Reply to: Can I go directly with client missing out agency

[LazyFan]

You are lucky I went for an interview at UBS.
All was going really well, until he said, "I see on your CV you are an expert at UML?"

Well I have dabbled but I am no guru. I am not a blagger so, I told the client the truth and he showed me the CV he had been provided. It had been blatantly added at the bottom.

I never got the gig as of course I looked bad in the interview for not knowing something that the client was expecting me to know. The client felt deceived, even if it had been by the agency and not myself.

I am considering going PDF in future to make it harder for these rec cons to tamper with it.

[lambrini_socialist]

We are not allowed to change the actual words within a CV. We can clean up the formatting but we cannot change what has been put there by the contractor. If our clients are too lazy or disorganised to find a technically competent person to review CVs and interview then that is there own stupid fault.

i once arrived at an interview to find that my CV had been edited to remove certain skills that the client didn't "like". no big deal, i mean the agent was only using his experience to help get me the gig, but it came as a surprise and i told the client what was missing (i still got the contract).

[brianbetter]

Agencies and CVs

We are not allowed to change the actual words within a CV. We can clean up the formatting but we cannot change what has been put there by the contractor. If our clients are too lazy or disorganised to find a technically competent person to review CVs and interview then that is there own stupid fault.

[sumez]

Had the agency call me up saying that the client will only take me on in a perm role.
Agent kept saying I will get career progression and training and blah blah blah.
To be honest I'm not interested and told him to go back to the client and ask for a contract. Lets see what happens.
The package was about 55 to 60k plus 5-7k allowance for car plus the usual benefits such as health insurance.

[thunderlizard]

"As a staffing consultancy it is our responsibility to obain best value for money for the client. By informing them that you are willing to undergo a rate decrease to get into the company we are basically admitting that we do not do our job properly"

What is that supposed to mean?

It means "they'll know we've been overcharging". Occasionally truth threatens to shine upon an agent like a ray of sunshine on Dracula.

[lambrini_socialist]

If agents didnt work like this then people like you would be permanent fixtures at the dole queues.

i doubt that very much. utterly fatuous.

[DodgyAgent]

if agents saw this as anything other than a numbers game they wouldn't be pimping these people - who don't belong on the market, whatever rate is being offered or asked for - in the first place. and seeing some agents' pitiful efforts to try and help candidates cheat on pre-interview screening tests and embellish their resumes puts paid to any idea that agents have their clients' best interests at heart - not that it really needed saying anyway.

If agents didnt work like this then people like you would be permanent fixtures at the dole queues.

[lambrini_socialist]

<hilarious angry tirade snipped for brevity>

I have never seen an agent "foist" an individual on a client ever.

frankly, you impose a candidate on a client the very second you send a CV attached, along with the usual breathlessly enthusiastic email ("i really think you'll like this guy...") and ask someone to take the time to review it.

i've seen too many mumbling cretins with CVs full of complete lies and little or no grasp of the English language (let alone technical skills) shuffle through the doors of companies and either (a) completely waste the interviewers' time (and get shown the door after 10 minutes anyway) or (b) get hired by some clueless non-technical manager and become a complete drain on the team.

if agents saw this as anything other than a numbers game they wouldn't be pimping these people - who don't belong on the market, whatever rate is being offered or asked for - in the first place. and seeing some agents' pitiful efforts to try and help candidates cheat on pre-interview screening tests and embellish their resumes puts paid to any idea that agents have their clients' best interests at heart - not that it really needed saying anyway.

[brianbetter]

Not qualified for role?

Guys,

Remember that agencies are not qualified IT consultants or they would be doing the job. A lot of the time they have to go by what is on your CV and what you tell them about your ability to do the job. If your CV is trumped up, the agent does not know and you may get caught out at interview!

[DodgyAgent]

Another mind blowingly stupid assumption from a mindblowingly (stupid) contractor.



socialist

Main issue here is that contractor assumes that the client wants him whereas what he was really told was that his rate was too high for his (lack of) experience, compounded by the fact that he now wants to be represented by another agent and not the one that put him forward for the position - cardinal sin!

It is not inconceivable that the agency is screwing him on margin. £50 per day on top of £300 pay to the contractor is "a nice little earner" . Go for £320 and call the client directly, just to ask a bit of info about the job; you may be able to steer the conversation onto the rate, at which point you can check what the agency is getting for you. Be careful not to let the agency find out that you have called their client unless negotiations start to get a bit hairy.

[Dow Jones]

Socialist

Another mind blowingly stupid assumption from a mindblowingly (stupid) contractor.



socialist

Main issue here is that contractor assumes that the client wants him whereas what he was really told was that his rate was too high for his (lack of) experience, compounded by the fact that he now wants to be represented by another agent and not the one that put him forward for the position - cardinal sin!

[DodgyAgent]

i think it means that by putting you forward for a less senior role, it shows that they are trying to sell contractors to the client who don't actually have the skills or experience the client asked for. it sucks but i can see why they'd want to save face.

in my experience, agents routinely put forward candidates for technical jobs who are just absolutely awful and would literally have to study hard to get a job in McDonalds. basically, they (agents) are scumbags, but they understandably want to maintain a veneer of competence and professionalism when dealing with their primary income stream (the client) even if that means screwing over a secondary income stream (you).

Another mind blowingly stupid assumption from a mindblowingly stupid contractor. we can argue all day as to whether agents are scumbags, but to assume that agents have the power to impose candidates onto a client is either a lie, or that you assume that clients are more stupid and gullible than you are.

I have never seen an agent "foist" an individual on a client ever. And where maybe inappropriate candidates occasionally manage to slip into the "wrong" jobs, it usually results in the agency being rapped over the knuckles or booted off the supplier list. There are so many agents out there that clients do not have to deal with any particular agent. If bad candidates are "routinely" being put forward then this is more likely a reflection of what is available on the market place for the price.

[lambrini_socialist]

"As a staffing consultancy it is our responsibility to obain best value for money for the client. By informing them that you are willing to undergo a rate decrease to get into the company we are basically admitting that we do not do our job properly"

What is that supposed to mean? The head of IT has already said that they will take me at a technical consultant instead of an architect and if i am willing to take a decrease in rate. I have agreed that i want the role so what is the agencies problem?

i think it means that by putting you forward for a less senior role, it shows that they are trying to sell contractors to the client who don't actually have the skills or experience the client asked for. it sucks but i can see why they'd want to save face.

in my experience, agents routinely put forward candidates for technical jobs who are just absolutely awful and would literally have to study hard to get a job in McDonalds. basically, they (agents) are scumbags, but they understandably want to maintain a veneer of competence and professionalism when dealing with their primary income stream (the client) even if that means screwing over a secondary income stream (you).

[jkoder]

Hi sumez,

Can I ask how much experience you do have and what skills do you have?

Cheers.

[sumez]

I'll try that. I told agent to get me in whatever happens as I know the client is looking to keep staff long term. Agent said it might be a bit more complicated than he first anticipated. I asked why and this was his response:

"As a staffing consultancy it is our responsibility to obain best value for money for the client. By informing them that you are willing to undergo a rate decrease to get into the company we are basically admitting that we do not do our job properly"

What is that supposed to mean? The head of IT has already said that they will take me at a technical consultant instead of an architect and if i am willing to take a decrease in rate. I have agreed that i want the role so what is the agencies problem? Can i not get in touch with another agency and ask them to represent me?