Why do employers use recruitment agencies?

[TheFaQQer]

If the hiring manager is a £50k salaried employee, the cost comparison between doing things directly, and using someone like me is almost nil.

If the hiring manager is recruiting two people on 40k, and you are taking 15%, then that's 12k (as someone stated earlier).

If the hiring manager is paid 50k, then as long as he takes less than 87.6 days to find the two people, then they will save money rather than using you.

[DodgyAgent]

If the hiring manager is recruiting two people on 40k, and you are taking 15%, then that's 12k (as someone stated earlier).

If the hiring manager is paid 50k, then as long as he takes less than 87.6 days to find the two people, then they will save money rather than using you.

Perhaps the hiring manager should go in to recruitment and do the job of an agent for half the price

[SoupDragon]

lol @ agent fight

[bassy]

need a toasting marshmallows on the flames smiley

[The Agents View]

If the hiring manager is recruiting two people on 40k, and you are taking 15%, then that's 12k (as someone stated earlier).

If the hiring manager is paid 50k, then as long as he takes less than 87.6 days to find the two people, then they will save money rather than using you.

Thats the simplistic view, which fails to take into account:

National Insurance (Employers)
Fixed Overheads (Desk space, property, heating, lighting etc etc)
Cost of Advertising
Lost revenue from not doing what they're paid to do (magnified if they're revenue generators)
Cost of the time of senior individuals asked to interview people who aren't right.


Not to mention the fact that they have neither the network access, or the understanding of what is really involved in providing a water tight hire.

It also fails to take into account that poaching from the competition has various legal implications; risk which is averted by using an agency.

Then you come on to rebates - if you do it directly, who is going to give you your money and time back if the individual turns out to be completely wrong on reflection?

So your simplistic view is basic division - but when you take into account the true cost, and the aversion of risk, I do believe you answer the question of why companies use us.

[DodgyAgent]

Thats the simplistic view, which fails to take into account:

National Insurance (Employers)
Fixed Overheads (Desk space, property, heating, lighting etc etc)
Cost of Advertising
Lost revenue from not doing what they're paid to do (magnified if they're revenue generators)
Cost of the time of senior individuals asked to interview people who aren't right.


Not to mention the fact that they have neither the network access, or the understanding of what is really involved in providing a water tight hire.

It also fails to take into account that poaching from the competition has various legal implications; risk which is averted by using an agency.

Then you come on to rebates - if you do it directly, who is going to give you your money and time back if the individual turns out to be completely wrong on reflection?

So your simplistic view is basic division - but when you take into account the true cost, and the aversion of risk, I do believe you answer the question of why companies use us.

You shouldnt take yourself so seriously, particularly not on this board.

[SorenLorensen]

If it's a water tight hire, then why would they ever need a rebate?

[The Agents View]

If it's a water tight hire, then why would they ever need a rebate?

Because sometimes things come to light post offer, which lead to that offer being withdrawn - or worse, lead to the individual being dismissed. Even with the best due dilligence in the world, the nature of speciailist recruitment demands quick results - results which people like the CRB can't always keep up with. It's a risk that we take if the person is new to our network.......

If something like that shows up, you either go for a rebate, or a free replacement arrangement.

[chapeau]

If I haven't given an agency twelve grand in the first place then there is nothing to rebate. That £12k never left the company bank account. It can be put to far better use, like having a party for the new guy. And a party for Christmas, and the week after, and the week after that... You can get a lot of booze and nibbles for £12k.

Only risk is a couple of hundred quid for the ad, and an additional day of my time. All the mundane ticking boxes and dotting the 'i's is what we have an HR department for, we wouldn't give that job to an agent anyway, don't believe their competance extends that far. There again, don't think HR's does either, but at least they carry the can if they screw up on the box ticking. The agent wouldn't answer the phone calls if he screwed up and we went after him.

[The Agents View]

If I haven't given an agency twelve grand in the first place then there is nothing to rebate. That £12k never left the company bank account. It can be put to far better use, like having a party for the new guy. And a party for Christmas, and the week after, and the week after that... You can get a lot of booze and nibbles for £12k.

Only risk is a couple of hundred quid for the ad, and an additional day of my time. All the mundane ticking boxes and dotting the 'i's is what we have an HR department for, we wouldn't give that job to an agent anyway, don't believe their competance extends that far. There again, don't think HR's does either, but at least they carry the can if they screw up on the box ticking. The agent wouldn't answer the phone calls if he screwed up and we went after him.

Try a week of your time minimum, endless telephone calls, endless initial screenings, face to face interviews X 4 for two positions - minimum I would suspect, plus the communication of offers, negotiation, contracts being drawn up, time of other people for second opinion. How much does your time cost? I would suspect it's a lot more than you think when you take on board the fixed costs, and even more when you think about the "opportunity cost" (the cost of you not doing your real job + actual cost of you + fixed costs).

Then you realise that if we spend 2 weeks looking for someone and don't find it, you don't pay anything at all. If you do it, and screw it up (which you ultimately will - I'm confident of that because you think adverts are the way forwards) - then that cost stays the same, and you've still not got the person you need......

I know it's very hard for contractors to admit that a recruiter is right - but the true cost vs. agency argument makes fairly conclusive sense if you work with one that can actually deliver......