Cient 'Stealing' Resumes

Has anyone every encountered a corporate hiring authority passing on your candidate only to put them in their ATS system and contact that candidate 3 months later through an e-blast?

This seems to be happening more and more and I wanted to see if anyone else out there was experiencing the same issue.

Besides calling the hiring manager on the carpet and listening to every "i didn't know speech" is anyone doing anything out there to STOP this?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Greg White on October 30, 2012 at 1:05pm

If that is the case you are well within your rights to call out the client. I'm sure they didn't mean to "steal" your candidate(s) but they should understand that the ownership window is there for a reason. I think it would be entirely appropriate to have a sit down with them and try to find a solution. If not you may need to find more honest clients.

Robert Krzak said:

Greg,

Thanks for your response. Yes we do have a one year agreement but unfortunately that doesn't stop the client from throwing that resume inside their ATS and contacting them before the agreement is up.

Just need to find more honest clients (if there is such a thing!)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Krzak on October 30, 2012 at 1:15pm

Greg- I agree with what you're saying.

Thanks!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on October 30, 2012 at 1:16pm

I don't work with many of the larger companies - for many of these same reasons - but wouldn't they have "applicant source" as a field when entering a candidate? I would think this would tell them they are indeed stealing....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Krzak on October 30, 2012 at 1:23pm

Jerry- I'm going on a little rant here so PLEASE do not take what I say personally because you're thowing out some good points.

Maybe this is a whole different topic but whats to say that a headhunter cannot claim ownership to a candidate?

If it takes me 30-45 days to identify a stellar candidate (via networking, referrals, etc for a client), who on his/her own could not do the job, then why does it give them right to import my candidate into their ATS AFTER they pass on my candidate. If my candidate was somehow on CareerBuilder, Dice, etc, I get it- They have every right to that candidate.

However, when headhunters invest thousands of dollars every month on research assistants, junior recruiters, ATS Systems, and all other resources at our disposal, then I'm sorry but that is absolute bullshit that our clients import these "Organic" candidates into their databases which I have worked very hard to uncover. Unfortunately technology has not caught up which enables the recruiter to make the resume "evaporate" after our client passes on our candidates. I consider these candidates an asset to me and my company and believe that every headhunter feels, to a certain degree, the same way.

Thanks for the good banter Jerry.....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on October 30, 2012 at 1:30pm

I'm with you Robert. I like discussion.

Isn't the more appropriate question "Why are you putting my candidate into your database?" Rather than ownership - might we want to be more specific and state "No candidates introduced through the services of ________ ___________ shall be entered into any form of client ATS or Resume Database of any kind" ? Perhaps that hits a little closer to home than ownership.

For one - if I recruit someone that another agency tried to get a sendout with 4 months ago - but let's say the candidate no showed or something else happened - if I do the work that generates the new interest then I am most certainly entitled to the fee.- not the agency claiming some sort of time stamp ownership.

I'm just speaking out loud here - so know I'm just playing semi-devil's advocate.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg White on October 30, 2012 at 1:34pm

Wouldn't that hinder the candidate being hired for another, more suitable role later on? Candidate Sally is a fit culturally but may be too junior for the Senior Accountant role, having her in the database allows her to be considered in 4 months when the client is looking for an intermediate accountant or financial analyst. As long as the source is attributed, and recognized there shouldn't be a problem.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on October 30, 2012 at 1:37pm

Greg - what if recruiter #2 is working on the intermediate account role 4 months later - while #1 has moved on? And recruiter #2 calls Sally, makes the presentation and gets the sendout? Do you feel recruiter #1 should be paid for work he did not do - and recruiter #2 not get paid for the work he/she did?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Krzak on October 30, 2012 at 1:42pm

Unfortunately Ive been down these legal roads before with our attorney and no matter what language you put in there, its still going to happen. It's very difficult to ascertain damages in this situation and we can't babysit every candidate who is passed on by our clients.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg White on October 30, 2012 at 1:43pm

The argument is not Recruiter 2 being gypped by Recruiter 1 when they have done the same work, that is a topic of another discussion. The argument is Recruiter 1 doing all of the work and then having the client benefit from that work, within a reasonable time frame, without compensating the recruiter.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on October 30, 2012 at 1:46pm

OK. You're correct Greg.

I had a client call me (not more than a month ago) to let me know a candidate had applied to the same job on their web site as we had submitted them to this spring. They still considered him to be "our guy" even being well past the original consideration. Too bad he didn't get hired. :)

So yes - I see your point.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher Perez on October 31, 2012 at 10:56am

In defense of honest clients (that term is somewhat redundant at least in my understanding of a proper client), I have a story that is similar to Jerry's (above). I work with the world's leading provider of online medical education. Needless to say, as the titan of the industry, virtually everyone is in their ATS. On two separate occasions, I was attempting to submit candidates via their iCIMS portal and got stopped when the system noted that these people were already in there. (Yes, I had asked both candidates and been assured that neither had ever applied there before).

In both cases, the powers that be in HR agreed that my efforts should be rewarded and they manually overrode and assigned these candidates to me in the system. The rationale was that either the candidate had been added as part of a mass import-- possibly without the candidates' knowledge-- or that it was their fault that they couldn't properly search their own ATS to find qualified talent. I was pleasantly surprised! That sort of thing generates a lot of goodwill.