hat gifting this network to the membership would remove its closure. However, unless your making tangible money here, it's strikes me as overreaching. I sincerely hope Jobster doesn't go the way of SOC, with its focus mostly on legal action.…
have all of this:
How physical appearance can affect the outcome of your job interview: http://www.helium.com/items/2086709-how-physical-appearance-can-affect-the-outcome-of-your-job-interview
How plastic surgery can boost your career: http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2008/05/12/why-people-are-investing-in-better-looks…
re usually the same people that want extended payment terms, another red flag, are they having money issues? And that want an extended guarantee or worse, 100%on 90 days....that's the biggest red flag of all. If you need that it's likely because there are some serious turnover issues and that's the companies fault, not the recruiter.
It's always hard to turn down business, but you'll always make more money by doing so. Instead of spinning your wheels with a lousy client, you could be spending your time getting a better one and recruiting on that job.…
be effectively used/filled again, and even worse- you can't get real beer in the stadiums! The lesson (which you can also learn from many arrogant founders CXO, sr execs, and hiring managers) is that if you control enough money and power, there's little you can't do, however foolish and wasteful.
r see it as a value for money proposition. They see value, but not value for money. Worse, is the guarantee. This creates so much angst, I decided to get rid of it altogether. So I structured my fee this way, no guarantee, half fee after 6 weeks, the other half after 6 months, but only payable if the candidate still employed. This was based on the premise that a good manager has a pretty good idea a Recruiter will work out within 6 weeks and if the Recruiter is still there after 6 months they must be working out ok. (Interested to hear comments on that.)
With one client, all was going well, both parties happy and got paid after 6weeks. Sent the second part invoice after 6 months, they refused to pay. The Recruiter was not working out. Still employed though, but not working out. And this is in the Rec2Rec business.
our money America that your Grandfather and Great Grand Father lived in. None of these solutions should be a quick fix ( like the Cash For Clunkers deal ) and the giveaways to the corporations should stop immediately. Its a new , more common sense world where the government will have to assume the role of watch dog because our free market system has proven it can not be trusted to do the right thing for the country ( TO BIG TO FAIL ) and the people ( Bernie Madoff) . Idealogy like the neocons got us where we are today, the S%$# did not just happen since Obama came in, he was handed this mess and its up to us all to take the country forward.…
aying that he has bad information and even worse advice for candidates. He's providing a disservice to the candidates, clients and recruiting industry. Why would a company hire a recruiter? Partly to weed out unwanted solicitation from unqualified candidates. It's precisely the reason the recruiter is there often times. By advising they try to play super sleuth and discover the hiring manager and contact them directly, he's doing exactly what the company is paying good money NOT to occur. What a fool....seriously..... good thing this is a public forum of recruitment professionals who speak about their experience and skills and that we are here to learn from one another and educate ourselves on the best practices within our industry as a shared community of bloggers and contributing ideas and thoughts. Also, that much of what we say is mere opinion. …
res me about LinkedIn is its ease. You do not have to be a great recruiter to go on and find a handful of people that fit your need. Further, these are people not on traditional job boards. Also, with seemingly more companies spending money on HR functions, these internal recruiters have access to all the things we do. That is why I am skeptical to link to internal HR sometimes. I also very rarely connect to other recruiters. Sorry guys, I love you but....
So, is my concern valid? How will LinkedIn change recruiting? Better? Worse? or just different??…
the agencies to up their game.
Here's an alternate view of how we got here:
Years ago being an agency recruiter was simpler.
Companies and agencies had fewer sourcing channels. Most of it was in traditional media (local, regional, national and trade press) and all of it was expensive.
Just like the Internet many years later, agencies got better at using it than companies.
Because there were fewer places to find people, companies hired more people with transferrable skills.
They hired some of them from recruitment agencies – but the agencies had to work harder to sell their services because recruitment agencies were still relatively new and some companies hated the fact that people had become commodotised.
Trouble is, most of these same companies didn’t know how to advertise properly – largely because they disrespected their audiences by doing things like referring to them in their adverts as “the incumbent”.
Then the Internet happened.
That was when the people with most to gain from recruitment fees staying the same (ie..recruitment agencies) started embracing technology and laying claim to the new frontier.
People became increasingly easier to reach – especially when Web 2.0 came along, and so what recruiters did to maintain their fee levels was move from being horizontal market specialists to becoming vertical market specialists.
Because now the candidates were within easier reach
Now they were selling candidates that already knew how to do the job before they’d even started.
Now they were calling themselves "headhunters" - but not charging their clients 30% with a third upfront.
Clients loved it.
The recruiters loved it.
The candidates, not so much.
But candidates have to move jobs sometimes. So, if they had to leave their job because they hated their boss, at least now they could choose their next one from the constant phone calls/emails they’d receive from a specialist recruiter (aka the newly entitled contingent headhunter) who had a job that was paying more money with a competitor.
In the background, hyper-capitalism had taken off and everybody was making money. More clients used more agencies who contacted fewer candidates.
The job got so easy that all recruiters had to do was flash a few de-personalised CVs via email to a few select competitors and wait for the bidding to start.
Recruiters got worse at selling, because they could.
Clients got worse at buying, because they could.
Candidates got worse at learning new skills, because they kept taking sideways moves into similar jobs. But they earned more.
Everybody was going niche.
Then the penny finally dropped and clients started bringing recruitment inhouse.
Because using the Internet had gotten so easy that they figured they could do what the agencies were doing for less money.
And they were right.
Then the crash happened and suddenly there were too many agencies all saying the same thing and too many candidates suddenly out of work.
Which brings us up to today.
All the big employers are doing it for themselves and lots of recruiters are fighting over scraps that those big employers sometimes throw from the table.
Lots of these recruiters should now be selling themselves to the SME market, but aren't - probably because they don't know how to sell, don't know that much about recruitment and know they won't be able to attract candidates to a smaller company as easily as they were once able to do with Pepsico or Microsoft.
A virus has hit the agency sector and only those with the strongest genes are going to survive.
To be continued...