Alex Mann - I will never deal with again

[Denny]

I admit - I did fall victim to Alexander Mann, and did get excited as after a year plus of working around the country and being away from home, or early start/late arriving home, it was like a dream. What I hate about Alexmann is that there is basically no negotiating with them and there is no impartiality on their part because they are so tied in with their outsourcing agreement. I honestly don't think that they should even go to the market with these roles trying to represent themselves as an Agency\EB. They obviously are not and should put it out to the real EB's etc..

Also, it is the lies that even when you prove to them what they have told you, they still stand by them - God, it must be hard to recruite people like that, I wonder if they drink Horlicks at night to get a good nights sleep

Cheers

Steve

Alex Mann are by no means the only RPOs servicing this industry. What makes me so angry about this ludicrous RPO concept is their ability to disregard the sourcing decisions of their supplier EBs who supply the RPO with our services and then lose out because the 3 CV allocation they presumably get is reduced because AM won't then send all 3 CVs to the hiring manager, if they don't like the look of them, but reduce them still further.

To get this is perspective though, on a contractor forum, all this model really demonstrates however, is how redundant the recruitment industry is overall. If RPOs are considered by some organisations essential to monitor and sieve the work of indepedent EBs who can't be trusted to source their own sourced candidates accurately, then what is the real point of EBs in the first place?

Also, the concept of independent EBs is really a misnomer anyway, as most work in partnerships unofficially with their clients. Therefore, the only difference is that AM have the power to screw up any contractor's chances not just with their immediate client, but also their other clients too.

RPOs are basically a Human Remains dictatorship model open to the same abuses as any dictatorship. At least independent EBs with no RPOs in the way do have to compete with many more like them, often for the same roles giving contractors a fighting chance of getting in front of the client.

The only thing that puts a smile on my face is that the independent EBs hate RPOs nearly as much as we do and have to experience the same frustrations about not getting in front of the client with our services through RPOs as we experience when we go directly through independent EBs.

[DodgyAgent]

Alex Mann are by no means the only RPOs servicing this industry. What makes me so angry about this ludicrous RPO concept is their ability to disregard the sourcing decisions of their supplier EBs who supply the RPO with our services and then lose out because the 3 CV allocation they presumably get is reduced because AM won't then send all 3 CVs to the hiring manager, if they don't like the look of them, but reduce them still further.

To get this is perspective though, on a contractor forum, all this model really demonstrates however, is how redundant the recruitment industry is overall. If RPOs are considered by some organisations essential to monitor and sieve the work of indepedent EBs who can't be trusted to source their own sourced candidates accurately, then what is the real point of EBs in the first place?

Also, the concept of independent EBs is really a misnomer anyway, as most work in partnerships unofficially with their clients. Therefore, the only difference is that AM have the power to screw up any contractor's chances not just with their immediate client, but also their other clients too.

RPOs are basically a Human Remains dictatorship model open to the same abuses as any dictatorship. At least independent EBs with no RPOs in the way do have to compete with many more like them, often for the same roles giving contractors a fighting chance of getting in front of the client.

The only thing that puts a smile on my face is that the independent EBs hate RPOs nearly as much as we do and have to experience the same frustrations about not getting in front of the client with our services through RPOs as we experience when we go directly through independent EBs.

Firstly what is an RPO? secondly Denny as ever there is hidden in there a perfectly valid point messed up by this attitude that contractors are somehow owed a living by the rest of society, and that they are somehow victims not only of agencies but also of clients and seemingly every other group in society.

No attempt is for example made by you to try and understand why these RPOs are chosen (yes, chosen!) to do what they do. To you it matters not that for a large company procuring contractors is an expensive and time consuming activity. They have to narrow their selection process and in so doing may lose out on some perfectly good contractors, but that is their choice.

As far as the relationship between the agency and RPO is concerned that again is a matter of commercial choice between two businesses. You may look at it as agencies being "in hock" to their clients, but that is business. It is the clients that write the cheques not the contractors, understand that and your life will be much simpler and more rewarding.

[tim123]

This is most odd.

Apart from not knowing what RPO is either (I know what is meant, I just don't know what the TLA means), for once, I find myself in full agreement with Denny and not DA, to the extent that I'm actually surprised by DA's post (except for the bit about "being owed a living").

In all my relationships with agents, none of them have ever had a good word to say for having to go through an RPO (if that *is* what they are called) to the extent that some of them simply will not provide candidates to such clients.

tim

[Denny]

Firstly what is an RPO? secondly Denny as ever there is hidden in there a perfectly valid point messed up by this attitude that contractors are somehow owed a living by the rest of society, and that they are somehow victims not only of agencies but also of clients and seemingly every other group in society.

No attempt is for example made by you to try and understand why these RPOs are chosen (yes, chosen!) to do what they do. To you it matters not that for a large company procuring contractors is an expensive and time consuming activity. They have to narrow their selection process and in so doing may lose out on some perfectly good contractors, but that is their choice.

As far as the relationship between the agency and RPO is concerned that again is a matter of commercial choice between two businesses. You may look at it as agencies being "in hock" to their clients, but that is business. It is the clients that write the cheques not the contractors, understand that and your life will be much simpler and more rewarding.

In answer to your first question: RPO stands for Recruitment Process Outsourcing. I'm surprised you don't know this considering you are an Employment Business (something else, you know doubt deny preferring instead to refer to yourself as 'agent').

Again, you launch into an irrelevant rant resting on out of date cliches about me thinking that people 'owe me a living.' I never even mentioned that, nor have I in the past. Why on earth should I care to understand what things are like for the recruitment industry when their very own industry rests entirely by exploiting and often abusing contractors? Does the recruitment industry care to understand how our businesses work when they constantly hark on about 'full time roles' display their ignorance about ir35 issues and concerns and use all manner of permie speak just to ensure we all behave like docile little bum on seaters guaranteeing the recruiter salesman his regular commission?

All you have done is dressed up your usual non-answers with pointless emotional verbiage that is not only irrelvant to the points I made but also displays your spectacular ignorance about the recruitment industry.

By the way, it is precisely the recruitment industry that believes by its business model that contractors OWE THEM a living. How else would they stay in business? Why do they put indemnity clauses in their contracts that attempt to 'fine' contractors if they leave an assignment early, no matter how good the reason? Is that not a sure sign that EBs believe that the contractor on site owes them a living for the duration of the entire contract they signed up to, no matter how unsuitable it turns out to be?

They don't win earn their crust by their own efforts to win clients and sift through CVs and select the rights ones becuase their own clients don't value these tasks enough and won't pay for it. It's only when contractors come on the scene and start a role that they get anything at all.

[Denny]

This is most odd.

Apart from not knowing what RPO is either (I know what is meant, I just don't know what the TLA means), for once, I find myself in full agreement with Denny and not DA, to the extent that I'm actually surprised by DA's post (except for the bit about "being owed a living").

In all my relationships with agents, none of them have ever had a good word to say for having to go through an RPO (if that *is* what they are called) to the extent that some of them simply will not provide candidates to such clients.

tim

Thank you Tim.

Remember it takes a contractor not a recruiter to know what the recruitment industry is really all about.

It takes a recruiter to reinforce the myths surrounding their own industry that have no basis in reality - hence the hype.

It takes a PCG CC member to spend all his time on this contractor forum to understand how hard things are for a recruiter whilst masquerading as a contractor's representative.

Topsy Turvey world we live in.

[malvolio]

Thank you Tim.

Remember it takes a contractor not a recruiter to know what the recruitment industry is really all about.

It takes a recruiter to reinforce the myths surrounding their own industry that have no basis in reality - hence the hype.

It takes a PCG CC member to spend all his time on this contractor forum to understand how hard things are for a recruiter whilst masquerading as a contractor's representative.

Topsy Turvey world we live in.

Ermmm... I've been a "contractor representative" for around 5 years, a contractor for 15, have been hiring FTEs and contractors for about 25. I have several good contacts in the agency business including a couple in REC adn ATSCo. I think I klnow the business reasnably well.

You might like to ressurect your PCG membership and look up the various campaigns I've initiated, including ones aimed at changing the relationship between contractor and agency in the way you keep thinking it should be.

I've never traded on being a CC member on this forum apart from when I was vote chasing, mostly in jest (or perhaps desperation!) at the last elections. But since most of the source material you rely on derives from the PCG's largely unreported work over the years, I make no apology for being a member.

But don't bother defending your prejudiced position yet again, I'm really not interested (and I just jotted down what your next post will be )

[DodgyAgent]

This is most odd.

Apart from not knowing what RPO is either (I know what is meant, I just don't know what the TLA means), for once, I find myself in full agreement with Denny and not DA, to the extent that I'm actually surprised by DA's post (except for the bit about "being owed a living").

In all my relationships with agents, none of them have ever had a good word to say for having to go through an RPO (if that *is* what they are called) to the extent that some of them simply will not provide candidates to such clients.

tim

If you bothered to read what I said then you will realise that I was not actually disagreeing with gist of her point. And yes I do certainly have a lot of criticism of "RPO"s the main one being that they may act as a a protective barrier to managers and staff that have "better things to do than recruit", but they are so protective that they also act as a barrier to all the positive things out there in the marketplace.

The hiring of people is mostly a sophisticated, personal and individual activity. Outsourcing it all to people and systems (yep recruitment systems are as much to blame) who have no understanding of the dynamics of a business, and to people who largely are their to promote their own agendas is not necessarily good for the company.

And I would go further (though without the background "I am a victim" bleating) to say that the homogonisation of margins, fees, suppliers (who hasnt got Harvey Nash on their PSL?) leads to a conformity of standards and performance levels from agencies.

In Aberdeen, Scotland for example every single engineering company is desperate for engineers, but they have all seemed to standardised on a margin of 7% and permie fees of 12%. So instead of agencies investing in new markets or new initiatives to find candidates (say from abroad for example) they set about squabbling with each other over the few candidates who are active in a market at any one time.

My own view of course is that such homogonisation clearly does not deliver the services that clients really need, which creates big opportunities via the backdoor

[Churchill]

Denny love, put the kettle on, I'm parched!

[DodgyAgent]

Thank you Tim.

Remember it takes a contractor not a recruiter to know what the recruitment industry is really all about.

It takes a recruiter to reinforce the myths surrounding their own industry that have no basis in reality - hence the hype.

It takes a PCG CC member to spend all his time on this contractor forum to understand how hard things are for a recruiter whilst masquerading as a contractor's representative.

Topsy Turvey world we live in.

What is interesting is that you claim to "know what the recruitment industry is about", whereas I have never claimed such a thing. Most people state their own opinions whereas you claim to have some sort of divine authority on everything that you spout.

You claim not to come across as victimised, and then you say:

"Why on earth should I care to understand what things are like for the recruitment industry when their very own industry rests entirely by exploiting and often abusing contractors"

If that is not the bleatings of a whining moaner then I dont know what is.

At best it can be argued that as a side effect of the activities of many recruitment agencies contractors are treated unprofessionally and dishonestly ("dishonest" is a subjective concept anyway). But to suggest that businesses are set up primarily to make lives uncomfortable for others, as opposed to making money is laughable at best and truly dishonest at worse.

[Churchill]

But to suggest that businesses are set up primarily to make lives uncomfortable for others, as opposed to making money is laughable at best and truly dishonest at worse.

("dishonest" is a subjective concept anyway).