Top 15 Recruitment Agency tricks...!!

[northernladuk]

I've had nearly all of these experiences over the years, what really frustrates me is all I want is a job to earn money and the fact that they have so much control over whether I even get put forward for the role even if I am more than suitable is annoying.

Most appear not interested in getting the right people the company want but more who is more likely to get the job & get them their money and even better get them more money. I hate these games but accept I have to play them to work this way but still hate them. I wonder how many jobs over the years I have lost that I would have got or been seriously considered for if the company had seen me direct without them as the gatekeepers in the way. Maybe if they were not so target and sales based on every aspect a lot of issues would disappear.

You've got a job. It's being a contractor. What you are missing is clients to bring revenue in to you company. Sounds a bit pedantic but if you can get that right in your heard the other stuff might just fall into place and be a little easier to understand/carry out.

I think you are pretty wide of the mark in that bottom paragraph as well. The most likely person to get the gig and earn them money is the person the client wants. Why do you think you would have gotten the gigs you lost when there were better people put forward or that interviewed better than you?

I think you've got the wrong view on the whole game and that view is dragging you down. They game is what we do. If you don't like it you go perm. It's hardly difficult and the money we bring in far outweighs the slight issues agents bring.

[curtis]

I acknowledged it was a game that had to be played even if I don't enjoy it as 95% of the time the game is always with the agent. Its not dragging me down it frustrates me that they have so much control and I do not want to go perm hence why I am contracting and putting up with the frustration.

Why do you think you would have gotten the gigs you lost when there were better people put forward or that interviewed better than you?

Obviously no one knows for definite they would get a gig but do think a lot would stand a better chance if the client actually saw their CV over some others put forward. Three months ago I applied for a role i got an email from agent stating was I happy with the rate, how quick could I interview etc etc once I replied i got another email stating I was ideal for the role from my CV and experience but asking what my lowest rate would be that I would accept as they could only put X amount of CV's over to them. When I said I wanted what was offered I got told he had had a number of others who had said they were happy maybe going under and they would be put forward instead but will keep me on their books for any future jobs, so I do not believe at all its always a case of the better people are put forward for the client but the best people for the agent. This is only one of several times over the years I have known they have put forward/pushed the best for them more than the client.

[curtis]

You've got a job. It's being a contractor. What you are missing is clients to bring revenue in to you company.

Totally right but you still have agents sat in the middle in complete control of who gets put forward for a job, whether its down to money, them not having the technical experience to know you are the a good fit when reading your CV/speaking to them, or because you mentioned something that they consider may put the client off ie mentioning hols coming up or anything else in-between, they can decide nope this CV is not going forward as may not get me the job especially when they only have so many CV's to submit.

The most likely person to get the gig and earn them money is the person the client wants.

Again totally right and don't disagree but the client is only going to see the CV's the agent give them, if yours is not there for whatever reason like above then the agent decides the client does not see it so they do not get to consider it when if they had they may have preferred you.

[LondonManc]

You've got a job. It's being a contractor. What you are missing is clients to bring revenue in to you company. Sounds a bit pedantic but if you can get that right in your heard the other stuff might just fall into place and be a little easier to understand/carry out.

I think you are pretty wide of the mark in that bottom paragraph as well. The most likely person to get the gig and earn them money is the person the client wants. Why do you think you would have gotten the gigs you lost when there were better people put forward or that interviewed better than you?

I think you've got the wrong view on the whole game and that view is dragging you down. They game is what we do. If you don't like it you go perm. It's hardly difficult and the money we bring in far outweighs the slight issues agents bring.

Sorry but you've completely misread what Curtis wrote.

You've got a job. It's being a contractor. What you are missing is clients to bring revenue in to you company. Sounds a bit pedantic but if you can get that right in your heard the other stuff might just fall into place and be a little easier to understand/carry out.

Very pedantic. We know what the lad is on about. It can be baffling when you're a perfect fit and not put forward.

I think you are pretty wide of the mark in that bottom paragraph as well. The most likely person to get the gig and earn them money is the person the client wants. Why do you think you would have gotten the gigs you lost when there were better people put forward or that interviewed better than you?

Price comes into it when the agent has a fixed budget. If someone good wants £450 and the agent has a pot of £500, he's going to put three less capable candidates forward who want £350-£400 so long as he feels he can get them over the line with the client. If the client don't like the candidates, the agent can BS that it's a tough market and say that he can get the £450 guy on a £600 budget. They sell their own grannies for a living. If they're on a fixed mark up (or percentage) then it's in their interest to get the best clients forward, but if they've been given a pot, they'll put their adequate but best margin people forward.

[Agent]

It's really interesting to read about the hate/hate relationship that a lot seem to have with agencies.

OP - my suggestion would be to build some strong relationships with the right agencies. By this I mean agencies that have multiple contract roles within your skill set (look at their current / historic adverts and website). Try and find local agencies if you can, arrange to meet them for a coffee, treat them as you would treat any customer (as this is essentially what they are). Look for specific recruiters that have been with their current company for 2-3 years minimum. It takes a along time to build a contract desk so a rookie isn't going to have the volume of requirements that a seasoned contract recruiter would. Also focus on recruiters that do purely contract recruitment, dual desk recruiters (contract & perm) will always end up being perm and won't have many contract roles as they simply can't compete with an out and out contract recruiter.

You can think what you like about how ethical (and how greedy) agencies are but if you are relying on them to secure work then you need to get them on board. I've been a recruiter for over 10 years and yes I try to make a good margin but not at the cost of losing a placement. I'll often not put the 'best candidate on paper' forward because their attitute stinks and they are clearly going to be a menace long term.

Even for contract roles, it's a 70/30 decision from any hiring manager - 70% skills, 30% personality. If the agent believes that you won't let him down or mess you around and you show the same repect that he/she shows you then you'll find that you will generally be put forward and will secure interviews.

The influence that an agency (a good one) has with their client is often under-rated. I'll put 5 CV's forward for a contract and if the skills sets are similar the client will always ask for my recommendation on which two to interview. I always pick the ones that I personally liked and felt wouldn't let me down.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of cowboy recruiters out there - that's no different to any industry. As a contractor, you're a company, you need to build and maintain a reliable supply chain / customer base. Do the ground work and even if that recruiter changes companies, he'll still be there for you in his next company.

[kaiser78]

It's really interesting to read about the hate/hate relationship that a lot seem to have with agencies.

OP - my suggestion would be to build some strong relationships with the right agencies. By this I mean agencies that have multiple contract roles within your skill set (look at their current / historic adverts and website). Try and find local agencies if you can, arrange to meet them for a coffee, treat them as you would treat any customer (as this is essentially what they are). Look for specific recruiters that have been with their current company for 2-3 years minimum. It takes a along time to build a contract desk so a rookie isn't going to have the volume of requirements that a seasoned contract recruiter would. Also focus on recruiters that do purely contract recruitment, dual desk recruiters (contract & perm) will always end up being perm and won't have many contract roles as they simply can't compete with an out and out contract recruiter.

You can think what you like about how ethical (and how greedy) agencies are but if you are relying on them to secure work then you need to get them on board. I've been a recruiter for over 10 years and yes I try to make a good margin but not at the cost of losing a placement. I'll often not put the 'best candidate on paper' forward because their attitute stinks and they are clearly going to be a menace long term.

Even for contract roles, it's a 70/30 decision from any hiring manager - 70% skills, 30% personality. If the agent believes that you won't let him down or mess you around and you show the same repect that he/she shows you then you'll find that you will generally be put forward and will secure interviews.

The influence that an agency (a good one) has with their client is often under-rated. I'll put 5 CV's forward for a contract and if the skills sets are similar the client will always ask for my recommendation on which two to interview. I always pick the ones that I personally liked and felt wouldn't let me down.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of cowboy recruiters out there - that's no different to any industry. As a contractor, you're a company, you need to build and maintain a reliable supply chain / customer base. Do the ground work and even if that recruiter changes companies, he'll still be there for you in his next company.

Agree with the concept of building relationships etc but it needs to be a two way thing. The concept of cowboy behaviour is much more prevalent in the recruitment industry then any other aspect of my daily living encounterments, so disagree with your statement in relation to this.

[Agent]

Agree with the concept of building relationships etc but it needs to be a two way thing. The concept of cowboy behaviour is much more prevalent in the recruitment industry then any other aspect of my daily living encounterments, so disagree with your statement in relation to this.

Totally agree, it's more prevalent because you interact with IT recruiters on a regular basis. If you were a property developer then you'd no doubt think just as highly of estate agents (or maybe you do anyway). I don't disagree with you, there's tons of bad agencies, but in my line of work the most prevalent cowboys are bad IT contractors (there's an endless stream). It's all a case of perspective I guess.

[LondonManc]

I try and work with the agencies that I've worked with in the past where possible, mainly because they know I'll generally get extended so I'm worth more to them. I guess that works both ways; if you've had a candidate get extension after extension and not cause bother or quit on you, then you're more likely to big them up to the client.

[pashton73]

This is the dirtiest trick that the agencies pull. If the agent has multiple contractors going for a position, the agent will only submit those with the lowest rate so that their margin is maximized no matter who gets the contract.

For example, if the client has agreed to pay £100 per hour for a consultant and the agent has 4 contractors who have said that they will accept £55, £57, £60 and £80; the contractor who wants 80 per hour will NOT be submitted because the agent would only make 20% margin as opposed to 40% plus on the lower 3. However, the agent will tell you that you’ve been submitted at 80 per hour when you have not been submitted at all. The agent does not care if the £80 per hour contractor is the best candidate, margin matters, nothing else.

SOLUTION: Do not give the agent your rate when asked. Instead, ask the agent what the best rate is that the client is willing to pay. When the agent suggests a derisory rate (55 or so), simply agree and ask to be put forward the silly rate the agent is telling you. You will most likely get the interview and beat the other candidates because they almost certainly not as qualified as you. It is important that you tell the client at the interview that you want the job and that if anybody (the Agent) tells the client that you’re no longer interested or have taken another position then have them call you directly to clear up the misunderstanding.

The agent will call you to give you the good news. At this point, tell the agent that the job is not more complex than described and you will only accept the position at 80 per hour. The agent will tell you that they have to check with the client to see if your new rate is acceptable. This is a lie, the agent will call the client and tell them that you are no longer interested or available but the other candidates are available.

The client will then call you directly to clear up the misunderstanding as requested. At this point you tell the client that you accepted the position at 80 per hour. The client will then know that the agent has lied to them, dump the agent and call another agent with the instruction to hire you at 80. – 20 years experience of IT contracting

[missinggreenfields]

This is the dirtiest trick that the agencies pull. If the agent has multiple contractors going for a position, the agent will only submit those with the lowest rate so that their margin is maximized no matter who gets the contract.

For example, if the client has agreed to pay £100 per hour for a consultant and the agent has 4 contractors who have said that they will accept £55, £57, £60 and £80; the contractor who wants 80 per hour will NOT be submitted because the agent would only make 20% margin as opposed to 40% plus on the lower 3. However, the agent will tell you that you’ve been submitted at 80 per hour when you have not been submitted at all. The agent does not care if the £80 per hour contractor is the best candidate, margin matters, nothing else.

SOLUTION: Do not give the agent your rate when asked. Instead, ask the agent what the best rate is that the client is willing to pay. When the agent suggests a derisory rate (55 or so), simply agree and ask to be put forward the silly rate the agent is telling you. You will most likely get the interview and beat the other candidates because they almost certainly not as qualified as you. It is important that you tell the client at the interview that you want the job and that if anybody (the Agent) tells the client that you’re no longer interested or have taken another position then have them call you directly to clear up the misunderstanding.

The agent will call you to give you the good news. At this point, tell the agent that the job is not more complex than described and you will only accept the position at 80 per hour. The agent will tell you that they have to check with the client to see if your new rate is acceptable. This is a lie, the agent will call the client and tell them that you are no longer interested or available but the other candidates are available.

The client will then call you directly to clear up the misunderstanding as requested. At this point you tell the client that you accepted the position at 80 per hour. The client will then know that the agent has lied to them, dump the agent and call another agent with the instruction to hire you at 80. – 20 years experience of IT contracting

Thanks, I needed cheering up

You are presuming that the agency is always operating on the basis that they aren't working on a percentage basis. The majority of agencies that I deal with are always working on a fixed-percentage margin, which means that they are interested in getting the best-priced contractor in there. The higher the rate, the more they get because they are on a fixed rate. This is particularly important where the agency is working on a low margin level.

You are presuming that all agents act the same way and won't tell the client that you lied about the rate and then jacked it up.

You are presuming that the client is interested in chasing someone when they have other people lined up that can do the role.

You are presuming that the client has the ability to dump the agency, has other agencies that they will use, wants to go through the hassle of going through another agency, and is prepared to do this for one contractor who has at some stage in the process not been honest with someone else.

Best of luck.