Comments on: Jeff on Call: Two Fees, One Candidate? http://www.fordyceletter.com/2009/03/05/jeff-on-call-two-fees-one-candidate/ Straight Talk for the Recruiting Profession Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:59:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Keoughan, Tom http://www.fordyceletter.com/2009/03/05/jeff-on-call-two-fees-one-candidate/comment-page-1/#comment-3985 Keoughan, Tom Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:45:24 +0000 http://www.fordyceletter.com/?p=1839#comment-3985 Gee Barry, It sounds like you might want to try actually vetting the recruitment firms that you work with. Check them out, check references, do your homework! That way you could add value and pick the best one or two firms to work your searches rather than using a bunch of weak sister firms chosen simply because they are willing to sign the typically onerous PSA. Here’s a novel and productive way to use PSA’s: Any firm strong enough to be willing to walk away from the ridiculous terms set forth in most PSA’s – those are the recruiting firms you should want to work with. Those firms actually fill enough jobs so that they don’t have to put themselves at risk by working under rules that only consider the needs of the client and leave the vendor wide open to getting ripped off. If a firm “empties their filing cabinets” on you, then it is likely that you haven’t done your homework. In any case, immediately send them a registered letter stating that you will no longer accept their referrals. By the way “Barry”, you would gain a lot more credibility on this site by being proud of who you are rather than hiding behind a nom de plume. Tom Keoughan www.toyjobs.com Gee Barry,

It sounds like you might want to try actually vetting the recruitment firms that you work with. Check them out, check references, do your homework! That way you could add value and pick the best one or two firms to work your searches rather than using a bunch of weak sister firms chosen simply because they are willing to sign the typically onerous PSA.

Here’s a novel and productive way to use PSA’s: Any firm strong enough to be willing to walk away from the ridiculous terms set forth in most PSA’s – those are the recruiting firms you should want to work with. Those firms actually fill enough jobs so that they don’t have to put themselves at risk by working under rules that only consider the needs of the client and leave the vendor wide open to getting ripped off.

If a firm “empties their filing cabinets” on you, then it is likely that you haven’t done your homework. In any case, immediately send them a registered letter stating that you will no longer accept their referrals.

By the way “Barry”, you would gain a lot more credibility on this site by being proud of who you are rather than hiding behind a nom de plume.

Tom Keoughan
http://www.toyjobs.com

]]> By: Barry http://www.fordyceletter.com/2009/03/05/jeff-on-call-two-fees-one-candidate/comment-page-1/#comment-3983 Barry Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:44:08 +0000 http://www.fordyceletter.com/?p=1839#comment-3983 Jeff, In my opinion, the real issue here is search firms attempting to create a fee obligation on a candidate they were never asked to find, yet decided to submit anyway. Our true "partners" in the search profession work the positions they are asked to, and are paid proper fees for doing so, but what they don't do is get an agreement in place and then spam us with candidates we don't want, or need, while failing to produce the candidates we asked them for in the first place. Even worse, they typically alter the candidate's expectations to position us as the "bad guy" if we don't proceed with an interview. For better or worse, that is the typical pattern(M.O.) of the (primarily contingent)search industry, and as such we have changed our agreement to reflect a certain position, supported by an actual requisition number. So, if the goal is to obtain a fee while alienating a client, then I would recommend filing suit. I also understand that certain small firms may try to pull this stunt to save a fee, but in the publicly traded world we don't respond positively to firms attempting to turn an hunting license into a license to kill, and are happy to deploy extensive legal resources to make that point. Cheers, Barry Jeff,
In my opinion, the real issue here is search firms attempting to create a fee obligation on a candidate they were never asked to find, yet decided to submit anyway. Our true “partners” in the search profession work the positions they are asked to, and are paid proper fees for doing so, but what they don’t do is get an agreement in place and then spam us with candidates we don’t want, or need, while failing to produce the candidates we asked them for in the first place. Even worse, they typically alter the candidate’s expectations to position us as the “bad guy” if we don’t proceed with an interview. For better or worse, that is the typical pattern(M.O.) of the (primarily contingent)search industry, and as such we have changed our agreement to reflect a certain position, supported by an actual requisition number.
So, if the goal is to obtain a fee while alienating a client, then I would recommend filing suit. I also understand that certain small firms may try to pull this stunt to save a fee, but in the publicly traded world we don’t respond positively to firms attempting to turn an hunting license into a license to kill, and are happy to deploy extensive legal resources to make that point.

Cheers,

Barry

]]>