Reply to: Interview & reference requirement lies

[Zippy]

Thanks for keeping it warm.

I trust you didn't empty the chiller box completely? I had 18 bottles of ale in there.

Hic. I'll just pop down to the offie. Want any nuts?

[RichardCranium]

Sorry to hear that. I'll move over.

Thanks for keeping it warm.

I trust you didn't empty the chiller box completely? I had 18 bottles of ale in there.

[Zippy]

Bum.

"Although you have the <specialist area> project experience, it is the wrong kind of experience."

Zippy had baggsied my bench space. Well, clear off!

Sorry to hear that. I'll move over.

[malvolio]

This is the reality. Question is how to stop it happening.

I have a cunning plan. It's taking a while to get it going though...

[BrilloPad]

3. As others have said, I have no interest in getting into a bunfight about who has primacy and which rate/commission combination I get to pay. Not my concern and I'm not going to waste time worrying about it. CVs in the bin, go on to the next candidate.

This is the reality. Question is how to stop it happening.

[The Lone Gunman]

Not stupid at all. I've been there a few times: from where I sit, there are a couple of issues:

1. The same CV from two agents means one of them is cheating or is inefficient. I care not which, why should I deal with someone who can't get their basic processes straight? What other "short cuts" wil they be taking?

2. The candidate ought to know who is putting them forward. If I get them twice, clearly either they aren't in control of their CV, or they think multiple applications somehow increases their chances. Nope, wrong, not interested.

3. As others have said, I have no interest in getting into a bunfight about who has primacy and which rate/commission combination I get to pay. Not my concern and I'm not going to waste time worrying about it. CVs in the bin, go on to the next candidate.

Harsh, I accept, but even in a boom market them's the realities. Right now, there is always an equal candidate who hasn't screwed up.

I would have expected better from you Mal.
You know damn well what a buch of devious coniving shysters agents are.
They often do not inform us of the company name untill after they have put us forward.
They are also a spiteful bunch. I can see an agent knowingly putting me forward a second time to knock me out and give his other candidate a chance.
There are lots of things in this business that we have no control over.
Last and by no means least you may be throwing away the best candidate for a job who may save you thousands or produce the best solution on the market because the agents have cocked up.
If you want your competition to have that kind of advantage then that is your look out.

[NotAllThere]

... Right now, there is always an equal candidate who hasn't screwed up.

Only in your world of PC support at £5 an hour.



Seriously, my experience of hiring in the recession, in niche areas, is that it can be even harder to get good people. More battening down of hatches from the good ones, I guess.

[malvolio]

I have to confess that I am missing something. If an agent claims to "own" a contractor, don't you just ask him to show you the piece of paper that says so, or piss off? If the agent merely claims that he saw the contractor first so he ought to have dibs, tell him you don't work that way but if the contractor agrees then you might take that into account. The client (and the contractor) should not be crucified on the agents' disagreement between themselves.

IMHO if 2 agencies both claimed to have priority on a contractor without his having agreed that with either of them, and the contractor loses the contract because of that, then he should have grounds to sue the agencies for loss of business.

But my main point was the stupidity of clients rejecting the best candidate just because 2 salesmen argued about who should take a cut from his earnings.

Not stupid at all. I've been there a few times: from where I sit, there are a couple of issues:

1. The same CV from two agents means one of them is cheating or is inefficient. I care not which, why should I deal with someone who can't get their basic processes straight? What other "short cuts" wil they be taking?

2. The candidate ought to know who is putting them forward. If I get them twice, clearly either they aren't in control of their CV, or they think multiple applications somehow increases their chances. Nope, wrong, not interested.

3. As others have said, I have no interest in getting into a bunfight about who has primacy and which rate/commission combination I get to pay. Not my concern and I'm not going to waste time worrying about it. CVs in the bin, go on to the next candidate.

Harsh, I accept, but even in a boom market them's the realities. Right now, there is always an equal candidate who hasn't screwed up.

[TykeMerc]

I have to confess that I am missing something. If an agent claims to "own" a contractor, don't you just ask him to show you the piece of paper that says so, or piss off? If the agent merely claims that he saw the contractor first so he ought to have dibs, tell him you don't work that way but if the contractor agrees then you might take that into account. The client (and the contractor) should not be crucified on the agents' disagreement between themselves.

IMHO if 2 agencies both claimed to have priority on a contractor without his having agreed that with either of them, and the contractor loses the contract because of that, then he should have grounds to sue the agencies for loss of business.

But my main point was the stupidity of clients rejecting the best candidate just because 2 salesmen argued about who should take a cut from his earnings.

I agree it's utterly ludicrous, but it's a fact of life for some clients. I questioned it and got chapter and verse about why they made the policy. They didn't like the policy, but they didn't want repeats of the hassle.

Sorry to hear you've got the "wrong" sort of experience Mr C

[OwlHoot]

Bum.

"Although you have the <specialist area> project experience, it is the wrong kind of experience."

Zippy had baggsied my bench space. Well, clear off!

Sorry to hear that RC.

This ridiculous compulsion for ultra-relevance must deprive many clients of damned good candidates, and I'm sure is a major contributor to the skills shortage in this country and the perpetuation of bad practices. For example, every NHS advert I see includes "must have NHS experience". What a joke.

[RichardCranium]

I have an interview. It's only a telephone interview but it's a start.

Bum.

"Although you have the <specialist area> project experience, it is the wrong kind of experience."

Zippy had baggsied my bench space. Well, clear off!

[expat]

I have to confess that I am missing something. If an agent claims to "own" a contractor, don't you just ask him to show you the piece of paper that says so, or piss off? If the agent merely claims that he saw the contractor first so he ought to have dibs, tell him you don't work that way but if the contractor agrees then you might take that into account. The client (and the contractor) should not be crucified on the agents' disagreement between themselves.

IMHO if 2 agencies both claimed to have priority on a contractor without his having agreed that with either of them, and the contractor loses the contract because of that, then he should have grounds to sue the agencies for loss of business.

But my main point was the stupidity of clients rejecting the best candidate just because 2 salesmen argued about who should take a cut from his earnings.

[NotAllThere]

I was also involved in similar wrangling. The client even sent me to talk to their legal department, which was great - we spent 10 minutes talking about the case, and 50 minutes talking about contracting. The client was able to discern that it was the agency that was causing trouble. Mind you, the client was run by engineers, not by HR.

So, even when it is policy to ditch duplicates (which is a STUPID policy - you want the BEST person for the job, don't you? ), it's still the agencies fault.

If I was in their shoes, I'd say. "OK. Well, I think he was mine, but, tell you what - how about you give me first dibs on the next requirement?" Short-termism, and too much exposure to the US. *sigh*

[TykeMerc]

How do they get burned? What's the problem?

I asked my Voice of Reason how her construction-industry employers would react to 2 agents hassling them over i subcontractor. They'd tell them both to **** off, she said.

They had to deal with multiple phone calls, emails, letters and even solicitors contacts that had to be escallated to their legal department from the two Agents that were trying to claim ownership.
Ended up withdrawing the offer and having to repeat the interviewing and hiring process all over again that cost time, money and put the programme back by 6 weeks.
As useless as the Agents action was the client still had to deal with the fallout and the easiest way to avoid repeating it was to make a policy of bin any duplicated CV's.

[expat]

Sadly it's not.
I've been in that situation myself when hiring resource for a client and I was given clear instructions by HR and the Programme Director to bin both copies of any duplicate CV's from multiple agencies.
Apparently they were burned in the past by 2 agents fighting over 1 offer to a contractor and they didn't want to put up with the hassle all over again.

It's deeply annoying, but it does happen

Oh and fingers crossed for you Mr Cranium

How do they get burned? What's the problem?

I asked my Voice of Reason how her construction-industry employers would react to 2 agents hassling them over i subcontractor. They'd tell them both to **** off, she said.