Reply to: Plan B - RecruitCOP

[privateeye]

This is a most constructive effort and deserves support. If you need someone to give a day on a 'HR expo' stand then let me know. (Im older now, I dont have a pony-tail and do own a suit)

Great work PE!

error

Thanks for that.

[errorista]

If you are interested have a look at RecruitCOP and any feedback good or bad is appreciated - particulary if you can get your clients to use it as it is client driven. I aim to keep it free of charge to use and generate advertisng income.

This is a most constructive effort and deserves support. If you need someone to give a day on a 'HR expo' stand then let me know. (Im older now, I dont have a pony-tail and do own a suit)

Great work PE!

error

[errorista]

Maybe look at something like encouraging the candidate to put the cv in an xml format to aid searching and transition.

http://www.hr-xml.org/hr-xml/wms/hr-...php?language=2

Done it

Used a cut down version of the XML DTD - I preferred the earlier project 'XMLCV' cos it did not contain the letters 'HR' lol (oh and you dont have to 'register' to get the XMLCV stuff) https://gna.org/projects/xmlcv/

looks like its being progressed too

I was able to modify to use PHP not java in my mini module. XSL then to PDF and TXT' looks neat.

have fun

[Denny]

Thanks Denny, as it is not just for contractors but also permanent workers I cannot just use a language that is understandable by them only. It also needs to be understandable by the clients. As they are not familiar with the terms you wish them to use it would not be wise to use them, however, the site can be expanded to cover in more detail specific topics to cover such issues over time.

I hope it does, PE. No wonder the government are keen to embrace us into their open arms of quasi employment and IR35 inclusion.

I thought the idea was for owner managed contractors, predominantly.

[privateeye]

Nice idea, if it works. The site is nowhere near as solid as the idea or intention behind it though.

Also, why are you using the language of EB's to employees? You constantly reinforce what needs to change - the perception that contractors are job seekers or hunters.

When referring to contractors (using limited companies) couldn't you change the reference from 'jobs' to 'contracts' and drop the collective permie/contractor term 'work seeker or job hunter?

I think the site is a bit word dense, as others have pointed out. There's an awful lot to read and some potential users could be put off and not use it. I gave up pretty quickly and I read an awful lot!

Thanks Denny, as it is not just for contractors but also permanent workers I cannot just use a language that is understandable by them only. It also needs to be understandable by the clients. As they are not familiar with the terms you wish them to use it would not be wise to use them, however, the site can be expanded to cover in more detail specific topics to cover such issues over time.

[Denny]

Nice idea, if it works. The site is nowhere near as solid as the idea or intention behind it though.

Also, why are you using the language of EB's to employees? You constantly reinforce what needs to change - the perception that contractors are job seekers or hunters.

When referring to contractors (using limited companies) couldn't you change the reference from 'jobs' to 'contracts' and drop the collective permie/contractor term 'work seeker or job hunter?

I think the site is a bit word dense, as others have pointed out. There's an awful lot to read and some potential users could be put off and not use it. I gave up pretty quickly and I read an awful lot!

[privateeye]

Due to demand RecruitCOP has today been updated to provide three levels of service that the employer/client may choose from:

1. Providing the most protection – this is the original RecruitCOP providing a complete audited process.
2. Allows Employer/Client to register their PSL for view by registered users and allows entry of a job for view by applicants.
3. PSL only allowing employers/clients to simply publish their PSL

In addition to all three options the employer/client are able to show instructions to show recruiters the correct process to follow to be included on the PSL. This is to help ensure contact is made only with the correct person at the client/employer.

[privateeye]

Hi there, I've read what's been posted here and it's a very honerable thing your trying the achive. I (like everyone here) have been contracting for number of years and have also been a victim of rouge recruiters. But Instead of trying to beat the system (from the outside) my idea is to try and change things from the inside. By establising my own consultancy with the very ethics you've outline here. I wouldn't worry too much about how much individual recruiters charge for their services and market forces will level that out. It's the quality and ethical standing of many, which like you, most concerns me. Have you actively researched your idea with employers (clients) and recruiters. Because if this is too one sided (toward to contractor) It won't be seen as impartial and will simply be another loby group (or quanco in government speak) and I'm sure you don't want that.

Prior to release I've had input from two recruitment consultants, several contractors, and a couple of global companies. Unfortunately for me those global companies are now in the middle of a cull.

It would be interesting to hear why it could be considerred one-sided when all RecruitCOP achieves is honesty which can only be considered beneficial to all. You could look at the Benefits for all parties here.

Rather interesting is this weeks Recruiter Magazine as it contains articles of how the Recruitment Business needs to tidy up its act - and also several parts indicating how fed up recruiters are with recruitment-to-recruitment companies who play the same games with the recruitment industry that contractors face everyday with IT Recruitment firms yet when a contractor complains it apparently does not happen or contractors are told they are whingers. RecruitCOP can remove the problems that recruiters have with rec-to-rec companies which are no different to those that contractors have.

Since release I have had a lot of feedback recruiters included which another release is planned to add the new features suggested.

The only negative feedback was posted anonymously on another board, it was definately by a very young recruiter who could not read the home page to obtain the facts (even line one) and they decided to slander me. At least I have had the courage to not speak anonymously.

We are prepared to listen to anyone from contractors, clients, recruiters, permies etc.

Amazingly enough the release of RecruitCOP has led to several other opportunites coming my way but I'm not available.

I hope your own consultancy goes well.

[mlawren]

Hi there, I've read what's been posted here and it's a very honerable thing your trying the achive. I (like everyone here) have been contracting for number of years and have also been a victim of rouge recruiters. But Instead of trying to beat the system (from the outside) my idea is to try and change things from the inside. By establising my own consultancy with the very ethics you've outline here. I wouldn't worry too much about how much individual recruiters charge for their services and market forces will level that out. It's the quality and ethical standing of many, which like you, most concerns me. Have you actively researched your idea with employers (clients) and recruiters. Because if this is too one sided (toward to contractor) It won't be seen as impartial and will simply be another loby group (or quanco in government speak) and I'm sure you don't want that.

[privateeye]

good luck anyway

Thanks DA, may expand RecruitCOP to give both options of process and/or supplier relations so the client may choose which suits them.

[DodgyAgent]

Firstly RecruitCOP is not looking to enforce all the legislation that is not possible. What we have produced is a tool to get rid of the most common problems that prevent applicants allowing themselves to be put forward for a job or cause most annoyance to other recruiters, clients, and applicants.

When a client uses RecruitCOP these are some of the things that will be prevented that stop applicants being put forward either by their choice or because the recruiter is not on the PSL and has no authority.

Recruiters on the PSL can prove it to the applicants - those who are not on the PSL will get caught out and will not get away with unsolicted submission of CV's to the client.

If a client is registered then any job will be shown on RecruitCOP.

The clients specify the job description and various attributes that prevent miss-selling of a job or mistakes when giving the job description - such as whether references are required and when, is the contract extendable etc.

It cannot be claimed that a CV has been submitted when it has not - without either of the applicant or the client knowing this.

The applicant will also know if the maximum quota of CV's has been submitted so they may try to find another recruiter.

It can only be good for the client if all the best applicants are able to apply and not be prevented by those pretending to be on the PSL or those pretending to submit a CV to stop someone else on the PSL obtaining that applicant. The above points effectively stop the cowboys from preventing recruiters on the PSL losing business potential. RecruitCOP is not just about contractors interests but does also prevent the cowboys taking away the business of recruiters on the PSL (or assigned a specific job) which then results in the client not necessarily getting all the best applicants.

What we are hoping to achieve is the ability for recruiters on a PSL to have better business relationships with the contractors and/or permanent staff. This we hope to achience by giving applicants the knowledge that they are being presented with the facts as entered by the client and not worried all the time about the various tricks that get played on them. We even give the ability for the recruiter to notify all applicants that the job has been taken by one click of a button, people like to know if they got the job or not and applicants view recruiters more favourably that tell them even if they failed the application.

It can't be good for the good recruiters listening to applicants all day long that are suspicious of your every word - we are aiming to take that suspicion away and open the doors to good business relationships.

Worthy as your intentions are PE I think a simpler site that gives details of the supplier relationships between clients and agencies would be far more useful. The problem with your site is that it requires people to integrate your offering into their process. Remember that these processes work very well without you. good luck anyway

[privateeye]

That presumes the the recent legislation that you are looking to enforce is:

1. Workable (it is'nt)
2. Is good for business (it is meddlesome bureaucracy that does nothing to stop cowboys even if it is enforced)

Firstly RecruitCOP is not looking to enforce all the legislation that is not possible. What we have produced is a tool to get rid of the most common problems that prevent applicants allowing themselves to be put forward for a job or cause most annoyance to other recruiters, clients, and applicants.

When a client uses RecruitCOP these are some of the things that will be prevented that stop applicants being put forward either by their choice or because the recruiter is not on the PSL and has no authority.

Recruiters on the PSL can prove it to the applicants - those who are not on the PSL will get caught out and will not get away with unsolicted submission of CV's to the client.

If a client is registered then any job will be shown on RecruitCOP.

The clients specify the job description and various attributes that prevent miss-selling of a job or mistakes when giving the job description - such as whether references are required and when, is the contract extendable etc.

It cannot be claimed that a CV has been submitted when it has not - without either of the applicant or the client knowing this.

The applicant will also know if the maximum quota of CV's has been submitted so they may try to find another recruiter.

It can only be good for the client if all the best applicants are able to apply and not be prevented by those pretending to be on the PSL or those pretending to submit a CV to stop someone else on the PSL obtaining that applicant. The above points effectively stop the cowboys from preventing recruiters on the PSL losing business potential. RecruitCOP is not just about contractors interests but does also prevent the cowboys taking away the business of recruiters on the PSL (or assigned a specific job) which then results in the client not necessarily getting all the best applicants.

What we are hoping to achieve is the ability for recruiters on a PSL to have better business relationships with the contractors and/or permanent staff. This we hope to achience by giving applicants the knowledge that they are being presented with the facts as entered by the client and not worried all the time about the various tricks that get played on them. We even give the ability for the recruiter to notify all applicants that the job has been taken by one click of a button, people like to know if they got the job or not and applicants view recruiters more favourably that tell them even if they failed the application.

It can't be good for the good recruiters listening to applicants all day long that are suspicious of your every word - we are aiming to take that suspicion away and open the doors to good business relationships.

[DodgyAgent]

It is for everyones benefit - applicants, recruiters, clients, and employers. I will certainly look into allowing the "Member of RecruitCOP" logo. That is a great idea. Using RecruitCOP will show that a recruiter really wants to operate a code of practice.

That presumes the the recent legislation that you are looking to enforce is:

1. Workable (it is'nt)
2. Is good for business (it is meddlesome bureaucracy that does nothing to stop cowboys even if it is enforced)

[privateeye]

Actual content looks good PE. One thing I would say is do something about the layout of the front page.

I'm a bit lazy and a bit thick really and I cant be arsed reading all that closely spaced text to find out what it's about. Try splitting it up into three clear sections. Employer, Recruiter, Contractor and giving clear bullets for each on the basic benefits and link to another page for the detail on each. Treat it like a CV almost, make sure you grab their attention in the first 5 seconds otherwise they will give up and move onto the next one.

And a personal gripe, get rid of the flash intro, it's pointless and annoying.

You are not the first to say the home page has to much information, it will probably change later tonight or after 5pm tommorrow when everyone is watching the football.

The flash intro (actually JSP, JavaScript, and DHTML) is likely to go to as it was only ever a short term gimmick for promotion reasons.

Thanks for the feedback.

[DaveB]

Actual content looks good PE. One thing I would say is do something about the layout of the front page.

I'm a bit lazy and a bit thick really and I cant be arsed reading all that closely spaced text to find out what it's about. Try splitting it up into three clear sections. Employer, Recruiter, Contractor and giving clear bullets for each on the basic benefits and link to another page for the detail on each. Treat it like a CV almost, make sure you grab their attention in the first 5 seconds otherwise they will give up and move onto the next one.

And a personal gripe, get rid of the flash intro, it's pointless and annoying.