Recruiter demanded that our interview be recorded

[LondonManc]

This is very common for interim work. Some specialist interim firms I know won't work with you until they've met you and done quite a through screening.

I prefer going and meeting them for a coffee and a chat. Build a relationship, keep in touch, stay on their preferred contractor list, etc. It's no different to what a business would do with clients, surely?

[GigiBronz]

I prefer going and meeting them for a coffee and a chat. Build a relationship, keep in touch, stay on their preferred contractor list, etc. It's no different to what a business would do with clients, surely?

General advice is to keep away from meeting them, they are just doing it to read you out, learn how to control you better.
or pointless exercise to spend company expenses.
there is no loyalty in this business and we always choose to go to the highest paying role.
They’ll pick the shmuck that goes for the lowest rate and has the best chance to get approved by the client.

maybe I am wrong and hope the more seasoned people can show me the right way.

[_V_]

"The Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) continues to apply. The provisions of the EU GDPR were incorporated directly into UK law at the end of the transition period. The UK GDPR sits alongside the DPA 2018 with some technical amendments so that it works in a UK-only context."

That said, the right to be forgotten/deleted only applies if the processor/collector no longer requires the data for the purpose for which it was originally collected, which could be why they cited "training purposes". Similarly the organisation can deny the right of deletion if the erasure of the data would likely to impair or halt progress towards the achievement that was the goal of the processing, i.e. if they no longer have a training video.

There is another big difference. GDPR was enforced strongly by the EU. The UK ICO is a handful of public sector workers who spend all day reading the Guardian and planning their comfortable retirements on a good pension.

So basically, nothing is going to happen if you challenge anyone on the DPA act compared to GDPR.

[SueEllen]

There is another big difference. GDPR was enforced strongly by the EU. The UK ICO is a handful of public sector workers who spend all day reading the Guardian and planning their comfortable retirements on a good pension.

So basically, nothing is going to happen if you challenge anyone on the DPA act compared to GDPR.

That isn't true.

I actually known people who managed to get things to happen by using the DPA to challenge companies including their employers. The agency who helps enforce the provisions of the DPA can raid a company and take all their computers, mobiles and other electronic storage devices. At the time I knew of one company being raided ,companies weren't using the cloud so they couldn't operate for a few weeks....

[LondonManc]

1. General advice is to keep away from meeting them, they are just doing it to read you out, learn how to control you better.
or pointless exercise to spend company expenses.
2. there is no loyalty in this business and we always choose to go to the highest paying role.
3. They’ll pick the shmuck that goes for the lowest rate and has the best chance to get approved by the client.

1. Rubbish. There are agents now who would still be go-to if I was still contracting in London - a couple have told me that if I change my mind and start up again, get back in touch with them because they know I can do the roles and get extended. Why wouldn't they want a small network of contractors that they know will get the gig and extensions (which is where there's little effort for them for the money - they don't want to keep sourcing new candidates every 3-6 months when they can have someone on site for the whole 20-month project)? Then there are the clients - 80% of my contracts had extensions as well as return to client and a hiring manager moving and getting in touch with me a few years later
2. No we don't. I would not take a 3-month gig at a dodgy client for £50 a day more than an establish client with a good project that I know will run for 20 months. Don't tar everyone with your own tinted view of the world.
3. Really? Why did one client pick me when I was in there at the highest day rate then? Oh, wait, it's because they interviewed properly and found out that I was the only one capable of delivering what they wanted.

maybe I am wrong and hope the more seasoned people can show me the right way.

I just did show you the right way.

[GigiBronz]

I prefer going and meeting them for a coffee and a chat. Build a relationship, keep in touch, stay on their preferred contractor list, etc. It's no different to what a business would do with clients, surely?

1. Rubbish. There are agents now who would still be go-to if I was still contracting in London - a couple have told me that if I change my mind and start up again, get back in touch with them because they know I can do the roles and get extended. Why wouldn't they want a small network of contractors that they know will get the gig and extensions (which is where there's little effort for them for the money - they don't want to keep sourcing new candidates every 3-6 months when they can have someone on site for the whole 20-month project)? Then there are the clients - 80% of my contracts had extensions as well as return to client and a hiring manager moving and getting in touch with me a few years later

Yeah sorry, we deviated a bit from the subject. My suggestion was to not spend too much time with them. They are sales people, their prime motivation is MONEY.

What I think you should do with them is take the hot- hard to get - girl approach, once you have them hooked in then play it cool.
Your best recommendation is a client that was happy with your work. Nothing to that point in the relation would replicate that.

BUT, even if you have a good relationship with them and you have been validated by a client, the first thing they do when they get a new role on the table is: figure out what is the lowest they could pay someone to do it and climb their way up in rate from there.
You will be one of the last options despite the relationship because their motivation is intrinsically different.

Not to mention that if you show businessy attributes, play hardball at renewal and make a discomfort for the agent -> no matter how good the relationship is, they won't touch you next time because you are hard to manage.

I do hope I am paranoid. But I think it is close to how it works.

2. No we don't. I would not take a 3-month gig at a dodgy client for £50 a day more than an establish client with a good project that I know will run for 20 months. Don't tar everyone with your own tinted view of the world.

if you know the client yes you go with the one you know and the highest likelihood of renewal. but if you don't know anything about any of the contracts, you don't pick one just for the agent.

Also there are some good places but also not so good ones, the trouble is that it happens at team level. So it might depend a lot on the current manager or 1 level up. Managers change jobs and half of the team resigns. New bods come in. Happen all the time. Unless you have specific information from the exact team from someone that you trust, I would still go for the highest paying gig.

3. Really? Why did one client pick me when I was in there at the highest day rate then? Oh, wait, it's because they interviewed properly and found out that I was the only one capable of delivering what they wanted.

Circumstantial evidence. I do not question your skillset or your ability to close a deal. But if the client was in the mindset for closure then they've already seen quite a few candidates already. They want to do better every time and if they think the budget is too much they'll see other people as well at lower end of the budget. It is a calibration exercise for the hiring manager and recruiter at the same time.

The hiring manager picked you first but you might not have been the first pick for the agent, and that is the first gatekeeper that you have to pass through.

[ladymuck]

General advice is to keep away from meeting them, they are just doing it to read you out, learn how to control you better.
or pointless exercise to spend company expenses.
there is no loyalty in this business and we always choose to go to the highest paying role.
They’ll pick the shmuck that goes for the lowest rate and has the best chance to get approved by the client.

maybe I am wrong and hope the more seasoned people can show me the right way.

That's a really negative pov.

Sometimes it is a waste of time meeting with an agent, sometimes it isn't. You can get a feel for the level of nous the agent has over the phone before you agree to meeting. At worst, it's half an hour out of your day. Your comment about control reeks of paranoia, maybe lay off the mary jane for a while.

There is loyalty - for the right client. I have turned down high paying gigs in investment banking because I see what that environment does to people. I will quite often take a lower rate for more interesting work, or to get into a different sector, or to work with people I know will make a great team. The day rate isn't everything and if that's all you measure success by then you're going to be disappointed more often than not.

Clients don't automatically take the person willing to work for the lowest rate. They take the person that is the best fit, at a price they're willing to pay. A very subtle difference. It is a false economy to take on a clueless feckwit because they're cheap. Much like buying a Mercedes when a spare tyre is very important to you.

[GigiBronz]

That's a really negative pov.

Sometimes it is a waste of time meeting with an agent, sometimes it isn't. You can get a feel for the level of nous the agent has over the phone before you agree to meeting. At worst, it's half an hour out of your day. Your comment about control reeks of paranoia, maybe lay off the mary jane for a while.

There is loyalty - for the right client. I have turned down high paying gigs in investment banking because I see what that environment does to people. I will quite often take a lower rate for more interesting work, or to get into a different sector, or to work with people I know will make a great team. The day rate isn't everything and if that's all you measure success by then you're going to be disappointed more often than not.

Clients don't automatically take the person willing to work for the lowest rate. They take the person that is the best fit, at a price they're willing to pay. A very subtle difference. It is a false economy to take on a clueless feckwit because they're cheap. Much like buying a Mercedes when a spare tyre is very important to you.

I am always a bit salty.

What I was suggesting is that for the type of relationship that it is with the agent, there is no need for in person contact. Still stand by the above.

no mary jane here, quite a few years since, only sweet old alcohol.

"There is loyalty - for the right client." -> not loyalty to the pimp. to a good place yes. you can always prioritise what is important for you, and agree with what you said. but agent is nowhere in the equation there. actually if he learns that you are keen to get to a previous client, he will price that "keenness" in the rate. it's just business. you already want the gig so why not get less for it.

Clients don't automatically take the person willing to work for the lowest rate. They take the person that is the best fit, at a price they're willing to pay. A very subtle difference. It is a false economy to take on a clueless feckwit because they're cheap. Much like buying a Mercedes when a spare tyre is very important to you.

clients no, but clients don't know what the agency is paying unless they have an agreement for fixed commission. agent will definitely pick the lowest rate available that has the chance to get approved by client.
The client could as well pay top rate for what is a bottom of the barrel contractor side rate. You can never know.

[ladymuck]

In the majority of my 16 years of trading, I have been approached because of either being previously known to a client or known to someone already engaged with the client. Therefore, my position has mostly been one of getting what I want and the agency is only there as a payment processor. As long as I get what I want, within whatever limits the client has, I don't give a flying fig about the agent which is why they don't feature much in my response.

If you're not using every contract as an opportunity to build a network of contacts then you're doing yourself a disservice and will forever be reliant on the agents you despise so much. You're essentially creating yourself a self fulling prophesy and blaming us for it because we have worked our way out of it.

[LondonManc]

Yeah sorry, we deviated a bit from the subject. My suggestion was to not spend too much time with them. They are sales people, their prime motivation is MONEY.

What I think you should do with them is take the hot- hard to get - girl approach, once you have them hooked in then play it cool.
Your best recommendation is a client that was happy with your work. Nothing to that point in the relation would replicate that.

BUT, even if you have a good relationship with them and you have been validated by a client, the first thing they do when they get a new role on the table is: figure out what is the lowest they could pay someone to do it and climb their way up in rate from there.
You will be one of the last options despite the relationship because their motivation is intrinsically different.

Not to mention that if you show businessy attributes, play hardball at renewal and make a discomfort for the agent -> no matter how good the relationship is, they won't touch you next time because you are hard to manage.

I do hope I am paranoid. But I think it is close to how it works.


if you know the client yes you go with the one you know and the highest likelihood of renewal. but if you don't know anything about any of the contracts, you don't pick one just for the agent.

Also there are some good places but also not so good ones, the trouble is that it happens at team level. So it might depend a lot on the current manager or 1 level up. Managers change jobs and half of the team resigns. New bods come in. Happen all the time. Unless you have specific information from the exact team from someone that you trust, I would still go for the highest paying gig.



Circumstantial evidence. I do not question your skillset or your ability to close a deal. But if the client was in the mindset for closure then they've already seen quite a few candidates already. They want to do better every time and if they think the budget is too much they'll see other people as well at lower end of the budget. It is a calibration exercise for the hiring manager and recruiter at the same time.

The hiring manager picked you first but you might not have been the first pick for the agent, and that is the first gatekeeper that you have to pass through.

Yet again, you've looked for voices of experience, ignored them and told us what you think.

Agents want least hassle to get money. If that means putting in a candidate at slightly more because "Kathy is worth the extra £50/day because...." for example because they know she'll get 3 extensions out of the client, be happy with the rate she's going in on and get the project completed, then the agent will be happy. When they work on a percentage commission, which a lot do, they'll want 10% of 600 per day rather than 10% of 500 per day. A lot of clients have caught on to the "here's 600 per day" approach where they end up with a 350/day person when they were expecting a 500/day person.

You're far too defensive and mistrusting of agents - yes, there are loads who simply want to cv harvest so they can spam you with almost appropriate jobs but if you never make an effort to engage them you're just another name on the list. Selling yourself in to an agent makes it more likely they'll sell you in to the client, especially if you can help the agent out with leads on places you wouldn't return to, etc. Your lack of experience in these things shows.