State of the Market

[KinooOrKinog]

And what a waste of time that was, for the most part. I've trekked all over for 'we must meet you first' meetings only to discover on seeing the client that what was talked about with the agency bore no resemblance to what the client wanted to talk about.

yes, agree it was a pain. My point was more about how much of what a recruiter does now has changed over the years

[hairymouse]

I just completed a stupid video interview - not even with an actual live person, because the candidates aren't worth that, apparently. Nope, questions on a screen and you record your answer.

They asked for feedback afterwards. Fair enough.

It just occurred to me that this could be seen as a highly questionable way of filtering applicants as the video aspect makes it clear that this is about looks. It would make it easy to exclude all kinds of protected groups.

[PCTNN]

I remember way back in the day a recruiter would insist on meeting & interviewing you before they put you forward for a role.

For permanent roles I also remember agents wanting to meet me face to face to prep me for the interview with the client. I went to one of these meetings and only because I was still a junior and didn't know any better. Total waste of time.

Contract world has been much better for this. For now.

[LadyPenelope]

It just occurred to me that this could be seen as a highly questionable way of filtering applicants as the video aspect makes it clear that this is about looks. It would make it easy to exclude all kinds of protected groups.

Hmm, you've got a point there...

It's also the sort of tulipty perm role I'd never have applied for except under the current circumstances.

[ladymuck]

yes, agree it was a pain. My point was more about how much of what a recruiter does now has changed over the years

That's true. At least they then made an attempt at working for their cut

[eek]

It just occurred to me that this could be seen as a highly questionable way of filtering applicants as the video aspect makes it clear that this is about looks. It would make it easy to exclude all kinds of protected groups.

Flip side of that is that they would have been excluded anyway just later in the process after hope had built up and money might have been wasted.

[tsmith]

Flip side of that is that they would have been excluded anyway just later in the process after hope had built up and money might have been wasted.

Meeting agent only worked for me once. They got me 2 contracts in 2 years. But since then - absolute waste of time. The attrition rate is so high in recruitment - there is no 'relationship building' with the candidate. If you dont get placed in a role by them first time - chances are you'll never hear from them again.

[PCTNN]

If you dont get placed in a role by them first time - chances are you'll never hear from them again.

I don't entirely agree. I think agents are the kind of people that would sell their mother for £1 so if there is a slight chance that they can make some money off of you, they'll call you. Even if you were unsuccessful to an interview, and even if you played them dirty.

[tsmith]

I don't entirely agree. I think agents are the kind of people that would sell their mother for £1 so if there is a slight chance that they can make some money off of you, they'll call you. Even if you were unsuccessful to an interview, and even if you played them dirty.

Maybe 2 strikes and youre off the list. Depends on how niche your skill set is vs demand. Project managers are 10 a penny.

[GhostofTarbera]

Maybe 2 strikes and youre off the list. Depends on how niche your skill set is vs demand. Project managers are 10 a penny.

2000 a penny if my agent is to belived as that’s the average response per role


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum