What are your thoughts on....candidate ownership.

Here's an area that I've always had trouble with: candidate ownership.

Scenario 1
There are "competitors" that jam resumes into the ATS just to cover ownership. They don't qualify candidates, they don't have candidate consent....they are simply blocking others from being candidate "owners".

Do you see this occurring as well?
How have you've successfully been able to counter this tactic?
As the client, do you address this at all?

I used to try this approach: Candidate generates an email authorizing consent for me to submit.
This only convoluted the situation even more and the client washed their hands of the candidate to avoid a fee conflict down the road. Who needs the headache, right?

---------

Scenario 2
Client: Oh yeah....sorry...we did some checking.....and we already have John Smith in our database. Yes, we know it was from 5 years and 2 promotions ago. And yes, even though his old profile doesn't match the req, and we never interviewed him, we're going to reach out to him (NOW that YOU provided his new sparkly updated resume and brought his awesomeness to our attention). We're not going to pay you a fee....but THANKS....cause, y know....his contact info is in the database. And hey....you're awesome too.

I think this one sucks. Yes....I agree....you probably had him in your 30,000 applicant database but if I am the one bringing him to your attention....and you never intended to contact him, where's the love?

And yes, before you go there....I always qualify the candidates to ensure that they've not applied within X months and no other recruiter was authorized to present.

Do you see this occurring as well?
How have you've successfully been able to counter this tactic?
As the client, do you address this at all?

Comment by Jerry Albright on August 27, 2013 at 9:03am: The best way to counter these situations is to simply not work with companies who allow it. Choose your potential clients wisely.

Comment by Ambrish Kochikar on August 28, 2013 at 11:46am: We faced this situation and the candidate did declare he interviewed with our client 3 years earlier. He is part of their user group meetings, from time to time, but they just never thought of asking him to interview for a job, as he owned his own business. The client, upon our presenting the resume, consent and note on prior interview, did agree to work through us, but for a fee that was 3/4ths of our regular fee. I can't say I object to that arrangement, given the circumstances.

Comment by Chadd Balbi on August 29, 2013 at 9:10am: I just watched a video by the "According to Danny" site by Danny Cahill that covered this subject. If you know a client will try and take ownership of a candidate because they "know" them from a few years ago, you have to protect yourself upfront. Get in the agreement that this will only hold water if the candidate you submitted is currently in the interview process with your client. If they had them in their ATS from a few years ago that should not matter.

Comment by Jerry Albright on August 29, 2013 at 9:13am: There are 2 types of clients out there: Those who value your service and those who would rather not use your service. Companies that are going to look for any way to "prove" they do not owe you a fee are the ones to simply avoid. Why battle?

Comment by Steve N Odell on August 29, 2013 at 4:19pm: I would fight for it. We have in our agreement that client could only do that if they were very recently having discussions.It happens all the time. Sometimes it is a matter of educating the client on proper protocol. If they "get it" and you can move on under that agreement it may turn into a great client. If they will not be flexible with that and want to screw you then "you simply avoid" as Jerry suggests, or recruit the heck out of their people. We always need sources.

Comment by Daren J. Mongello on September 5, 2013 at 8:43am: Thanks for the comments. They were all spot on. I agree that these scenarios should be covered in the agreement.