Anti Competitive behaviour

[AtW]

Oh, so an Oil&Gas Engineer, often with training spanning over 12 years is not a highly talented individual?

Relatively speaking yes. However such comparison should be done among his peers - if he is top 10% of such engineers for that company, known externally (say via publications or awards ) then headhunting might be good idea, however just targeting *any* engineer to move jobs isn't head hunting at all.

[threaded]

Relatively speaking yes. However such comparison should be done among his peers - if he is top 10% of such engineers for that company, known externally (say via publications or awards ) then headhunting might be good idea, however just targeting *any* engineer to move jobs isn't head hunting at all.

Well, you're drawing artificial lines there between who is allowed to be head-hunted and who isn't.

I'd say everyone should be allowed to be head-hunted.

[AtW]

I'd say everyone should be allowed to be head-hunted.

So say the Jivaro's...

[EternalOptimist]

Sounds like one bunch of manipulative shysters has been outmanouvered by another bunch of manipulative shysters

[DodgyAgent]

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.

You are supposed to be bright and therefore perhaps have the capability to apply logic to what you say. Clearly this is not the case. I will try and explain logically my point.

If I call an Engineer about a job I will of course point out all the positive aspects of that job even if it means let us say stretching the truth and lying. The Engineer will probably (surprising I know) have the intelligence to ask me some searching questions about the job, questions that he will not just take my word for.
The engineer will then go for an interview where he will meet his prospective employers and will be able then to convince himself of whether he wants the job or not.
With my help let us say that he accepts a negotiated offer. He will upon handing in his notice probaly be called in by his boss and HR people who will then be able to persuade him about the negatives of moving from his existing employer.

Now unlike you when I get someone a job I usually expect that person to be clever enough to do his own thinking and to make his own up by checking pros and cons extensively. If he is dumb enough to as you suggest "take the wrong job" then that is his decision not mine.

I am in no way nannying this person to take the job.. how you seem to think I am nannying him is beyond belief.

And why would I or anyone else conduct any research in to the long term effects of headhunting someone? headhunting is a means of bringing information to people just as advertising is (though more effective for certain roles).

Your whole attitude (because it is not an argument) begins from the premise that the people I recruit are too stupid or too pathetic to make their own decisions. So the question to you is- if I rang you up about a job would you be too stupid to work out for yourself if you wanted that job?

[DodgyAgent]

Relatively speaking yes. However such comparison should be done among his peers - if he is top 10% of such engineers for that company, known externally (say via publications or awards ) then headhunting might be good idea, however just targeting *any* engineer to move jobs isn't head hunting at all.

So what do you think headhunting is?

[Spacecadet]

This had the effect of depowering the cycle of employee mobility by putting the onus back on the Engineers to do their own thing. After all no agent in their right mind was going to spend inordinate amounts of time coercing engineers to change jobs with such low rewards. Instead agencies became entirely reactive (as opposed to proactive) in their recruitment activities, looking for volume with the existing market of engineers available in order to make money.

I think this is the flaw in your arguement
The entire cycle of employee mobility was not being powered by engineers being in a position of super high demand and being dragged away to another company desperate for their expertise.
The cycle was being powered by agents pushing people round and creaming the commision off the top.

Now that the market has bitten back, employee mobility has slowed to a more natural rate.
If it was the case that engineers were in short supply then the gentlemans agreement you speak of would soon fall apart as each company tried to secure the best engineers.

The artificial market created before was naturally unsustainable and had to be brought to a close.
The market as it is now with the fixed commissions won't last forever either, the dynamics will change.

[oracleslave]

I think this is the flaw in your arguement
The entire cycle of employee mobility was not being powered by engineers being in a position of super high demand and being dragged away to another company desperate for their expertise.
The cycle was being powered by agents pushing people round and creaming the commision off the top.

No matter how much coercing, begging, pleading, crying promising an agent does surely the decision rests with you as to whether you take a job or not?

I don't think regulation is the way forward with this though and as you say it should sort itself out in due course.

[DodgyAgent]

I think this is the flaw in your arguement
The entire cycle of employee mobility was not being powered by engineers being in a position of super high demand and being dragged away to another company desperate for their expertise.
The cycle was being powered by agents pushing people round and creaming the commision off the top.

Now that the market has bitten back, employee mobility has slowed to a more natural rate.
If it was the case that engineers were in short supply then the gentlemans agreement you speak of would soon fall apart as each company tried to secure the best engineers.

The artificial market created before was naturally unsustainable and had to be brought to a close.
The market as it is now with the fixed commissions won't last forever either, the dynamics will change.

I am not necessarily saying that what these companies have done is a bad thing
I would also agree that any distortion in the market may well iron itself out. These actions have however taken an effect, particularly on agents and the more let us say opportunistic contractors .
My point is that these are market conditions that are being interfered with by a cartel that is very much similar to a case recntly of agencies getting together to create a standard price (for which HAYS got fined squillions ) . The morality of who is getting kicked the most is again irrelevant. The question is whether such cartels/gentlemans agreements are legal or not.

[AtW]

I am in no way nannying this person to take the job.. how you seem to think I am nannying him is beyond belief.

You've expressed doubts above that employee would know what' best for them - "Perhaps you could let the employees be the judge of what is good for them."

Good analogy to it is "nanny state" that you whine about so much, yet (and this does not suprise me), you are ok with being a nanny so long as it makes you money.

Your whole attitude (because it is not an argument) begins from the premise that the people I recruit are too stupid or too pathetic to make their own decisions.

That's not my attitude. The issue in your story is that recruiters started effing about with established businesses by causing artificial employee movements because it is only when you make money. Hence, the companies collectively (and this can be independent) came to conclusion that they should not be paying so much to recruiters. One would only wish football clubs do the same!

If you hire bright person from far away to come to work in that industry then great - take your cut and big thanks, however if you just want to make money by increasing staff turnover then your existance is not conductive to public good.

So the question to you is- if I rang you up about a job would you be too stupid to work out for yourself if you wanted that job?

If you called me you'd actually have to head hunt me - meaning act on behalf of a company that specifically asked you to sound specifically me (and maybe a list of other named individuals) out on whether we'd like to change jobs.

Lots of people you call love the thought of being "head hunted", don't they? But are you really a head hunter? You don't strike me as one - the situation you described has got nothing to do with headhunting at all.