Recruitment agencies are ruining our market

axl2derv

Does anybody else think this?

For years I have tried to build up a portfolio of experience but every job I have applied for has been through an agency. They promise you good chances of getting the job in an effort to get you to meet them to sign up with them. Once you sign up, you have a little chat and it turns out that they think you are not qualified for the position and recommend that you should take a purchase ledger job or that they will contact you when they find a suitable position that doesn't exist. The only time that they ever do contact you is if they have a temporary position.

I work as a bookkeeper at the moment and I managed to get that job by talking my way into it. It was direct with the employer and as he wasn't financial, I managed to get the job by using expressions that went over his head. I've been in the job for 7 months and I have done exactly what I said I could do at the interview and more. I also prepare management accounts for him from my AAT experience. If that job had been through an agency, my CV would have never landed on his desk as they tend to put people in positions that they are over qualified for to make them look competent at what they do.

Because of employment agencies, I came out of the industry and stopped studying AAT for 3 years as I couldn’t get a job within accounting. I spent the 3 years as a telephone advisor. I could have been in the final stages of CIMA by now if it hadn’t of been for those agencies.

Luckily I am back on track now and should have AAT completed in June and follow with CIMA.

Gem7321

I completely disagree with you. If they thought you were under-qualified it's either because you were, or because you didn't sell yourself properly; whether that was through the interview or through your cv. Maybe they were contacting you with temporary positions so you could gain some experience? And many temp positions in finance normally end up being perm if you are good at the job.

I volunteer in a recruitment agency and there's absolutely no point in putting people forward for jobs when they are under or over qualified, not only would it damage the agencys reputation, we wouldn't get our commission! At the end of the day, we have to find you a job to get our commission, and we're working for the clients, not for the candidates.

axl2derv wrote: »

I managed to get the job by using expressions that went over his head.

All that says to me is that you couldn't get the job through your experience or qualifications, so you had to bamboozle the interviewer instead. But hey that technique obviously works.

Jan

Mmm, you've obviously had a bad experience of the agencies that you used, but does that mean they are all bad?

The only time that they ever do contact you is if they have a temporary position.

I got my current permanent job through a local agency, although I must admit I was a bit reluctant to use one having read peoples views on here. It was my first experience of finding work this way. Previuosly I've always found work via the local paper, job centre, notice in the post office window etc. Sarah understood the industry, why I wanted to leave my current position and had a good idea of the kind of job I was looking for. I only wanted part time work which made it more difficult , but she still managed to send me suitable jobs. At no time was I ever only offered temporary positions.

Because of employment agencies, I came out of the industry and stopped studying AAT for 3 years as I couldn’t get a job within accounting.

What you mean is you couldn't find a suitable job, surely you can't blame that on all the agencies?

I work as a bookkeeper at the moment and I managed to get that job by talking my way into it. It was direct with the employer and as he wasn't financial, I managed to get the job by using expressions that went over his head.

Actually, that made me smile, as a couple of my employers have no idea when it comes to finance - one leaving his business without a bookkeeper for months as "theirs wasn't real work"!!

Good luck with your present job and studies, look forward not back!!

axl2derv

Gem7321 wrote: »

I completely disagree with you. If they thought you were under-qualified it's either because you were, or because you didn't sell yourself properly; whether that was through the interview or through your cv. Maybe they were contacting you with temporary positions so you could gain some experience? And many temp positions in finance normally end up being perm if you are good at the job.

I volunteer in a recruitment agency and there's absolutely no point in putting people forward for jobs when they are under or over qualified, not only would it damage the agencys reputation, we wouldn't get our commission! At the end of the day, we have to find you a job to get our commission, and we're working for the clients, not for the candidates.



All that says to me is that you couldn't get the job through your experience or qualifications, so you had to bamboozle the interviewer instead. But hey that technique obviously works.

You have just proved my point. You have no interest in the candidate, just the client so you can get the commission. That's exactly the reason why AAT students are held back in their career.

I can understand your comments being from an agency but you fail to see the bigger picture. No offence but I can remember how naive I was at 19 also. The bottom line is that recruitment agencies are the barrier that prevents us students from achieving our full potential because it may not be reflected on our CV’s.

The key words for recruitment agencies are Market, Market and Market. It’s about “How much can this candidate earn us”, not “How can I help this candidate achieve their full potential”.

Gem7321

Of course we're interested in the candidates, if we didn't have any candidates we wouldn't be a very good agency, would we? We're interested in candidates that are right for the job and if you're not right for the job you originally applied for we'll find something which you are right for. You have to realise that if you didn't get the job, somebody else did, therefore another success for the agency. I get bored of people blaming their inability to get a job on agencies.

I'm an AAT student and I've been held back in my career, but not by agencies, by my first job which turned out to be a dead end. So I registered with an agency who found me a fantastic job but only because I had the experience and the qualifications and I was realistic about what I was looking for. You can't slander all agencies just because you've had a bad experience with one.

And by the way if anyone is looking for a new job in Devon please browse http://www.alternative-recruitment.com :001_smile:

axl2derv

My biggest jibe is with Hays and some of the others around Hull.

Gem7321

I too have had problems with Hays, particularly the way they threw any kind of accounts-related job at me without really considering it. At the end of the day they're a large corporate agency with a lot of candidates and it doesn't make any difference to them if they don't find a job for people like you and me.

I know it sounds ridiculous but the business plan for alternative-recruitment.com is to stay local and maintain our reputation, we don't want to turn into a corporate monster! And I imagine that nearly all small, local agencies have the same plan, they tend to be owner-managed so they will work hard at finding a job for you.

welshwizard

Gem7321 wrote: »

I volunteer in a recruitment agency and there's absolutely no point in putting people forward for jobs when they are under or over qualified,

How can anyone be 'pover qualified'? Surely if you ar equalified you are qaualified and any 'over qualification' is a good thing as the candidate is a better asset for the recruiter and, therefore, a better advertisement for the agency. At teh end of the day, it's up to the candidate whether they take up the position - let them decide if work is beneath them not an agency who, nine times out of ten couldn't care less about the person just sbout their commission.

I too have had awful experiences with agencies so alex is not alone.

Good luck alex I am sure you will find something.

Gem7321

If a candidate is over-qualified they will soon get bored of the position if they are not challenged enough, unless they have absolutely no ambition.

We avoid submitting over-qualified candidates now because the client always comes back to us and says something along the lines of; they're gonna get bored, want to take on more responsibilities which we haven't got, so then they'll be unhappy and leave.

mark130273

oh please oh please oh my god for goodness sake dont get me started on agencies......

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg?

quite simple ...arg !!

Baggybooks

These comments about agencies crop every few months on here. Some have bad experiences and some worse.

I found two senior positions through agencies - but I had the confidence and experience to know their game plans.

I refused to attend interviews for jobs I wasn't interested in. This caused problems for the agencies, but I was never going to accept a position I didn't want.

If I were looking for a job now, I would register with a specialist agency - but not stop applying for jobs myself.

Agencies are paid by employers, but we are their saleable products - they need both to survive. Unfortunately there are more candidates than employers - but that's life.

I was never under any illusions about the agency's purpose - earning their commission. However, you can make them work for you - providing you have a CV to back you up.

welshwizard

Gem7321 wrote: »

If a candidate is over-qualified they will soon get bored of the position if they are not challenged enough, unless they have absolutely no ambition.

We avoid submitting over-qualified candidates now because the client always comes back to us and says something along the lines of; they're gonna get bored, want to take on more responsibilities which we haven't got, so then they'll be unhappy and leave.

If a candidate is faced with the choice of a job they are 'over qualified' for or no job at all, I sure they would choose to be 'not challenged enough' rather than trying to exist on the pathetic unemployment benefits whilst also trying to feed their children, heat their homes and pay for water. How can an employer 'know' what a candidate is thinking, how can they predict what they will say in a month's time when they have settled into the job? Are employers really able to see into the future? Are employees and temp workers not people with their own minds who can fail to meet (obviously) low expectations? Come on, give people some credit - these days I don't think anyone would say 'I am not doing that job because I have already doen it vefore and it's not challenging me'. They woudl be more likely to say, 'Thank god I have a job regardless of the role'.

Here endeth the rant.

Gem7321

Yeah I'm sure they would take a job they were over-qualified for, whilst still looking for another one which is better suited to them and when they get it they can leave, making us look stupid. And the clients are obviously speaking from experience, in which case someone being over-qualified is a perfectly valid reason to not employ them. And it's always us the candidate comes back to us and says 'this isn't what I wanted to do'. If we can submit a candidate that is perfectly suited to the job why would we submit someone else who is over-qualified?

And I think you'll find that whoever runs the recruitment agency also has to look after their children and pay the bills. The guy who owns and runs the recruitment agency I work at has 2 children to look after and a mountain of bills to pay, but can't afford to take a salary and is working 14 hour days. Why would he jeopardise making money by submitting unsuitable candidates?

blobbyh

I guess it was inevitable I'd write on this as I've previously done on other agency-bashing threads. Just to introduce myself before I start axl, I'm the assistant accountant for a high-end recruitment agency.

axl2derv wrote: »

For years I have tried to build up a portfolio of experience but every job I have applied for has been through an agency.

If you're finding agencies are really that bad then I simply suggest you stop using them as a sole means of seeking employment.

axl2derv wrote: »

Because of employment agencies, I came out of the industry and stopped studying AAT for 3 years as I couldn’t get a job within accounting. I spent the 3 years as a telephone advisor. I could have been in the final stages of CIMA by now if it hadn’t of been for those agencies.

Try as I might I completely fail to see how such a personal development decision can be attributed to the business support role of agencies. All you've done is make yourself less attractive to agencies/potential employers and then abdicated responsibility for it.

If you hadn't noticed there's a deep recession on leading to recruitment freezes and permanent vacancies are very few and far between. However, agencies still have to survive as people will be needing for the boom times once this crisis is all over. At the moment we are essentially harvesting candidates for when they might be required. A few will find work through us, many won't. We make no promises of employment and ultimately it's the clients that set the hiring criteria not us. We cannot put forward unsuitable candidates just to make them happy as this would damage agency-client partnerships. As Gem said, it's the client who pays us but he doesn't pay us to waste his time and money by placing the wrong people. We aim to make the client happy and if can make the candidate happy too - and invariably we will if we find him his ideal job - that's great but that's not our primary concern.

As for over-qualification I'm frankly surprised you don't understand this concept. It's like this; a purchase ledger role might pay £20,000 for which the agency might charge a £5,000 placement fee. Suppose this was filled by an ACCA-grad who sees it as merely a stepping stone and demonstrates little loyalty to the client right from the outset. The client won't be happy if the candidate then walked after only four months wasting their time and money investment. Two things could happen there. We hand the money back meaning we waste our own investment spent on the candidate by sourcing and then placing them. Or we keep the fee but seek a replacement candidate free-of-charge at our own cost which can run into thousands of pounds.

There a few on here who may sympathise with you, but frankly, you've chosen to work in a highly professional and competitive occupation where your future development and career opportunities will ultimately rest with yourself, not with others.

Baggybooks

Rob, does your agency just place Accountants or fill general financial posts too?

axl2derv

blobbyh wrote: »

I guess it was inevitable I'd write on this as I've previously done on other agency-bashing threads. Just to introduce myself before I start axl, I'm the assistant accountant for a high-end recruitment agency.



If you're finding agencies are really that bad then I simply suggest you stop using them as a sole means of seeking employment.



Try as I might I completely fail to see how such a personal development decision can be attributed to the business support role of agencies. All you've done is make yourself less attractive to agencies/potential employers and then abdicated responsibility for it.

If you hadn't noticed there's a deep recession on leading to recruitment freezes and permanent vacancies are very few and far between. However, agencies still have to survive as people will be needing for the boom times once this crisis is all over. At the moment we are essentially harvesting candidates for when they might be required. A few will find work through us, many won't. We make no promises of employment and ultimately it's the clients that set the hiring criteria not us. We cannot put forward unsuitable candidates just to make them happy as this would damage agency-client partnerships. As Gem said, it's the client who pays us but he doesn't pay us to waste his time and money by placing the wrong people. We aim to make the client happy and if can make the candidate happy too - and invariably we will if we find him his ideal job - that's great but that's not our primary concern.

As for over-qualification I'm frankly surprised you don't understand this concept. It's like this; a purchase ledger role might pay £20,000 for which the agency might charge a £5,000 placement fee. Suppose this was filled by an ACCA-grad who sees it as merely a stepping stone and demonstrates little loyalty to the client right from the outset. The client won't be happy if the candidate then walked after only four months wasting their time and money investment. Two things could happen there. We hand the money back meaning we waste our own investment spent on the candidate by sourcing and then placing them. Or we keep the fee but seek a replacement candidate free-of-charge at our own cost which can run into thousands of pounds.

There a few on here who may sympathise with you, but frankly, you've chosen to work in a highly professional and competitive occupation where your future development and career opportunities will ultimately rest with yourself, not with others.

The bottom line is that you have no choice but to use agencies as they are linked to 99.9% of the advertised vacancies. I would rather not use an agency but have no choice. How does one attain the required experience for a role if all the jobs are through agencies that won't put you forward for experiences you don't have.

Take me for instance. I want to be a management accountant but I can’t get the experience because the jobs ask for previous experience. These are the job that agencies are in charge of and won’t put you forward for. Personally I would like a job that I am under qualified for because when getting thrown in at the deep end, I tend to out perform myself. This would also give me great experience. Before agencies existed, people could be one on one with the employer and talk their way through the door. That’s how it should be, the ways it’s been for hundreds of years.

Gem7321

axl2derv wrote: »

you have no choice but to use agencies as they are linked to 99.9% of the advertised vacancies. I would rather not use an agency but have no choice. How does one attain the required experience for a role if all the jobs are through agencies that won't put you forward for experiences you don't have.

Maybe you haven't been looking in the right places. And have you tried cold cving? Just sending your CV and a covering letter to several companies and seeing if they're interested is a great way to show initiative.

And you attain the required experience by taking the temp roles you were offered!

Lizzim

Gem7321 wrote: »

And you attain the required experience by taking the temp roles you were offered!

That's a bit harsh - some people are not in a position to take temporary posts, as there is no guarantee it will lead to a permanent position and also what if you can't find a job after it finishes?

I understand you disagree with the OP but still!

axl2derv

Gem7321 wrote: »

Maybe you haven't been looking in the right places. And have you tried cold cving? Just sending your CV and a covering letter to several companies and seeing if they're interested is a great way to show initiative.

And you attain the required experience by taking the temp roles you were offered!

Temp role...not a brilliant idea when you have a family to support and bills to pay. I've been in temp roles and one day you get a call saying your not needed anymore. Thats when you are actually stood outside the place after the end of the day.

Dorset Student

I've actually lost count of the number of agencies that I am registered with at the moment.

I have found that there are good agencies and bad agencies and by getting to know them you should be able to stick with the good ones and drop the bad ones.

What annoys me about agencies is when you see something on their web site and contact them about it. They then request that you go in and register, and then they say the job is no longer available ! That has happened with every agency I have registered with since September. I would be interested to know how many jobs that are advertised on an agencies site is actually real and still available. And do they all understand AAT, CIMA, ACCA etc ? Sometimes I have felt like I am talking a foreign language, so how can they know what I am looking for and what I would be suitable for ?

However, I have found two good agencies out of all the ones I am registered with at the moment. One of them is also quite happy to put me forward for a few jobs that I am not really experienced enough to do, but would definitely be capable of doing with some training.

Tracy

Stan Bown

Agencies

This is a really interesting thread that covers a subject close to my heart, as I'm currently temping in an accounts payable role to change career at the age of 45 (see previous thread, 'Become an accountant at 44, don't make me laugh!'). I have all the responsibilities that go with having a family and house and what causes me the most stress is not the prospect moving from temp to temp job (and possibly being out of work for a short period of time between roles), which I enjoy as I see it as a way of getting experience in different sectors and different roles, but the fact that the pay is so low at this end of your career.

I like Robert's straightforward reply from an agency perspective and can empathise with some of the other views and frustrations with agencies.

At the end of the day it is hard work to to become an accountant or related role and you have to be determined. There is clearly a lot of competition and because you are dealing with the money end of business (without which very little would happen, even in a not-for-profit or charity), you're required to prove you are competent at each level of your trade. Study can give you the technical knowledge but, in my view, what seperates study from work are the sheer volume of work and the importance of maintaining good relationships in the face of what can seem like insurmountable odds.

I have finished my AAT and am now studying ACCA and ATT in tandem. It took me eight months of doing sort-of finance roles (not ledger-related) for a couple of specialist agencies before I got this accounts payable role. And this brings me to the point I wanted to make about agencies. What seems like a straightforward relationship - they advertise, I apply, I get or don't get the job - actually requires a reasonable level of sophistication in how you maintain your relationships in order to get the best from the situation from a candidates perspective.

The most important lesson I have learned, and this is alluded to in many of the above threads, is to find an agency that actually wants to work with you and develop you, albeit on the terms that Roberts describes. The agency should also be one that industry trusts - whenever I go to a temp job I always ask which agency they like to use and why. In this way you can avoid agencies that will, for instance, use you as a calling card: which is to say, they sent you to interview for jobs for which you are not qualified just to show that they can. A waste of everyone's time.

The second lesson I have learned is that when starting out take anything finance related and do it to the best of your ability. If you really don't like the look of a job, but need to do it, be honest about how long you see yourself doing it. Prove yourself to your chosen agency and they will repay when it comes to talking you up next time there's a suitable vacancy. Don't underestimate how long it takes to build a good relationship with an agency. Same as any relationship, really.

Lastly, if you can make money for your agency, by doing a good job, at whatever level, for their clients, they will continue to try and find you work.

Working through agencies can be a slow process to get the experience and progression you want - compared to, say, a training contract at a big practice - but experience is experience and by being open and realistic with your agency, or agencies, you can take the necessary control to guide the roles you are offered and accept. I think someone has already talked about turning down interview offers that clearly aren't for you.

I recognise in all of this that sometimes you've just got to work and that the job market can be very different in different parts of the country.

Agencies are one route to market, as they say, so the common sense thing is to try a combination of direct approach, agency, job ad and networking (attending AAT branch events, for instance). However, when you're trying to study, work, spend time with your family, and all the rest, agencies take some of the grind out of looking for jobs, and a good one can be worth its weight in gold.

NB. Because I got so frustrated with not being able to apply all my learned knowledge in the roles I was offered through agencies, I have just started trading as a bookkeeping and VAT service for sole traders and small businesses.

axl2derv

That was an interesting piece, Stan.

Unfortunately, I am not a risk taker. Living off temp jobs for me is like investing your life savings into stock and shares. You either make your fortune or lose everything. I personally like stability. Temp jobs may be fine for some people but having a CV that is 10 pages long, isn’t that appealing to employers. Doing two weeks here, a month there may get you experience but it shows an employer that you haven’t committed to a company for long.

I have done temp roles before and on the last one after two weeks of working there, I received a phone call from the agency saying that I was no longer needed and was not to go back on Monday morning. I had only just stepped outside of the place and was waiting at the bus stop. That agency was Hays by the way, if anybody was wondering.

Temping is just not viable for somebody who has a house, family, bills and loans. There is no security. In full time employment, if your boss wants to get rid of you, you get a month to find another job.

Temping best suits a graduate who has no commitments. In this respect I would have managed temping seven years ago when I had no commitments.

I believe that if an agency puts a person into a role that they are not quite experienced in, then that person will work harder to keep their place in the company. As they are not over qualified for the position then it will take that person a few years to achieve their goals. The solves the problem of the agency having to worry about the person leaving inside of 6 months to a year.

Stan Bown

There's no one way to do things. You have to do what's right for you. I can't say that going the temp route hasn't given me a few shredded nerves at times.

I agree, given a chance, many people would repay early faith from an employer by working hard and doing the job well. There is a risk, though, that the employee won't develop well, and employers and agencies work to minimise that risk, and to get full value for the £ from day one, by getting someone as closely matched as possible.

It sounds like you've solved your problem and are in a challenging and rewarding role.

axl2derv

Stan Bown wrote: »

There's no one way to do things. You have to do what's right for you. I can't say that going the temp route hasn't given me a few shredded nerves at times.

I agree, given a chance, many people would repay early faith from an employer by working hard and doing the job well. There is a risk, though, that the employee won't develop well, and employers and agencies work to minimise that risk, and to get full value for the £ from day one, by getting someone as closely matched as possible.

It sounds like you've solved your problem and are in a challenging and rewarding role.

Unfortunately this is not this case. I've excelled the role so much that I have left myself with no work to do. It was a mess before I joined and now it is fully up to date. I do management accounts for my boss just to pass the time. I am looking for an assistant management accountant role with study support but I am not having much faith with the agencies placing me.

blobbyh

Baggybooks wrote: »

Rob, does your agency just place Accountants or fill general financial posts too?

Hi Helen, actually we don't place people within the accountancy field at all, that's not one of our target sectors. We leave that to high street agencies such as Reed and Hays where we could never hope to compete due to their saturation. Though we have a financial arm, this is mainly for people who work for banks in finance related fields such as risk or audit and our primary market is semiconductors/electronics. Most of our positions are executive and above in the £60k - £1m per year salary ranges. Lucky sods!

I only got the job here because when I was made redundant last year, I uploaded my CV to the Reed Accountancy website where my company found me for an internal position. We buy access to all the online CV sites such as Monster, Jobsite, Reed, eFinancial etc which is where we find most of our potential candidates.