State of the Market

[SussexSeagull]

Cause it's very often a load of tulipe, agents just spruce it up to make it more positive, get you more invested etc. even talk about budgets etc. is all fluff imho, as I can't imagine a scenario where a manager kicks off agents to look for people before a position is open with an approved budget.

At the moment I can believe just about anything with the recruitment process.

[willendure]

The whole point of AI is that it can only work by being "leaky", unless it's not really AI.
It "learns" by "listening", and each company that uses Teams is using the same Microsoft software. So, if Co-op have a meeting where they talk about "Co-op's plans for the future", and Microsoft AI learns that phrase, then all it takes is for someone at Sainsbury's to ask Bing "what are co-op's plans for the future?"
Microsoft AI then says "I know, I've learned this one from several teams transcriptions, the answer is..."

Not true. It works by learning from a wide variety of sources during its training phase, and then at runtime is in in inference mode so not actively learning.

Yes, AI companies could log all your chats and use them for further training. But that would definitely be in the terms of the agreement. For one thing it would fall under GDPR because there is likely to be personal information in a chat, so that all needs to be declared properly.

Its not really any different to storing files on OneDrive I suppose. You might have sensitive files and be trusting the online drive to keep them safe. Securing an AI is in principle no harder. But yes, its all a potential source of leaks.

[dsc]

At the moment I can believe just about anything with the recruitment process.

There's a very simple reason why a search before budget approvals is so tough to believe, surely you have to pay an agent for them to get off their bums and start "looking". If there's no budget, what money is being used to pay for the search? Unless of course there's a whole separate budget for "recruitment services" paid for yearly that simply includes the "looking" process.

[eek]

There's a very simple reason why a search before budget approvals is so tough to believe, surely you have to pay an agent for them to get off their bums and start "looking". If there's no budget, what money is being used to pay for the search? Unless of course there's a whole separate budget for "recruitment services" paid for yearly that simply includes the "looking" process.

Agencies are paid for contractors via their margin on every invoice.

And agencies will do anything to earn a few quid so using an unused jobserve credit to advertise a contract that may or may not actually occur isn't a great cost. Phoning up a few contractors and having CVs lined up to give to a client again isn't a big effort if the agent has little actually work on.

[SussexSeagull]

Not true. It works by learning from a wide variety of sources during its training phase, and then at runtime is in in inference mode so not actively learning.

Yes, AI companies could log all your chats and use them for further training. But that would definitely be in the terms of the agreement. For one thing it would fall under GDPR because there is likely to be personal information in a chat, so that all needs to be declared properly.

It's not really any different to storing files on OneDrive I suppose. You might have sensitive files and be trusting the online drive to keep them safe. Securing an AI is in principle no harder. But yes, it's all a potential source of leaks.

This is all very sensible but I am not sure I don't think the regulation and corporate governance around AI has caught up yet.

[SussexSeagull]

There's a very simple reason why a search before budget approvals is so tough to believe, surely you have to pay an agent for them to get off their bums and start "looking". If there's no budget, what money is being used to pay for the search? Unless of course there's a whole separate budget for "recruitment services" paid for yearly that simply includes the "looking" process.

Agents are on commission. If they don't find you a candidate they don't get paid. Different story if they are internal recruiters.

Certainly companies have historically looked for people 'just to see what is out there' with little or no intention of employing them.

[oliverson]

Good luck mate.

Aside from the market still a pile of tulip, looks like it's going to get even worse:

"Indian professionals living in Britain will also be spared from paying national insurance in the UK as well as at home for three years, in another concession."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...it-trade-deal/

Essentially a big pay rise for the Indian IT workers coming here.

You know, it may actually be time to 'stay retired' after all.

[Smartie]

Essentially a big pay rise for the Indian IT workers coming here.

Could be that, or could drive down salaries/rates down another 15% or more as it increases supply of workers.

[jamesbrown]

In an unprecedented achievement, India has secured an exemption for Indian workers who are temporarily in the UK and their employers from paying social security contributions in the UK for a period of three years under the Double Contribution Convention. This will make Indian service providers significantly more competitive in the UK.

https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage....n%20Convention.

[courtg9000]

Agents are on commission. If they don't find you a candidate they don't get paid. Different story if they are internal recruiters.

Certainly companies have historically looked for people 'just to see what is out there' with little or no intention of employing them.

Internal recruiters are bonused slightly differently. In general they have a bonus pot agreed at the beginning of every year. They have targets to hit etc. In quite a few companies, that pot is reduced for every time they use a job board like Jobserve or Indeed or if they have to use an agency to fill a role they can get quite a bit knocked off. Often they have to use their own free accounts on Linkedin too.