Recruitment Consultants are parasites

[eek]

My 4yr old is far superior to Scooter Scat in most areas.

I now have an image in my head which I would very much prefer not to be there....

[scooterscot]

My 4yr old is far superior to ScooterScat in most areas.

I'm sure your little girl is.

[MaryPoppins]

I'm sure your little girl is.

Tosser.

[scooterscot]

Tosser.

Goodness you pay someone a compliment - the anger must run deep in this one.

[darmstadt]

Well my agent has just gone on maternity leave and her replacement just gave me a call to set up a face to face. Over the phone she sounded really rather nice so checked out her profile on Xing and the face matched the voice, which was nice. Definitely didn't look like a parasite to me although could be a small cuddly fluffy animal with central heating problems.

[evilagent]

Recruitment, much like estate agency (sadly), is involved in high-margin activities.
It's about securing a high-value product, and acquiring "dibs".
The rights to represent a client, and to represent a candidate. (or house)

If you look at the adverts for recruiters, you will find, almost exclusively, the skills sought after are primarily sales ability.
Not sector knowledge.
Not X years technical experience.

The industry, therefore, is awash with KPI-obsessed types.

I don't think much will change until the nature of the industry changes, ie, industry knowledge as a cornerstone of the skill-set.

But, as candidates, you also have a responsibility to cause change by ensuring you are represented by the right people.

Recruiters exist because most companies do not wish to engage in the long-drawn out process of engaging and on-boarding new talent, and out-source this activity.

There should be better ways of taking on new people, either as apprentices, grads, experienced permies, or freelancers.
If there is, it is being kept a closely guarded secret, or won't make money for anyone.
Or, the commission-hungry sales-types are winning all the deals.

[scooterscot]

I don't think much will change until the nature of the industry changes, ie, industry knowledge as a cornerstone of the skill-set.

Very little is likely to change for as long as contractors are happy to give away a percentage of their earning ability. If you're charging an end client directly, say £500 a day, then all is well. If you have a client that will only accept business through the agency and they tell they're only willing to go to £400 a day (20% and that's being kind), my god, they're looking to possibly collect £2k a month from your efforts.

If contractors are willing to give up that much money all because they can't be bothered with a little networking, they fair play to the agents. That's one view. For the sake of balance, my other view is that apathy from the freelancers is only matched by that of HR departments. They believe the only way to recruit is to process CV's and hence farm the activity out when they're swarmed by numbers. They're by far the best people to recruit, it is after all their business. It's such a waste of energy to use a fifth wheel. That extra £2k does not feed the business nor the supplier, it's parasitic, eventually weakening the business and greater economy.

But, as candidates, you also have a responsibility to cause change by ensuring you are represented by the right people.

There's no such thing as 'the right people' - The agency has an agenda that is nothing to do with yours or your client's.

If you want to stand out from the crowd you approach the client yourself. The number times I've read 'Graduate applies for 150 jobs not one response'. It turns out said graduate applied for no jobs, but 150 agencies.

Recruiters exist because most companies do not wish to engage in the long-drawn out process of engaging and on-boarding new talent, and out-source this activity.

Yet I bet those clients that cannot be bothered with the process find themselves with transient environments, projects bogged down by problem after problem and budgets exceeding their targets.

I've two direct clients at the minute, both from first contact to the first invoice took nearly a year. But my what a difference. Highly flexible working conditions, ad-hoc demand, long-term commitment, and project success (because I'm usually managing the project myself!!).

I asked those agency guys among us to count the successful projects you've seen completed or did you leave first before? Be honest...

[evilagent]

If £2K a month is too much, then how would you price a gig?
Bear in mind a success rate of maybe 1 in 2, or 1 in 3.
And, if you price it down too much, just have a think about the sort of under-achievers you will be working with.

Networking is a given. However, candidates tend to only network as their current gig approaches an end. The timeline of being on the bench may be several weeks. That's money you're not making.

If an agency has conflicting agendas, then construct a business model where the agendas are congruent to all three parties; agency, clientco and candidate.
If you can't, then blaming the agency is not a valid response for merely filling a niche.

Congratulations for having direct clients, and especially one that took so long to come to fruition.
However, this may be more a function of your positive attitude, strategic thinking and patience!
(or maybe, simple bloody-mindedness)
Most candidates have a short-term "did I get the gig or not? If not, move on." attitude.

Many don't follow up with thank you emails after interviews (direct to clientco, not agent!)
Many don't ask if they can approach clientco directly later on.
Many don't send "interesting emails every couple of months.
(eg, "Hi, am currently at my new gig, and they use the same ERP v3.2 that you mentioned in our meeting last time. Hope to build some more experience in it whilst here."
or "these guys at my current gig use a great 3rd party product for their EDI. Thought you might be interested. here's a link" etc)

Overall, I still don't see a valid alternative.
Everyone wants a new way, but aren't willing to put the effort in, and are looking around for someone else to fill the void.
Back to square one with recruiters.

[DodgyAgent]

Very little is likely to change for as long as contractors are happy to give away a percentage of their earning ability. If you're charging an end client directly, say £500 a day, then all is well. If you have a client that will only accept business through the agency and they tell they're only willing to go to £400 a day (20% and that's being kind), my god, they're looking to possibly collect £2k a month from your efforts.

If contractors are willing to give up that much money all because they can't be bothered with a little networking, they fair play to the agents. That's one view. For the sake of balance, my other view is that apathy from the freelancers is only matched by that of HR departments. They believe the only way to recruit is to process CV's and hence farm the activity out when they're swarmed by numbers. They're by far the best people to recruit, it is after all their business. It's such a waste of energy to use a fifth wheel. That extra £2k does not feed the business nor the supplier, it's parasitic, eventually weakening the business and greater economy.




There's no such thing as 'the right people' - The agency has an agenda that is nothing to do with yours or your client's.

If you want to stand out from the crowd you approach the client yourself. The number times I've read 'Graduate applies for 150 jobs not one response'. It turns out said graduate applied for no jobs, but 150 agencies.



Yet I bet those clients that cannot be bothered with the process find themselves with transient environments, projects bogged down by problem after problem and budgets exceeding their targets.

I've two direct clients at the minute, both from first contact to the first invoice took nearly a year. But my what a difference. Highly flexible working conditions, ad-hoc demand, long-term commitment, and project success (because I'm usually managing the project myself!!).

I asked those agency guys among us to count the successful projects you've seen completed or did you leave first before? Be honest...

Let us get one thing straight it is not the contractors money the agent is taking. It is the clients money.

[DodgyAgent]

If £2K a month is too much, then how would you price a gig?
Bear in mind a success rate of maybe 1 in 2, or 1 in 3.
And, if you price it down too much, just have a think about the sort of under-achievers you will be working with.

Networking is a given. However, candidates tend to only network as their current gig approaches an end. The timeline of being on the bench may be several weeks. That's money you're not making.

If an agency has conflicting agendas, then construct a business model where the agendas are congruent to all three parties; agency, clientco and candidate.
If you can't, then blaming the agency is not a valid response for merely filling a niche.

Congratulations for having direct clients, and especially one that took so long to come to fruition.
However, this may be more a function of your positive attitude, strategic thinking and patience!
(or maybe, simple bloody-mindedness)
Most candidates have a short-term "did I get the gig or not? If not, move on." attitude.

Many don't follow up with thank you emails after interviews (direct to clientco, not agent!)
Many don't ask if they can approach clientco directly later on.
Many don't send "interesting emails every couple of months.
(eg, "Hi, am currently at my new gig, and they use the same ERP v3.2 that you mentioned in our meeting last time. Hope to build some more experience in it whilst here."
or "these guys at my current gig use a great 3rd party product for their EDI. Thought you might be interested. here's a link" etc)

Overall, I still don't see a valid alternative.
Everyone wants a new way, but aren't willing to put the effort in, and are looking around for someone else to fill the void.
Back to square one with recruiters.

Why would anyone set up a business that was not commercially viable? In case you are unaware the market has changed dramatically over the past 15 years. Control has been brought "in house" whereby agencies now have to operate under strict rules and pre ordained margins. Unfortunately (for agencies and contractors alike) the free for all scramble for increasing rates and high margins has been brought to a halt by the ready availability of information (contractor CVs) provided by the internet.
The only markets untouched (relatively) by this are niche markets and smaller companies (the latter tend to cotton on quickly)
This change has also provided jobs for medium and low achieving recruitment consultants who can get paid pretty well (better than a basic agency salary but not as good as an on target recruiter would earn) to work "in house" for clients.
This has manifested itself in benefits not for the contractors, nor for the agencies but for the clients and recruitment consultants more attuned to managing process rather than sales excellence.
This is why contractor rates have remained locked for the past 10 years.
The system works pretty well for contractors who just want "journeyman work" but if they ever want to break out and make serious money then they need to create their own demand and find their own markets. The same applies to agencies.