Reply to: Why do recruiters want your CV even when you've said you're not available?

[MrMarkyMark]

Agents clearly add value for the client, or they wouldn't use them. A lot of talk about CV filtering as if that's the main part they add value. There's also:

-Advertising the role. It costs a lot to put a role out on several job boards It costs less for agencies who will have deals for the large numbers they put out, plus the time and effort when the client will have a project to deliver.

-Onboarding. They have to perform a number of checks, often including credit searches etc.

-Offloading some of the risk - e.g. if they go through all the above and then the contractor pulls out, there little lost for the client.

These are particularly beneficial to small and medium sized businesses. It's far easier for the to say "We've got a budget of £xx per day for a contractor - go and find me someone and take a cut of that" than for them to have to do all of the above on top of that.

This + Invoice factoring.

[FrontEnder]

Agents clearly add value for the client, or they wouldn't use them. A lot of talk about CV filtering as if that's the main part they add value. There's also:

-Advertising the role. It costs a lot to put a role out on several job boards . It costs less for agencies who will have deals for the large numbers they put out, plus the time and effort when the client will have a project to deliver.

-Onboarding. They have to perform a number of checks, often including credit searches etc.

-Offloading some of the risk - e.g. if they go through all the above and then the contractor pulls out, there little lost for the client.

These are particularly beneficial to small and medium sized businesses. It's far easier for the to say "We've got a budget of £xx per day for a contractor - go and find me someone and take a cut of that" than for them to have to do all of the above on top of that.

[northernladuk]

There is the filtering option that takes time but their is payroll, factoring and general time spent with the day to day stuff and churn. If a client has 100's of contractors that's a very big overhead. Some client's have the agent's on site to provide the service rather than do it themselves. We can wax lyrical about the value but with so many clients using them and having them on site speaks volumes. It's just another outsourced service that (in theory) adds value for a client.

[MrMarkyMark]

Most people doing the initial recruitment for skilled jobs don't know much about the day-to-day skills needed to do the role whether they are recruiting for accountant or a nurse. So while do you think IT roles would be any different?



You presume that both agents and clients wait around for the best qualified candidate or would even choose them if they are available. They don't and won't.

People have lots of biases on who they recruit for a role, plus there are other factors like time and the number of other agencies looking for candidates which influence who gets put forward.

Can be all sorts of hi jinx, usually from both sides, going on.

One time I assisted in the recruitment of 7 contractors.

I already had around 5 already lined up for 5 of the roles.

Getting those 5 CVs and others that interested me (e-mailed to by business account on the side) through the in house agency, from 2 others on the clients PSL, proved quite "tricky" .

They would rather I interviewed all the cheap and not even cheerful tulip they, or their affiliates, sent through first.

The in house agency even got a little shirty with me at some point, I purely pointed out I was actually adding value by getting known people in.
I also added this was in the best interests of the client, which we should jointly looking at trying to provide.

Obviously, I eventually got the 5 contractors I wanted, plus the other 2 I was interested in

They then even went and bothered client co director who then denied having any knowledge and put them right back in their box

Total minefield.

[SueEllen]

The thing is that the agent filtering is often not correct, they search for a few buzzwords and skip the stuff they don't understand, but would still make you a perfect candidate, the client understands these things better than the agent

See my previous post.

[Eirikur]

Have you ever interviewed people?

If you have you would be aware that even before you get the final handful of CVs lots of filtering goes on.

The thing is that the agent filtering is often not correct, they search for a few buzzwords and skip the stuff they don't understand, but would still make you a perfect candidate, the client understands these things better than the agent

[SueEllen]

Yes, I have. And yes, I'm fully aware that a lot of filtering goes on.

And you think that agent's know enough about the skills within the roles that they're recruiting for that they're able to to efficiently and correctly perform that filtering?

Most people doing the initial recruitment for skilled jobs don't know much about the day-to-day skills needed to do the role whether they are recruiting for accountant or a nurse. So while do you think IT roles would be any different?

Agents do indeed perform filtering, but it's not to ensure the best qualified candidate gets to the client. Most likely the filtering is done on the basis of which candidate is the most manipulable, hence, who's likely to accept the lowest possible rate when the agent decides they want to increase their margin. Agents filter for themselves, rarely for the good of the client.

You presume that both agents and clients wait around for the best qualified candidate or would even choose them if they are available. They don't and won't.

People have lots of biases on who they recruit for a role, plus there are other factors like time and the number of other agencies looking for candidates which influence who gets put forward.

[LondonManc]

Have you ever interviewed people?

If you have you would be aware that even before you get the final handful of CVs lots of filtering goes on.

Yes.

It's easy. First, randomly throw half the cv's into the bin; you don't want to work with unlucky people anyway.

Compare cv to salary expectations and that's half of them gone.
Then consider those that have over-achieved - becoming an expert in something in 3 months for example. Always get one of those sort in to destroy them as entertainment.

Then get the three in that you actually want to interview as well.

[billybiro]

Have you ever interviewed people?

If you have you would be aware that even before you get the final handful of CVs lots of filtering goes on.

Yes, I have. And yes, I'm fully aware that a lot of filtering goes on.

And you think that agent's know enough about the skills within the roles that they're recruiting for that they're able to to efficiently and correctly perform that filtering?

Agents do indeed perform filtering, but it's not to ensure the best qualified candidate gets to the client. Most likely the filtering is done on the basis of which candidate is the most manipulable, hence, who's likely to accept the lowest possible rate when the agent decides they want to increase their margin. Agents filter for themselves, rarely for the good of the client.

[SueEllen]

Prey tell. What exactly constitutes "most of the work" for a client, that an agent removes when dealing with one?

Have you ever interviewed people?

If you have you would be aware that even before you get the final handful of CVs lots of filtering goes on.

[billybiro]

You think an interview is most of the work when dealing with contractors? Really. You post some dumb stuff but I thought you'd know better than this.

Prey tell. What exactly constitutes "most of the work" for a client, that an agent removes when dealing with one?

[northernladuk]

You think an interview is most of the work when dealing with contractors? Really. You post some dumb stuff but I thought you'd know better than this.

[billybiro]

They on the whole provide a service that clients don't want to do. If you cut them out the client has to do the work.

And how many times have you been interviewed by an agent, got the gig by having the client rely on the agent's assessment of you, then simply turned up at the client's office without the client ever having to have lifted a finger prior to your first day? Never. Because client's are still doing most of the work (i.e. performing due diligence of candidates by interviewing them) even with an agent in the chain.

The agent's model is to throw enough mud and see what sticks. It's the client who then has to wade through that mess trying to find the most suitable candidate for the role.

[TheNewGuy]

Lol, this is such a classic Internet forum post veering wildly off topic into angry rants 😂

As for agents.. I quite like setting off a few agents to do the legwork of finding my next contract, means when I'm out of contract I'm free do what I want with my time.

I guess ideally you'd have just one place you'd check, like a Hired.com or YunoJuno that actually worked for contractors (that's still an agent though). But most clients still prefer to use agents -
I'm seeing more and more having inhouse recruiters (basically agents) now, it's all much of muchness as far as I'm concerned.

Like the infamous northernladuk pointed out about himself, I'm making good money through the current model, so I'm happy.

[northernladuk]

Quite. You wade in to defend the honour of the agents and when someone presents a rhetorical, but pertinent and enlightening question, you ignore it. How incredibly weaselly of you.

Is your Plan B to be a politician? Or an agent, perhaps?

I'm not wading in to defend anyone. I'm wading in to try balance some haters blinkered opinion. Just because I have a different view on it why do I want to be a politician or agent.

Agents exist all over the place. They on the whole provide a service that clients don't want to do. If you cut them out the client has to do the work. The agent might disappear but the workload doesn't. It goes back and sits with the client. As bad as agents are I'll bet we will have more problems trying to get the clients HR to buck up and get paperwork issued.

Am not a fan of them but I've made a lot of money through agents, as have may other people. Even more have bought/rented houses through them, got football players, found jobs and so on. The model sadly works. You can't deny that.