|
Recently, I got a job interview thru a recruiter that I NEVER signed
anything with. They called me over the phone a few times and than send
me for the interview.
I did very well on the interview. After 5-6 days, I called the
recruiter to find out what happened and she kept on refraining from
giving me an answer. Upon my insistence she finally said that the
employer really liked me but made an offer to someone else. I was
amazed.
They offered the job to somebody they were not even sure could perform
the job but did so because if they hired me they would have to pay the
recruiter $13,000 as their fee. The guy they made the offer to was
'direct', thru Craigslist or something. And my "recruiter" lifted my
resume' from Monster. The technical Admin under the hiring manager
turned
out to be a friend's friends' friend... but anyhow he himself told me
the truth.
Now my question: how could one compete in such situations. The
employee
would have paid $13K extra to hire me vs. the guy who didn't carry any
extra
price tag. IT IS AN UNFAIR practise for so called bloodsucking
recruiters.
I was wondering if there is any legal action I can take?
|
| |
| |
ibiz@optonline.net (Unix_adm) wrote:
Recently, I got a job interview thru a recruiter that I NEVER signed
anything with. They called me over the phone a few times and than send
me for the interview.
I did very well on the interview. After 5-6 days, I called the
recruiter to find out what happened and she kept on refraining from
giving me an answer. Upon my insistence she finally said that the
employer really liked me but made an offer to someone else. I was
amazed.
They offered the job to somebody they were not even sure could perform
the job but did so because if they hired me they would have to pay the
recruiter $13,000 as their fee. The guy they made the offer to was
'direct', thru Craigslist or something. And my "recruiter" lifted my
resume' from Monster. The technical Admin under the hiring manager
turned
out to be a friend's friends' friend... but anyhow he himself told me
the truth.
Now my question: how could one compete in such situations. The
employee
would have paid $13K extra to hire me vs. the guy who didn't carry any
extra
price tag. IT IS AN UNFAIR practise for so called bloodsucking
recruiters.
I was wondering if there is any legal action I can take?
Move to India you crybaby.
|
| |
| |
ibiz@optonline.net (Unix_adm) wrote in message news:<77e4d8bf.0401311251.1bff9dec@posting.google.com>...
Recently, I got a job interview thru a recruiter that I NEVER signed
anything with. They called me over the phone a few times and than send
me for the interview.
I did very well on the interview. After 5-6 days, I called the
recruiter to find out what happened and she kept on refraining from
giving me an answer. Upon my insistence she finally said that the
employer really liked me but made an offer to someone else. I was
amazed.
They offered the job to somebody they were not even sure could perform
the job but did so because if they hired me they would have to pay the
recruiter $13,000 as their fee. The guy they made the offer to was
'direct', thru Craigslist or something. And my "recruiter" lifted my
resume' from Monster. The technical Admin under the hiring manager
turned
out to be a friend's friends' friend... but anyhow he himself told me
the truth.
Now my question: how could one compete in such situations. The
employee
would have paid $13K extra to hire me vs. the guy who didn't carry any
extra
price tag. IT IS AN UNFAIR practise for so called bloodsucking
recruiters.
I was wondering if there is any legal action I can take?
Not likely. This is not at all unusual or especially unethical in the
recruiting business. And many employers will not deal with recruiters
or will prefer candidates for whom they don't have to pay a
recruiter's fee. They are free to do so.
It pays to be careful when dealing with recruiters and only allow a
recruiter to present you when you know the recruiter well and believe
you are likely to receive the position as a result.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
RonJeremy@hotmail.com wrote:
ibiz@optonline.net (Unix_adm) wrote:
Move to India you crybaby.
Well, fundamentally, never deal with recruiters. Deal only with
employers directly, with the sole exception being you may wish to
offer your services via a 'job-shop'. Employers hiring under the
'employee at will' doctrine are free to hire the cheapest employee
that they can get.
Speaking only for myself,
Joe Durusau
|
| |
| |
Christopher Green wrote:
Unix_adm wrote:
Not likely. This is not at all unusual or especially unethical in the
recruiting business.
They have to make a living in their chosen field. Folks don't have
to do business with them.
It pays to be careful when dealing with recruiters and only allow a
recruiter to present you when you know the recruiter well and believe
you are likely to receive the position as a result.
Right.
But also consider: Without the recruiter you didn't know the position
existed in the first place. You weren't in the game at all.
I do prefer dealing with companies that won't accept any candidates at
all through recruiters, because that creates a level playing field. If
I find the position at all, that is.
I do also prefer dealing with companies that only accept candidates
through recruiters, because that also creates a level playing feild.
And recruiters can find such positions because they make their living
at it.
Your situation likely angered your recruiter as much as you. No level
playing field. If the recruiter knew that in advance and didn't explain
the situation to you, bad news. If the recruiter didn't know, how
did she find the position without also finding it openly advertised,
also bad news. Only maybe the top 10% of recruiters are good enough to
handle this conundrum, so you want to do business with them.
You've learned 2 important things: 1) a company that is more interested
in being cheap than fair, 2) a recruiter that tosses folks in without
proper preparation.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:01:49 -0500, joe durusau <joe.durusau@lmco.com>
wrote:
Well, fundamentally, never deal with recruiters. Deal only with
employers directly, with the sole exception being you may wish to
offer your services via a 'job-shop'.
Some employers hire only through recruiters. The key is to choose
recruiters wisely.
------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------
|
| |
| |
It is an unusual situation, and one that I must admit that I am biased in (I
work full time as a recruiter) but a couple of thoughts that I had based on
your posting:
My question is; Were you aware of the job or would you have known about the
job if it hadn't have been for the recruiter company?
If you hadn't known, then do you think that missing an opportunity that
wouldn't have existed if it hadn't have been for the recruitment company in
the first place is really that bad?
(Sounds far too philosophical, but you get the general idea!)
We generally work to the premise that we can do all this work, and not
actually place a candidate so for example, the recruiter may have actually
sorted through 30 - even 200 applicants to get to your CV, (this is not too
uncommon) so from that perspective, it is making the client's (the company
that interviewed you) job much simpler - they just have to interview 2
really good candidates, and if they want to sort through candidates
themselves, then they can, but it might take them a full month (and might
not be worth the time, or lost revenue for a manager to spend the time doing
that)
I like to think that from my side, I am able to get candidates jobs that
they wouldn't have been able to get, simply because the client knows that I
really take the time to sort through the candidates.
EG a CV sent from me would automatically make the shortlist, based on the
quality of previous candidates that I have sent - also we improve the CV
layout, help with their interview style and help prep the candidate with
details about the company that you just couldn't have got from researching
them on the net.
Recruiters as a general rule are here to provide a service, which people may
or may not need to use. An example of a similar service is Travel agencies.
In this day and age it works out cheaper to use the net and sort out the
trip, but people still use the agencies and are happy to pay more because
they know that they can relax and they don't need to be an expert in
something that they don't do daily.
(That said it could be argued that our days are numbered)
One thing that I have found in my experience, the companies that value
higher quality staff over the cost of say $13,000 are generally much better
employers to work for.
If finding the best staff in the market at whatever price is the way that a
company works, then the people that work there are often of a higher
standard, and are more pleasant to work for also.
Another point on this concept is a company that is too tight to pay $13K for
a really good staff member would generally be less inclined to pay well when
it comes to salary.
The point is: If they value staff more than money they might be a better
place to work.
That said this is all a bit of a generalisation, and is based on the NZ
market, and IMHO this has been what I have seen. I have been on both sides
of the recruiting table - working for the company *using* a recruitment
company and also for a recruitment company, and I can see the benefits of
having the service.
That said I *certainly* understand your frustration. I can't personally
recall a situation where a candidate has lost out because of the recruiters
fee, though that may happen, it might have been for the best for you anyway!
If you wanted to continue the discussion feel free to email me directly
also.
--
Warmest Regards
Jay Best
De Winter International
09-366-1944 or 021-1655-313
ibiz@optonline.net (Unix_adm) wrote:
Move to India you crybaby.
|
| |
| |
|
