Anti Competitive behaviour

[DodgyAgent]

or conversely you could try and see it from the companies point of view that they were forever having to recruit and train people without ever getting any return.

In addition to this they would have been effectively paying the agency say 25% - only for that engineer to go after 6 months and the company down the road had to pay the agency another say 25%.

I know very little about the industry but why would does DA think it is ok to use it as a cash cow?

I mean where is the loyalty to the company - such as


Hmm I placed that guy 6 months ago I could

a) See if I can get another contractor in and make some money

or

b) Take that contractor I placed 6 months ago away from a client I am trying to build a relationship with and sell him to the company down the road and then sell the original client another contractor and thus effectively double my money for little work as I do not need to go through the whole recruitment/search and selection process for one of the placements.



Lets see if any can think why the industry has banded together to save themselves from this quite obvious profiteering and also cut down on spiralling training costs and get some long term quality engineers who really know the systems and possible could in an emergeny by the difference between life and death.

There is of course a point to what these companies did for the very reasons that you explain. There is however a danger with any cartel or restrictive practice is allowed to develop. Whilst at first these things may seem like a good idea and are well intentioned they have now (in my opinion) had the effect of removing market forces away from benefitting the engineer (as well as the recruitment agencies)

The moral argument is irrelevant. This is still a a cartel driven restrictive practice

[DodgyAgent]

Directors or highly talented individuals are effectively one off case. Doing "headhunting" en masse creates serious problems, it is not for the benefit of workers either - they will get less training, less trust etc. The only winners are recruiters: in this case they act the same way as ambulance chasing lawyers.

Perhaps you could let the employees be the judge of what is good for them.

[sasguru]

You have no chance as you are not even in their industry. Now if you were part of oil and gas industry and all other companies in the same sector agreed to some anti-competitive deal that would cost you, then you might have had a case.

Employees may have a case but I doubt it also.

I ANAL of course.

Frankly behavior of recruiters in this case was appalling and had detrimental effect on the industry in question - one of a few that actually still have real export potential. You should not be spending time to get someone change the job in order for you to make money, you should be finding jobs for people who either want to leave themselves or happened to be out of job/contract at the moment.

Does that mean you speak out of your arse?

[rootsnall]

Who is to decide who the 'highly talented individuals' are?

I am a highly educated specialist in my field, AND I am a director. Am I a 'two off' case? Or a 'half off' case? A nutcase perhaps?

Why shouldn't I enjoy the benefits of having gained the skills for which companies will compete to hire my services? Why shouldn't I profit from that competition? The companies who hire me profit from using my skills, so why shouldn't I? And if some dodgy bloke is able to get me an even better deal, why shouldn't he profit too?

An impressive amount of ?s

[Bunk]

Why not?

Should this be a privilege reserved for those directors who take huge pay packets when headhunted by another company, along with a risk-free severance package? Should it perhaps be reserved for footballers who are offered a gazillion squid to move to Barcelona?

The difference with footballers is that the 2 clubs agree a fee to buy the player, or the buying club triggers the buyout clause in their contract. Either way the 'selling' club receives compensation for the money and effort put into training and improving the player.

[MrMark]

You should not be spending time to get someone change the job in order for you to make money, you should be finding jobs for people who either want to leave themselves or happened to be out of job/contract at the moment.

It's strange; I want to support DA on this for the logical reasons he gave. But having seen how agents seemingly do their best to prevent out-of-work contractors getting work (cv blocking, preventing clients see cvs as contractor has been on the bench for a few months) I really find it hard to drum up any enthusiasm for this cause. An eye for an eye may leave us all blind, but if you've had your eyes poked out already you're not going to shed any tears when it happens to the enemy...

[DodgyAgent]

It's strange; I want to support DA on this for the logical reasons he gave. But having seen how agents seemingly do their best to prevent out-of-work contractors getting work (cv blocking, preventing clients see cvs as contractor has been on the bench for a few months) I really find it hard to drum up any enthusiasm for this cause. An eye for an eye may leave us all blind, but if you've had your eyes poked out already you're not going to shed any tears when it happens to the enemy...

I am not expecting any sympathy.. there is a vote you can cast to express this view

[Mich the Tester]

It's strange; I want to support DA on this for the logical reasons he gave. But having seen how agents seemingly do their best to prevent out-of-work contractors getting work (cv blocking, preventing clients see cvs as contractor has been on the bench for a few months) I really find it hard to drum up any enthusiasm for this cause. An eye for an eye may leave us all blind, but if you've had your eyes poked out already you're not going to shed any tears when it happens to the enemy...

All the more reason for competition to weed out the grot.

[AtW]

Who is to decide who the 'highly talented individuals' are?

Market demand for specifically that kind of person - usually proper headhunting is done on a select list of candidates who are desireable, not on general principle - convince a few people from company X to move to company Y.

I am a highly educated specialist in my field, AND I am a director. Am I a 'two off' case? Or a 'half off' case? A nutcase perhaps?

How many employees work for your company where you are a director? Are you the only director? If someone "headhunts" you as a "director headhunting" then you'd need to stop being director in your company.

[AtW]

Perhaps you could let the employees be the judge of what is good for them.

It's funny - are you always against nanny state telling you what to do, yet you think you somehow know what's best for those people? Maybe it's best for them to remain where they are now simply because if they were inclined to move elsewhere they would have done so.

Have you actually run any research on long term impact of you headhunting some guy who never thought he'd leave the company but went along with you? He may well get temporary salary boost, but would that actually positively affect his career?

Frankly, you are acting in the same parasitic manner as ambulance chasing lawyers - in principle lawyers are good as they are there to defend people's rights, just like recruiters are the to find jobs for people, however in both of those cases behavior of supposedly legit profession is disruptive and should actually be addressed by law.

If you are so good then go find jobs for IT contractors out of jobs.

And go ask your company lawyers on what they think about your silly idea.