It can only happen in recruitment!
What a bad day ive had, my candidate started today by lunch time the client had lost her, I did wonder how you could lose a lady, their building is only 4 floors !!!! She went out for lunch and that was the last they saw of her, after plenty of phone calls she finally emailed me to tell me she had changed her mind apparently it wasnt what she expected, i suppose after 2 interviews on site it must be difficult ..... is it me? why did she start? grrrr just another down to experience i expect. lucky for me the client saw the funny side of it i suppose.
she will probably asking for if i have anything else by monday.
---------
Indeed. On the face of it, this looks like a typical case of bad candidate who is solely to blame for the problem of a client being let down by having a candidate on site.
However, most EBs claim that their role is to vet and ensure the reliability and credibility of the candidates they put forward. Yet, this didn't happen well enough, it seems, and the candidate has gone AWOL. Also, the client doesn't appear to mind too much and want to continue sourcing through the same recruiter.
Therefore, it appears that it's fine for the EB to screw up with impunity, but woe be tide any candidate that screws up because they can be terminated immediately and without notice, and more than likely will be, according to their terms, with no hope in hell of returning to the same client or work through the same EB. The fact that candidates are not responsible for supplying themselves to the client seems not to matter a jot.
That's equivalent to telling a manufacturing distributor that the goods were faulty and they would like a replacement but it has nothing to do with the manufacturer or their employees not putting together an workable product or packaging it up and distributing it correctly. Apparently, the goods themselves took it upon itself not to work.
But.....aren't we dealing with human beings not goods?
Er...no. EBs supply human beings as their chief service provision, so we are goods in effect - they are not introducing candidates to clients whereby the relationship becomes a direct one once that introduction is made. Yet, when something like this happens the EB becomes the passive goods and we the service providers who screwed up. Who can blame a box for being mislabelled?
Just another example of the cock eyed, risk free environment the EBs are working in, whilst the candidates takes all the risks. Yet, apparently, it's fine for EBs to work as sole traders, but not us, who must be incorporated and pay two lots of NI even if we don't intend to grow our businesses. Plus, of course, the EBs are not subject to IR35 issues either, of being a de facto employee.
What a bad day ive had, my candidate started today by lunch time the client had lost her, I did wonder how you could lose a lady, their building is only 4 floors !!!! She went out for lunch and that was the last they saw of her, after plenty of phone calls she finally emailed me to tell me she had changed her mind apparently it wasnt what she expected, i suppose after 2 interviews on site it must be difficult ..... is it me? why did she start? grrrr just another down to experience i expect. lucky for me the client saw the funny side of it i suppose.
she will probably asking for if i have anything else by monday.
---------
Indeed. On the face of it, this looks like a typical case of bad candidate who is solely to blame for the problem of a client being let down by having a candidate on site.
However, most EBs claim that their role is to vet and ensure the reliability and credibility of the candidates they put forward. Yet, this didn't happen well enough, it seems, and the candidate has gone AWOL. Also, the client doesn't appear to mind too much and want to continue sourcing through the same recruiter.
Therefore, it appears that it's fine for the EB to screw up with impunity, but woe be tide any candidate that screws up because they can be terminated immediately and without notice, and more than likely will be, according to their terms, with no hope in hell of returning to the same client or work through the same EB. The fact that candidates are not responsible for supplying themselves to the client seems not to matter a jot.
That's equivalent to telling a manufacturing distributor that the goods were faulty and they would like a replacement but it has nothing to do with the manufacturer or their employees not putting together an workable product or packaging it up and distributing it correctly. Apparently, the goods themselves took it upon itself not to work.
But.....aren't we dealing with human beings not goods?
Er...no. EBs supply human beings as their chief service provision, so we are goods in effect - they are not introducing candidates to clients whereby the relationship becomes a direct one once that introduction is made. Yet, when something like this happens the EB becomes the passive goods and we the service providers who screwed up. Who can blame a box for being mislabelled?
Just another example of the cock eyed, risk free environment the EBs are working in, whilst the candidates takes all the risks. Yet, apparently, it's fine for EBs to work as sole traders, but not us, who must be incorporated and pay two lots of NI even if we don't intend to grow our businesses. Plus, of course, the EBs are not subject to IR35 issues either, of being a de facto employee.
All that is necessary for evil members to succeed is that good members post nothing 
Comment