2 Agents, 1 Interview, 1 Client.....Ugh!

[expat]

That's what I'd put my money on.

Me too. Now he's been caught and wants to eat his cake and have it.

[EternalOptimist]

Reading between the lines here. I suspect agent 1 put his two or three 'marks' forward and kept farmer giles out , so he could get more margin. The marks were rejected, possibly for being sh i te, and agent 1 was going to put the farmer in as a last resort, but got pipped by agent 2.
Agent 2 is a wise old bird, recognised that the farmer is a farmer of integrity and wouldn't double book, so he changed the job spec slightly and hooked the farmer.
The farmer gets valuable experience, if not the role, and will ask some hard questions next time.

[expat]

Reading between the lines here. I suspect agent 1 put his two or three 'marks' forward and kept farmer giles out , so he could get more margin. The marks were rejected, possibly for being sh i te, and agent 1 was going to put the farmer in as a last resort, but got pipped by agent 2.
Agent 2 is a wise old bird, recognised that the farmer is a farmer of integrity and wouldn't double book, so he changed the job spec slightly and hooked the farmer.
The farmer gets valuable experience, if not the role, and will ask some hard questions next time.

Agent 2 stays in the address book; Agent 1 doesn't.

[thelace]

Agent 2 did the legwork, got you the interview.

Agent 1 can take a running jump!

[Farmer jones]

This just gets better....!

Phoned client's HR Dept. HR lady told be that Agent 1 did not submit my CV, however Agent 1 did submit my name, as a "reserve" candidate.

Turns out Agent 1, has "new policy" of submitting 3 CV's (agents best 3 candidates) and also submits a list of candidates (names only no CV's) that they represent. So Agent 1 is hedging their bets, in what I see as a very sly and underhanded way.

Agent 1 sent over email to me this morning (at 7:13am...do those guys actually work at that time.....) saying they are the preferred supplier.I havn't replied.

HR lady said that she's had this problem with this agency in the past, and doesn't want to deal with them as they are very "pushy" as she said.

As usual Agents up to the old tricks with a new spin.

Agent 2 gets my vote. When I get a response (fingers crossed for a contract) I'll name the rogue Agent.

Thanks all.

FJ

[BrowneIssue]

Another option: the client selects their supplier, not you. Ask the client to appoint the agency that got you the interview, and if they don't know (!), ask them to just choose one.

Probably not the best strategy, but it moves the problem onto the client.

[expat]

This just gets better....!

Phoned client's HR Dept. HR lady told be that Agent 1 did not submit my CV, however Agent 1 did submit my name, as a "reserve" candidate.

Turns out Agent 1, has "new policy" of submitting 3 CV's (agents best 3 candidates) and also submits a list of candidates (names only no CV's) that they represent. So Agent 1 is hedging their bets, in what I see as a very sly and underhanded way.

I completely fail to see how Agent 1 putting your name on a "reserve list" i.e. a list of people not actually submitted, can give him priority over an agent who does submit you.

I mean, what does submitting just your name do, exactly? Nothing except try to claim priority submission without actually submitting. I.e. this is indeed the old agent dodge of saying you're submitted while actually you aren't, just to keep you off the market; but this time he is not even trying to hide it. As for his claiming to "represent" you, this is a lie: agents do not represent us, they find us for contracts, or they don't, that's all. Name and shame!

But I do have to hand it to him, this is more brazen than even I thought an agent could get!

[EternalOptimist]

Another option: the client selects their supplier, not you. Ask the client to appoint the agency that got you the interview, and if they don't know (!), ask them to just choose one.

Probably not the best strategy, but it moves the problem onto the client.

FWIW, giving the client problems is a very bad idea. very bad. You get paid to remove problems from the client

[expat]

FWIW, giving the client problems is a very bad idea. very bad. You get paid to remove problems from the client

That's right. I'd say the client has already chosen Agent 2. End of story.

[BrilloPad]

Turns out Agent 1, has "new policy" of submitting 3 CV's (agents best 3 candidates) and also submits a list of candidates (names only no CV's) that they represent. So Agent 1 is hedging their bets, in what I see as a very sly and underhanded way.

Thats a new one on me! Any agent who tries that can f**k right off seriously.