|
On 2025-07-28 14:43, Tim Dobson wrote:
the truth about 99% of these cases is that as unfair, irritating and anger inducing as they are, it's usually a better investment to channel the fire in your belly towards constructive means - in this case, finding people who aren't knobs - than trying to find ways to gut-punch people legally.
I certainly have wished it was not this way on many occasions myself, but I'd suggest, sadly, 3 hours reading a manual on perl, will have more use to you in the short and long term, than continuing here.
I know that's hard to hear - I've often not wanted to hear it myself. You have all my empathy.
Use the irritation to find a way to find more people you need, do that professional development, hug your family, help that NGO, whatever feels most appealing.
And if you can, use it in a way that allows you to beat the people who wronged you by making yourself even better at what you do.
Best of luck
-Tim
Yeah, I agree with this, you can spend hours chasing up these agencies and get nowhere, time is scares as it is, there are lots of opportunities to brush up on your skillsl then reviiew your CV so it stands out more or highlights specific experience.
I am not a recruitment or HR expert though, good luck don't let alll this get you down.
Paul
Picture this:
1. A recruiter had a strong working relationship with the employer's
CTO, spanning around 10 years;
2. The CTO recently retired, and another manager—who may now hold more
influence—has possibly stepped into a more prominent role;
3. The recruiter had prior negative interactions with this manager,
which were reported to both HR and the former CTO. These issues
included:
a) Unfounded reasons for rejecting 3 qualified applicants;
b) Frequent changes in hiring location preferences;
c) Inappropriate comments to the recruiter about a candidate;
d) Allegedly describing the job to a candidate during an interview in
an unjustifiably negative or misleading manner;
4. Despite typically submitting only a small number of resumes per
role, the recruiter consistently maintained a high success rate in
placements;
5. In a recent engagement, the recruiter reconnected with a manager
they had previously worked with—one with whom there were no prior
issues;
6. Despite submitting two qualified candidates, HR abruptly terminated
the contract and declined to progress either candidate to interview.
No feedback was provided—an uncharacteristic departure from the
employer's prior approach, which consistently included constructive
input and engagement throughout the candidate introduction process;
7. The employer states that they have no obligation or reason to
provide feedback, engage in further communication, or follow up on the
two candidates' CVs, as stated in their detailed several page rebuttal
to a one-page letter sent by the recruitment firm.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 at 12:37, Martin Gautier
<martin.gautier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 28/07/2025 11:43, James Tobin wrote:
> > Hi, if you were represented by a recruiter (headhunter, recruitment
> > consultant, agent, or whatever they prefer to call themselves) for a
> > potential job with an employer, would you *want* them to do everything
> > possible to get feedback on your resume, skills, experience, overall
> > application, and suitability directly from the employer after you'd
> > been presented?
> Yes I would.
>
> However I do recognise that the recruiter works for the employer, not
> the candidate and in my experience, as a rule, DGAF about candidates.
>
> Having used recruiters as both an employer and employee over the years,
> and knowing a couple IRL, all I can say is that they're an utterly
> pointless cog in the wheel.
> --
> The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
> FAQ: https://www.dcglug.org.uk/faq/
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
FAQ: https://www.dcglug.org.uk/faq/
|
