Rude IT recruiter?

joey74055

Hyper-Me wrote: »

I got an email today from an IT recruiter sayign she say my resume on Monster and wanted to know if i was interested in a Systems Administrator role for a company that the government contracts to oversee their IT stuff.

Typical job description, well within my capabilites. I just took a new job and I make good money and im pretty happy there so im not necessarily looking to leave, so i replied and said "what does the position pay"

She replied and gave this huge spiel about how its a wonderful opportunity and yadda yadda but there is rotating shifts every 3 months so I'd have to work 3 months 2nd shift, 3 months 3rd shift, etc. I replied and said to leave my current job for a job with that schedule I would need 60,000$ a year.

This was her response, which left me going "WTF?"

HAHAHA! That is why I HATE RECRUITERS! I wonder if she is practicing what she preaches, I DON'T THINK SO! She is after the money too, they get paid to fill these jobs. That is why she got upset because the job doesn't pay what you want and she knows she can't get you to fill the void. I can't speak for all recruiters but in my experience they lie, cheet and steal!

RouteThisWay

Hyper-Me wrote: »

Thats probably why i'll never get on at the DoD stuff. They almost all go through recruiting agencies and the agencies pay terrible for the first 6 months. Pay is fine after that (generally), but im not gonna eat ramen every day for 6 months just because "thats how it is"

Yeah, I know. Luckily, I found my position directly for a govt contractor and not through a head hunter.

Here's a confusing story for you....

a buddy of mine was hired on through a head hunter, to work for a company that is a govt contractor, to support one of the fed ops. After it was all said and done, he was making an hourly wage of about $11.00. He found out that people who were working directly for the govt contractor, in his same position, were making mid 30's a year.

lol needless to say, he found a new job that wasn't on a phone support line reading from a manual ha.

moonlight08

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

I'm not sure how that's TekSystem's fault. They found you a job. If you had found that job on your own, you would've had to deal with that same treatment. They're a recruiting firm, not a union.

For me it's important to be honest when conducting an interview on both sides of the table. I'm honest about my skills and what I can provide and it's important to me for the employer/recruiter/client, whatever, to be equally honest about what they're looking for, work schedule, travel, etc.

If I've hired on under a certain set of expectations, such as my work schedule and have arranged care for my children during that time, then the employer changes it up on me, I'm only going to "suck it up" for so long.

Like I stated earlier, I credit Tek with finding me work but I was dissatisfied at the support I received later on. I realize not all recruiters are like this and I'm at least a little wiser through experience.

RouteThisWay

moonlight08 wrote: »

Like I stated earlier, I credit Tek with finding me work but I was dissatisfied at the support I received later on. I realize not all recruiters are like this and I'm at least a little wiser through experience.

I agree 100% that it is crappy what the company did to you.

However, how is it Tek's fault for not providing you "support" when the company changed the job description?

What did you want them to do? Call up the company and tell them how to run their own company? :

That company can decide 20 mins after bringing you on that the job isn't needed, that the job is going to change, they decided they want to use you in a different role, etc. Don't like it... find a new job. They are paying you for your services. If you refuse to provide them, you can quit. Simple as that.

I am failing to grasp why and what Tek should do in this situation. They were given a job description, they found you and placed you. The company decides down the road to change the position? That isn't Tek's fault. That happens EVERY DAY to people all over the country, regardless how they were placed. Hell, my job description is pretty much a living organism. It changes so much to accommodate new roles I am asked to perform.

astorrs

RouteThisWay wrote: »

However, how is it Tek's fault for not providing you "support" when the company changed the job description?

It would only be their fault/responsibility if they were contracting through them (i.e. who's paying you for your time, Tek or their client?).

Turgon

Naming and shaming recruitment agencies is a bit pointless. Some people have good experiences with company x, others have bad. If you can get by without Recruitment agencies then please do so, but you will find that many organisations use them and to get economies of scale only use a few, particularly the large hiring companies where you may end up working. So it's probably not a wise thing to go out of your way to disrespect a major recruiter in the public domain.

Are they all bad? At times yes! But not all agents are useless. Some can offer you a decent opportunity. Will you spend a lot of time chasing dead ends? Probably, but then so do recruiters trying to drum up business from former clients. If they succeed the job gets advertised. You might get that job thanks to them. I got one through an agency and stayed there nearly 5 years! Happy Days.

Are agencies a pain in the ass to deal with? Yes. So is digging the road for a living.
Do agencies care about you or your career? Not really. Do you care about theirs?

My advice is to be nice to agents on the phone. They have long memories and keep in touch with one another. The blacklist exists.

You can and should carpet bomb the local area to try and get some direct work to try and cut the middleman out, but in my experience this is a lot of work and it has nothing to do with what you have to offer.

Most shops now have a parent company with a global IT policy. Even if the local manager would really *like* to hire a skilled local guy for design and support work who is accessible he has no budget for it because the whole IT provision is company policy, centralised, offshored or otherwise outsourced, and bringing you in is more than their jobs worth.

I got one job like this last year. I installed a router on a site, provided by the company that hired me (they had noone qualified to install). I worked the configuration with the help of yet another company in France over the phone, and another company supported the whole network, and another company had its name on the router! Subcontract, subcontract, subcontract, subcontract.

moonlight08

RouteThisWay wrote: »

I agree 100% that it is crappy what the company did to you.

However, how is it Tek's fault for not providing you "support" when the company changed the job description?

What did you want them to do? Call up the company and tell them how to run their own company? :

Thanks, I'm quite well acquainted with the laws in many states that an employer can fire you if they don't like the color of your shirt.

Back to the original point however, when events such as what I described earlier happened multiple times, wouldn't you begin to suspect that possibly the recruiter was holding out on information during that time?

loxleynew

Recruiting agencies are stupid. They can serve a purpose if you are desperate. That is about the only time. Even when I try go through them to get some interviews at places I always act like the one in charge. Honestly they need us not the other way around (ok we do but they need us more) The person with the skills should have more leverage and you should act like it. Don't be all pompous and arrogant but go in knowing what you want. Usually they will try and get you for the least amount of money too so they get a better margin.

For instance this one job I was going for back in the day was offering the recruiting agency like $15 an hour for my job so they tried to get me for $10. I said nope need more like $13 then they said ok after arguing a bit. I declined the job anyways lol. I hate recruiting agencies. They are worse than car salesmen. I also NEVER callback recruiters who contact me without me finding the job and applying. Ive noticed the jobs they talk to you about are always 100% bs or not your skillset.

moonlight08

Turgon wrote: »

Naming and shaming recruitment agencies is a bit pointless. Some people have good experiences with company x, others have bad. If you can get by without Recruitment agencies then please do so, but you will find that many organisations use them and to get economies of scale only use a few, particularly the large hiring companies where you may end up working. So it's probably not a wise thing to go out of your way to disrespect a major recruiter in the public domain.

Are they all bad? At times yes! But not all agents are useless. Some can offer you a decent opportunity. Will you spend a lot of time chasing dead ends? Probably, but then so do recruiters trying to drum up business from former clients. If they succeed the job gets advertised. You might get that job thanks to them. I got one through an agency and stayed there nearly 5 years! Happy Days.

Are agencies a pain in the ass to deal with? Yes. So is digging the road for a living.
Do agencies care about you or your career? Not really. Do you care about theirs?

My advice is to be nice to agents on the phone. They have long memories and keep in touch with one another. The blacklist exists.

You can and should carpet bomb the local area to try and get some direct work to try and cut the middleman out, but in my experience this is a lot of work and it has nothing to do with what you have to offer.

Most shops now have a parent company with a global IT policy. Even if the local manager would really *like* to hire a skilled local guy for design and support work who is accessible he has no budget for it because the whole IT provision is company policy, centralised, offshored or otherwise outsourced, and bringing you in is more than their jobs worth.

I got one job like this last year. I installed a router on a site, provided by the company that hired me (they had noone qualified to install). I worked the configuration with the help of yet another company in France over the phone, and another company supported the whole network, and another company had its name on the router! Subcontract, subcontract, subcontract, subcontract.

Sort of contradicting yourself here, don't you think? Blacklisting a recruiter is pointless yet they do it? I only suggested to Hyper to publish this information to save other professionals from having to deal with the same rubbish he just did.

loxleynew

moonlight08 wrote: »

Sort of contradicting yourself here, don't you think? Blacklisting a recruiter is pointless yet they do it? I only suggested to Hyper to publish this information to save other professionals from having to deal with the same rubbish he just did.

It was probably tek systems. My dad worked for them and they were horrible.

Hyper-Me

Oh, heres another weird thing.

This recruiter is located in california and is finding people to fill jobs in the southeast. ....weird.

eMeS

Hyper-Me wrote: »

Oh, heres another weird thing.

This recruiter is located in california and is finding people to fill jobs in the southeast. ....weird.

Sometimes they're in India trying to fill jobs in the US.

MS

networker050184

eMeS wrote: »

Sometimes they're in India trying to fill jobs in the US.

MS

Thats the worst. I hang up immediately when I hear "Bob or Steve's" thick accent. I have nothing against people form India, and have befriended a few while over seas, but if your job is to communicate with people you should at least be proficient in the language. Sorry, off topic I know, but that irks the hell out of me.

ColbyG

networker050184 wrote: »

Thats the worst. I hang up immediately when I hear "Bob or Steve's" thick accent.

I do the same. Also not because I dislike people from India, but I don't want to work for a company who uses people from India as their first representative. I also don't want to perpetuate the problem that is offshoring.

As for this thread, I ALWAYS ask about money up front. Most of the time I don't have to, they'll ask me first, but when they don't, I do. No point in hearing about a job doesn't pay well enough for me to consider it.

Recruiters are generally sleazy bottom feeders, so none of this surprises me.

Turgon

moonlight08 wrote: »

Sort of contradicting yourself here, don't you think? Blacklisting a recruiter is pointless yet they do it? I only suggested to Hyper to publish this information to save other professionals from having to deal with the same rubbish he just did.

Yes they have one and you would do well to stay off it as agencies often keep in touch with one another. This can be more of an issue if most of your leads come through the job boards as they do in the UK. There are certainly some dumb recruitment agents but you should be cautious of writing an agency off completely as you may in the future miss out on a good opportunity through the same agency 6 months hence.

msteinhilber

Regarding the original post, yea they were rude. If anything they should be happy you were up front about what was important to you - money. You just landed a better position and are comfortable where you are, money being a top priority to consider another position is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. You could have gone on with them before finally reaching a point where salary is discussed and ultimately ended up wasting a lot of your and their time. Clearly you value your time and were straight to the point, no harm done.

The Zelda clip brought a good chuckle though