Reply to: NL discriminating against graduates?!?

[Denny]

Poor attempt at recovery... are you Lucy or SandyDown in disguise by chance?

No.

Please don't lump all us women together. I resent that. We are all individuals and I don't like being placed into some sort of gender stereotyped box as if we all have common characteristics and traits that show up on this board. We don't. I doubt that the other women like that either.

[Troll]

I was being ironic (tongue in cheek) for a bit of a wind up. True I despise posh twats who've never done a day's work in their lives, but only if they come across as arrogant and feel they own the world and look down on anyone who isn't from their own inbred social set, but I despise anyone who is not a decent person, irrespective of background.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what background someone has provided they are intelligent, sensitive and ethical, love animals and don't work in recruitment.

Poor attempt at recovery... are you Lucy or SandyDown in disguise by chance?

[Denny]

you are an arrogant bigot that would not know how to spell the word "decent" let alone understand what it meant.

Taken from UKRecruit Website on R2R. Two forum members having a gossip on their industry.

have had similar experiences - rec2rec agencies that I have dealt with seem to start out well enough, taking requirements, asking for commission structures/salaries etc but totally ignore our prerequest for candidates to have a knowledge of our niche markets.

So this a remarkable industry. It is absolutely possible to hire a recruiter to work in an EB without ascertaining whether they have any idea of what their niche markets are or know anything about the candidates field of expertise.

It's a bit like hiring a chef who can't cook, a musician to can't play an instrument, an IT contractor who can't use a computer.

Tell me something DA, how does a recruiter manage to ascertain the value of a candidate contractor CV based on a skillset they know so little about or the roles they are sourcing for? How do they place the best candidates when they can't recognise who they are?

This can only happen in recruitment.

I'm absolutely convinced that the recruitment industry is not so much about attracting and sourcing the best candidates for the roles, it's about cynical clients using ignorant recruiters to have a guesswork stab at sourcing candidates who may do the job reasonably well enough (based on vague guesswork from recruiters who can't tell their arse from their elbow for fielding CVs) when things are going well, but the client can conveniently scapegoat and blamed for any problems if the clients screws up. That's why EB contracts are risk free and all the risk is dumped on the contractor. Contractors are a useful handholding service for the client - that's their real purpose - and some recruiters probably realise this and are advised by their clever lawyers that the contracts need to reflect that as they will inevitably be blamed and scapegoated for sourcing poor quality candidates - something the EB then wants to pass onto the contract (hence their insistence that we are limited cos with the right insurances in place).

The recruitment model is perfect for this scenario. It sure as hell doesn't fit the model conducive to hiring the cream of the crop who are so good that the client hasn't a cat in hells chance of dumping blame on the contractor for mistakes with their instant get out termination clauses and so on.

Face it, DA, you are part of a cynical meatmarket and are doing no one any favours by your fairytale efforts to sell your industry to contractors as being remotely respectable.

I suppose you are going to ask why I use EBs.

I don't have a choice - it's not because I am no good. However, I have been terminated once or twice in my seven years of contracting for some very odd reasons which I believe have more to do with me being too good at what I do, too ethical (I have outlined these examples in previous posts) and seeing through the bulltulip clients than being too bad at my job resulting in justifiable earlier termination. I have also not been put forward for some roles I am amply qualified for (according to the jobads) and, even though the rate was good enough, I believe it is my experience that was too high, too good for what the client is looking for but which the EB recruiter said 'was too junior' for me as if I was looking for an employed permie job. Again, displaying their ignorance of contracting still further.

What's all of the above got to do with getting the cream of the crop in? Luckily some clients do look for a quick and convenient resourcing service and want the best out there - and I tend to pick up these roles easily and stay in them - but unfortunately there are far to many clients who are not and, boy, don't the EBs know this and plan accordingly. The cynical hiring manager will revert to HR to source the candidate through an EB account manager who will have nothing to do with the candidate and uses a resourcer (usually some kid just out of school) to contact us - as if we are the great untouchables not worthy enough to speak directly to the mighty King's trusted aides. This has nothing to do with giving a good service, and everything to do with scapegoating and averting the whole point of what your recruitment industry officially claims is what recruitment is really about - sourcing the right/best candidate for the right role.

The EB industry depends and thrives on second rate people sourcing second rate contractors for second rate client hiring managers who are too incompetent and insecure to take responsibility for their own mistakes and actions.

Sorry if that sounds insulting to some of you who use EBs. I expect most of you are good enough at what you do and, if not, just inexperienced rather than incompetent. However, I am equally sure that best of you reading this are intelligent to know that I am right but are maybe willing to play the game, when you need to use EBs, to keep the money rolling in rather than actually being genuinely second rate at your jobs. Perhaps circumstances force you to do this, I don't know.

Unfortunately, I am incapable and unwilling to offer a second rate service just to keep the bills paid, whilst screwing the client by underperforming so as not to pose a threat if I actually showed him/her where they are going wrong. There again, I don't have any dependents so it is easier for me to set these standards for myself - and it isn't easy, believe me.

It's just that I'm really not into playing games and putting on Oscar winning performances at being 'average' at what I do when I know I can do better and never will be.

[DodgyAgent]

I was being ironic (tongue in cheek) for a bit of a wind up. True I despise posh twats who've never done a day's work in their lives, but only if they come across as arrogant and feel they own the world and look down on anyone who isn't from their own inbred social set, but I despise anyone who is not a decent person, irrespective of background.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what background someone has provided they are intelligent, sensitive and ethical, love animals and don't work in recruitment.

you are an arrogant bigot that would not know how to spell the word "decent" let alone understand what it meant.

[Denny]

Hmm, you started well there Denny but the last sentence rather gives away the "middle class inferiority complex", and I am sure that the plummy speaking bit counts as a cliche, so you have rather contradicted yourself.

I was being ironic (tongue in cheek) for a bit of a wind up. True I despise posh twats who've never done a day's work in their lives, but only if they come across as arrogant and feel they own the world and look down on anyone who isn't from their own inbred social set, but I despise anyone who is not a decent person, irrespective of background.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what background someone has provided they are intelligent, sensitive and ethical, love animals and don't work in recruitment.

[DodgyAgent]

And a capitalist is someone who has everything and doesn't want anyone else to have any of it.

Bit simplistic isn't it?

so which is preferable?

[DodgyAgent]

I spent a fair chunk of my school life under Maggie T, who was by no means a socialist, and I don't recall schools being all that great DA. It's one of the few areas where I agree with you on solutions, but blaming the whole thing on a socialist outlook completely misses the point, especially if you consider that quite a few of the countries widels held to have the best school systems happen to be socialist. Get the blinkers off.

As for borstals, you're fecking joking arent you? They're crime finishing schools, I don't know anyone who went to one of those who didn't come out a more hardened criminal and sending kids to boarding schools cause their families are dysfunctional, that's just a recipe for disaster (Not too mention is this only for poor kids or better off ones too?)

The state schools were and still are run by socialists even under Maggie, and Keith Joseph was charged with looking at ways in which to introduce a voucher scheme,that never happened. Socialism relies entirely on goodwill, and yes a lot of socialist countries educate their children well. This is because those who are doing the educating are answerable to the people who they serve (in otherwords some of the dynamics of capitalism apply), which they are not in this country. This proves my point. The debate should be how we can blend the dynamics of conscience and goodwill with the checks and balances of accountability and responsibility to deliver a decent education to all.

I know that boarding school is an anathema to you snaw but there is Christs Hospital school in Sussex which provides free public school education for boys and girls from poor backgrounds (though not necessarily from dysfunctional families). It apparently works very well and in my view there should be many more schools like it.

Borstals may set politically correctness alarms going but what else do you suggest that we do with children who are criminals? Why not send them away and give them a proper education with sport music etc. I am not saying that borstals should be reintroduced as they were but more as education institutions than punishment centres.

[DimPrawn]

I am always right. Ask my missus.

[snaw]

Debating with a Socialist is about as worthwhile as shouting at dumb animals.

HTH

Yeah, what's the poit of reasoned debate when you already know you're always right ...

[DimPrawn]

About the kind of intelligent, reasoned response I'd expect from you DP.

Debating with a Socialist is about as worthwhile as shouting at dumb animals, but not as fulfilling.

HTH

[snaw]

And a capitalist is someone who has everything and doesn't want anyone else to have any of it.

Bit simplistic isn't it?

[DodgyAgent]

A socialist is someone who has nothing and wants to share it with everyone else

[snaw]

I have a solution. It's called stop voting Labour.

Once everyone does that, things will sort themselves out nicely.

About the kind of intelligent, reasoned response I'd expect from you DP.

[Troll]

Er, I thought that the assisted places scheme provided places in private schools for the bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds?

The grammar schools provided a state school opportunity for the bright kids to get an academic education which would set them up for a professional career and/or Univestity.

Of course Labour don't like either of these things. Bring everyone down to the same level, then everything is fair

Correct

[snaw]

If you removed every socialist and every socialist policy then the world would be a better place, by no means perfect but a lot better. The challenge is how to apply the positive dynamics of market forces to the public sector. A serious debate about a voucher scheme for education, turning all schools into privately run organisations under license. More boarding schools for children who live in dysfunctional families and the reintroduction of borstals that are charged with bringing the very best out of chidren who have fallen into a life of crime.

We need more Hogwarts It worked for Harry Potter

I spent a fair chunk of my school life under Maggie T, who was by no means a socialist, and I don't recall schools being all that great DA. It's one of the few areas where I agree with you on solutions, but blaming the whole thing on a socialist outlook completely misses the point, especially if you consider that quite a few of the countries widels held to have the best school systems happen to be socialist. Get the blinkers off.

As for borstals, you're fecking joking arent you? They're crime finishing schools, I don't know anyone who went to one of those who didn't come out a more hardened criminal and sending kids to boarding schools cause their families are dysfunctional, that's just a recipe for disaster (Not too mention is this only for poor kids or better off ones too?)