51–60 of 114 posts
You, as a potential employee, are not their customer -- you're the commodity being sold. It doesn't change the way you feel about how you are treated, but awareness of that relationship may help keep your patience and a level head.
(Quote taken from this "What about your job do you wish other people understood?" Reddit thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/e1dsi/what_about_... )
You have failed to understand her job. Her clients are requiring these things. I know this, because the company I work for has had to draw hard lines on recruiters. Before that, they would send us utter crap and waste our time. Now, we don't get many hits, but most of them are actually worth talking to. She asked you all those questions because when she assumes things, her customers get really angry. Sending bad recr…
If the recruiting company sends you utter crap and wastes your time, why put up with it? Would you do the same for a hosting company who had crappy servers and didn't know PHP from Python? Fire them, and hard.
I recently applied for a programming position with some knowledge of maths. The recruiter phoned me up and asked me if I was good at maths. I explained that it depended on the subject area because, although I have just finished a PhD involving mathematical modelling (as stated in my CV and cover letter), I wasn't a mathematician by training and it would depend on what methods the company were using. I learnt an impor…
TamDenholm, I agree with your basic principle. But - in my experience you don't really want an adversarial relationship with the recruiter.
I have had recruiters misrepresent me and even send me to the wrong place for interviews. There is a real disconnect at times and often they completely misunderstand the technology they are trying to find someone for. When I deal with them I try to be as simple and 'transactional' as possible. Clearly in your case the recruiter had little or no idea as to why you were not complying with what looked like a simple request (ie to him/her). It might come across as simply being difficult. Don't misunderstand me - I think your point is completely valid. You are being very considerate of yout contacts. I would read your hesitation as coming from a place where you value privacy and where you do not see your contacts as instrumental.
When I was in high school I had what might end up being the best job of my entire life. I cleaned kennels at a veterinarian's office and held the dogs/cats/sometimes horses when the doctor treated them. Great fun everyday learned something new, worked with animals, etc. We had a simple filing system. When someone came in with their pet we would retieve the paper file and on the outside edge there would be a place for a colored sticker - a indicator of the animal's temperament. Red meant extreme caution, yellow meant the animal was fearful and might bite defensvely...
I guess I have internalized this in that I imagine, in this current job market, an absolute flood of applicants. The recruiters are making flash judgements on each person. Since they often do not understand the underlying technology they are basing alot on either simple metrics (number of certifications, etc) and soft skills. Something which comes across like evasion throws up a red flag and in my imaginary world merits a red sticker on the side of your folder. From his/her point of view this is a simple request that you did not comply with. What nefarious crimes are you hiding? I sincerily doubt that s/he thought for a second about privacy concerns.
For me this is where LinkedIn fills a need. My few references are people that are 'pre-approved' to provide this sort of need. The way references are done on LI is that they show the relationship and give the amount/type of contact the person is willing to grant. I am sure that other social networking sites may have a similar function - I only know LinkedIn... When I get asked for references, I have 'preapproved' ones
tl;dr - Use social networking sites (ie LinkedIn) to handle this in advance. Streamline interactions with recruiters.
While it's true: the more you make the more they make (usually, its about 30% of your first years salary, which is huge), what is also true is that they're more determined to get you hired at any amount than the amount you want.
This is why you'll see recruiters offer jobs for $90k+, but then when you get to negotiations, suddenly you're being presented ate $60-$70k.
If you take the job at $90k, the recruiter would get $27,000. If you take the job at $70k, the recruiter would get $21,000. If you don't take the job, the recruiter would get $0.
While an extra $6k is nice, $21k is a lot better than $0. So be sure to watch out for this common misconception. When dealing with recruiters, get them to introduce you to the company, and then do everything on your own. Don't let them negotiate for you, don't let them tell you not to tell the company your salary requirements. It's your job and career, you do all the talking and negotiating.
I have the impression that the British recruiters are slimier than in other places? At least, most of the horror stories I've read about European recruiters come from England? (My limited experience from e.g. Sweden is bett... hrm, not as bad. An article written by me would use the word "clueless" often, but just a few "sleazy" and maybe one "evil". I'd even use some positive adjectives, like "human", "working hard t…
tl;dr Recruiters suck and only care about arbitrary bullshit. This statement acurately describes 95% of my colleagues. I will happily accept the challenge of changing your perception of our industry. I'm a technical recruiter that covers the London market. Feel free to send me your CV. My details are in my profile. Also, feel free to have a look through my comment history. I'm not on this site to pick up leads or pus…
I was actually hoping to read a reply from a recruiter. Good to hear that there is someone in the IT European recruiting business with a genuine interest in doing the job properly. How would you go regarding changing the current "95% of my colleagues suck" situation?
Recruiters get paid incredible bonuses for placing candidates and are less interested in how you feel and more interested in ticking off keywords fed to them by their client.
Example: One role I have on my books right now is for a 3rd line support analyst. My colleague, a guy who makes about £50k to £60k, submitted a candidate who he listed out the tech requirements to and asked the candidate to answer 'Yes' or 'No' if he had exposure to those systems/languages. No probing questions, no challenge of his competencies, no understanding of what the various languages were but purely and simply ticked the boxes.
People like him are the norm so when I get on the phone and ask the same guy to explain the difference between powershell and the command prompt and why the powershell is more advanced, a straightforward question for a techie but not what you expect from a recruiter, it throws him for six and those who know what they are talking about stand out from that point forward.
My real beef with agencies is that they are yet another lossy filter in the process that goes:
Manager with role HR Department Agency Jobserve Me.
Neither the HR department nor the agency knows that Sybase and SQL Server are profoundly similar databases. The manager doesn't care - he wants a Java dev with some basic DB skills. But the hiring spec says "Sybase" so Sybase it must be.
Just yesterday I received an email from a recruiter saying that she had come across my resume and I looked like a great fit for a position she's hiring for. She asked me if I'd give her a call to chat about my experience and so she could tell me about the position. She obviously didn't remember that five weeks ago we talked for 30 minutes on the phone when I explained what I've done and exactly what I'm looking for.…
Oh I feel dirty... I really don't think incentivize is a word.