agency unfairly pressuring me

[ChimpMaster]

This thread is finished now. It's boring. Please end it.

Thank you.

[Denny]

This thread is finished now. It's boring. Please end it.

Thank you.

It's now ended.

Does everyone agree?

[DodgyAgent]

It's now ended.

Does everyone agree?

No! I think the agency should be given the opportunity to defend iitself and answer questions.

DA in "settling down for a long thread" mode

[privateeye]

No! I think the agency should be given the opportunity to defend iitself and answer questions.

DA in "settling down for a long thread" mode

The agency could an S3 member in whinge mode - oops crossed threads.

[remoh1972]

looking into it, the agency doesn't appear to be a memeber of ATSCO - which should have been a warning.

Name and shame......They can't even get SC clearance or even basic check (which is are you say who you say you are, and do you have a pulse, its that basic) without a signature

Its also against CESG rules to advertise a job and state clearance is a requirement.

[super]

Its also against CESG rules to advertise a job and state clearance is a requirement.

Well there's certainly plenty of adverts around at the moment stating SC is a requirement. I've also spoken to various recruiters who won't represent me for a role which is "SC desirable" because I don't have SC.

[tim123]

Name and shame......They can't even get SC clearance or even basic check (which is are you say who you say you are, and do you have a pulse, its that basic) without a signature

Its also against CESG rules to advertise a job and state clearance is a requirement.

Maybe it is. But the reality is that if turn up for the interview needing clearance and you are competing with people who are already cleared you won't be getting the job (not because clearance costs money, nor because it usually takes 4 week, but because it sometimes takes 6 months).

Not being allowed to say in the ad "must be cleared" only harms one person, the uncleared candidate. I see no sense in enforcing a rule which actually harms the people it is designed to help.

tim

[Mailman]

Well there's certainly plenty of adverts around at the moment stating SC is a requirement. I've also spoken to various recruiters who won't represent me for a role which is "SC desirable" because I don't have SC.

The only way this will ever be stamped out is if people report each and every instance when they come across them. Eventually someone will get bent over an apple cart by her majesties armed forces and that will be the end of that dodgy little practice!

Mailman

[IT contract agent]

what do you want mailman???? - should we only advertise a .net role by saying willing to undergo .net training???

[malvolio]

what do you want mailman???? - should we only advertise a .net role by saying willing to undergo .net training???

Yet again, you fail to understand the product and the rules of the game you're supposed to follow. You really, really sure you're a contractor salesman?