
than 59k is nice info to have at hand.

Millionaire

I see a company one offer a candidate 1 punt less in order to get a lower fee... so for example if the candidate wanted 30K which mean't a 30% fee...the company copped this...and offered the candidate 29,999, to pay a low %. LOL! it was funny, and fair play to the company for spotting it.

All my candidates that I deal with can know what we charge, cause it is on my email signature. no reason why I should not be open with candidates either on this...

rediguana

I got tired of waiting for my "agent" to get back to me, so I emailed the company directly, choosing my words carefully. Within minutes, I had got a response saying they wanted to meet me.

Now I just need to cut my links with all those other recruitment agencies that seem to be working only to keep me in perpetual penury

flash harry

irony of the upward scale of fees is that higher level people (and therefore salaries and fees) are much easier to deal with for the agency. Its the low end people who are more likely to not do what they said, be less sure of what they want etc, and in general are harder to find.......

dont mean this (low end) in derogatory way, just experience level/age.......

By the way, on a recent placement with a relatively new client, I told them to pay me whatever they felt candidate was worth - this was a result of an agency messing them around so much they didnt want to deal with agencies - becoming one of my best clients!!!!

Bulmers

another thing we were advised by HR was that when we were making offers and if the applicant came from an agency, this was to be taken into account in the overall package, so assuming i offered an applicant from agency the job for 40k, agency takes 10% so that leaves 36k i could only offer them.

This may not be the same for all companies, but that was what I was told from HR.

If it works for some people and they get work from it, very good but in general, my exp with them is not good and have been on both sides of the fence now.

Millionaire

Bulmers wrote:

another thing we were advised by HR was that when we were making offers and if the applicant came from an agency, this was to be taken into account in the overall package, so assuming i offered an applicant from agency the job for 40k, agency takes 10% so that leaves 36k i could only offer them.

This may not be the same for all companies, but that was what I was told from HR.
.

thats an interesting point there.

However on a bigger picture, the company could be doing themselves out of an excellent candidate who could bring a massive benefit to the company, when it comes down to operating such a policy.

Last year I had a client, you blatanty "low balled" a candidate with a salary offer, which was almost 7k lower than candidate wanted (and candidates salary was at approx market value for his Network Engineer skills)... Now we had told the client from the sec the CV was sent in what the candidated wanted salary wise, and indeed the candidate discussed same during interview process. The candidate was extremely insulted when he got the news of the "low ball" offer.... so the client lost a top candidate, the client was left under pressure as they needed a strong Engineer urgently, and of course the client was very much off the candidates Xmas card list, all over this.

I was very suprised that the client went and did this...it defies logic.

Imagine loosing a top Sales Superstar who could bring in your company millions in sales, or many new clients, all over a few 1000 euro salary quibble or over the fact a recruiters fee was discounted off the salary.

Some corporate policies defy logic!???!??

nesf

PaschalNee wrote:

Yes and no. You're right that nobody is going to break their back for 100e. But you're wrong to assume that recruiters work of a fixed percentage. Most have salary ranges like (figures made up)

Sure, I don't dispute that, I was only answering why they wouldn't push for a few extra thousand on a salary if they were getting a fixed percentage. Plus, even if they are getting a changing commission, they will be more apt to get you just into the 15% or 20% bracket and then stop trying.

I'm not saying that it's unethical or wrong, most people who work on commission know and do this kind of stuff. I was just trying to point out that you can't expect an agency to argue to the death for you to get an extra few thousand when it isn't worth their time.

copacetic

have never heard of taking money off the salary for agencies fees. if you have to use an agency you have to be prepared to pay the fees. Knocking it off the top of the salary doesn't make any sense.

I'd never try to low ball as Mil says above but I've seen happen, but only based on poor expectations by the candidate. In general though if the candidate is worth an offer you pay what it takes to get them within the salary structure you have. The time, effort and cost of going back the drawing board is immense.

As an aside what does kill me with corporate politics is offering a current staff member tiny increases of 3-5% or whatever when they are obviously a candidate to move. The potential issue of having to pay 15% in agency fees and another 15% costs in time and effort to find someone new just isn't considered.

Of course you have to weigh that up against the people who think they are gods gift and expect massive increases year on year for average performance.

00112984

But agencies aren't the only cost associated with recruitment. According to their homepage, monster.ie charges €495 to advertise one position for one week. An ad in the Times can cost up to €15k and you're not guaranteed any level of response using these.

With an agency, a company gets to meet the candidates and have them start a job before paying a cent. Agencies absorb these costs. As for the whole agencies pushing to get anyone rather than the right person, that's just silly. Most agencies offer a rebate to the client so, if you go into a company via an agency (on a permanent basis) and leave after a few weeks or months the fee is refunded in whole or part (depending on the terms agreed).

Often, agencies also take care of the administrative aspects of the role- work authorisation, where applicable, references, contracts etc. A lot of consultants seem to have either a CIPD qualification or something relevant to their sector (ie, a friend of mine did IT with me in college and is an IT recruiter now).

At the end of the day, as a jobhunter, nothing stops you from not using an agency if you'd prefer. Saying that, I know the company I work for (and we're a very large well-known IT company) doesn't advertise jobs directly (externally anyway) and usees 3 agencies and they're not in the habit of just throwing money away....! Plus, there are no empty seats in my office and everyone seems to like it.

mountainyman

Rediguana,
Get a gmail account in a name other than yours.
Do up a CV with skills similar to your own.
Send it to the agencies.

Apply directly to the companies whose names you get.

MM

flash harry

mountainyman wrote:

Rediguana,
Get a gmail account in a name other than yours.
Do up a CV with skills similar to your own.
Send it to the agencies.

Apply directly to the companies whose names you get.

MM

.....and that is exactly the reason some recruiters feel the need to not divulge company info.........

rediguana

mountainyman wrote:

Rediguana,
Get a gmail account in a name other than yours.
Do up a CV with skills similar to your own.
Send it to the agencies.

Apply directly to the companies whose names you get.

MM

It's an admirable idea but it's already enough hassle trying to keep track of my actual CV without having a fake one doing the rounds too

I've learned a lot since starting this thread, thanks everyone. The opinion I'm forming is that ALL recruitment agencies aren't necessarily useless, but enough are to warrant being wary when dealing with them. Live and learn.

Bulmers

last comment I think sums it up best, from previous posts, recruiters seemed to have worked for people so if they help you progress your career and get you the positions you want, well and good.

On the other hand, as with everything else, there are bad ones that are no use.

As with anything else, maybe best way to go through a recruiter would be via a recommendation from someone who has used them.

throwingmuses

I find agencies an absolute nightmare, and I'm sorry if I'm insulting all agencies, maybe I have been unlucky. I work as a legal secretary and have just spent a month dealing with a few agencies. I am at an age where I am completely clear about what I want from a position, so initially put this in an e-mail, i.e. location had to be near Luas, salary expectation, hours etc. etc. I have no problem 'temping' until I get the right permanent job. I also made it clear that I can not take personal calls during the day so would prefer e-mail contact (working in open plan office). However, the agencies insist on ringing my mobile (private number comes up which I never answer anyway) and leaving vague messages and asking me to phone them back.

I've given up getting my hopes up before I ring them back, as the things they offer me are just ridiculous and they just ignore my clear list of requirements.

One agency has not spoken to me since e-mailing me about a position which I replied to say thank you but it wasn't what I was looking for and didn't want to waste all of our times going for an interview for something I didn't want. I had specified that I would prefer to take a temporary role with a view to permanent as I have had a bad experience in my current job in that it is totally different to what was specified in the interview. The agencies advice was 'don't be afraid to take a permanent role straight off'. Great advice thanks!!

Because there is such a demand for legal secretaries the agencies are just bombarding me and I have to say I have found them to be incredibly unprofessional and downright annoying, they ring you and start listing about a position and I'm like 'hang on I told you it had to be near the Luas' and then they will come up with some stupid argument like 'well it's not that far' - being a 25 minute walk after the Luas journey.

I have no time for any of the agencies I've been with (I presume I'm not allowed name them), I've had a nightmare this past couple of months with them.

Sorry about the rant...........

mountainyman

flash harry wrote:

.....and that is exactly the reason some recruiters feel the need to not divulge company info.........

They tell me because they have a CV. The CV of someone who doesn't exist...

Also if I do get a job from an Agency. I look for rate increases after a month...

Bwaah Haah Haah.

MM