Groups
Recruiting Leadership Forum Discussions « back to group
-
Interesting question generating a wide swath of responses over on RBC. Do you think its unethical to charge unemployed people for help? What do you think? ****** Need cost-efficient telephone names sourcing (or market intelligence?) to fill your hard-to-fill positions? Call the experts at TechTrak 513 899 9628
34 replies
Log in or register to post a reply.
-
Scott,
Great story! I really appreciate you sharing. I find that more and more candidates are connecting with me later in their career, sometimes several years after I spoke with them. I think that doing someone a quick "solid" is part of my job. Acting as a social worker and allowing a candidate (or friend, for that matter) to wallow in misery doesn't do me or them any good.
I don't mind that people are charging the unemployed. If I lost my job, there might be things I'd consider paying for.
-
I'm not trying to be snarky, but isn't this question a little ridiculous?
Does being unemployed exempt one for paying for other goods and services?
Try showing up at checkout with a cart full of groceries. Is the cashier going to say "no charge, sir" because the person pushing the cart is unemployed?
How about services. What doctor, dentist, vet, hairdresser, dog groomer, accountant, etc. is giving Ms. Unemployed a free pass?
That doesn't mean I am in any way advocating fraud or taking advantage of anyone. And hats off to those offering to work pro bono.
But pro bono is typically a small piece of a larger for-profit business. Many if not most requests for pro bono work will be denied. I can't help but wonder what the responses to the "is it fair to charge the unemployed" question would be if posted on a legal or financial services forum.
-
The last time we saw a market liek this (at least for my firm) was in 2001 - 2002. Long story short - in the recent past I found myself holding down a position that was not a good fit for me, so I resinged. While I was driving home from work that day, trying to figure out how I am going to explain this sudden decision to my wife (the job and company were both great - just not for me) as she was sure to freak out. Then, I got a call on my mobile, stating that he was a CEO starting a new business, just recieved VC money as was looking for someone to start the company with. He called me, he says, because of how I treated him during that period when he found himself suddendly unemployed (Enron) and I was the "only" recruiter that took the time to talk to him and keep him sane. While I did not find him a job, he still remembered me enough to offer me a great reward in the end. My wife never freaked out (that is the happy ending) all because of how I treated a candiated during times like these.
Everything you do to help someone will come back to you somehow, someway, someday. No - I am no social worker (ask anybody who knows me) - but I have put many deposits into emotional bank accounts all over the country (while asking nothing in return)and when things pick back up - I will have my day in the sun. On that day, I will write another post and share all the good news that is raining down on me.
-
I'll admit that I've only tuned-in to this discussion sporadically, but it's astonishing that it has continued this long, and is so politically-charged. There's an obvious parallel: health care. We know that the more money you have, the more health care you can afford. If you don't have any money, you take advantage of whatever public health care services you can find. Sometimes the quality may be on par with the best docs, but most of the time, we assume it's not. We all know that in this country, the rich live longer [unless they die of the obvious maladies caused by over-indulgence, of course.] Have you asked a wealthy cardiac surgeon recently whether s/he should be charging for heart surgery???
This is the same model, guys: it has always been the case that people with money, especially those who are in a 'job search', armed with enough severance money to last a couple years, will happily pay for all sorts of job search support - some of it because they need the expertise and some of it because they don't want to do their own gruntwork - the boat and the golf course await!
At the same time, those without the healthy severance package ask friends, go to free networking meetings and avail themselves of non-profit career support and education. We have no way of knowing which of those two groups end up living their bliss, landing a job sooner, or making more money, but we could all make some educated guesses.
[We can also assume that there some in between, who will happily pay a few hundred for a resume critique and some interview skill brush-ups.]
It's a free market system. Many believe that there should be better, more reliable and higher quality health care services for people without a gold card. Same may be said of the job search system. In any case, charging for a legitimate service that enhances the ability of a candidate to land the job of their choice is hardly a violation of human rights...unless the service is in some way fraudulent.
My personal opinion: recruiters with heart - and probably a slice of altruistic motivation - may actually provide better services to both the client and the candidate. If that tendency is carried to an extreme - where there is at best a limited understanding of the realities of operating within a free market system to achieve profitable business outcomes - it's a bit scary!
Thanks for listening.
-
The conversation here between Jeff, Stephan, and Sara has proved interesting - well, maybe "entertaining" would be a better word :) It seems as if charging job seekers has morphed into the 'deadly discussion quadrant', which includes ethics, legality, and regulation.
This might not be a directly relevant stream of consciousness, but I'll roll with it just to add some thoughts to the mix --
As of late, the volume of resumes coming into my inbox has increased . . . which has led me more toward Jeff's perspective that we're not social workers. In addition, we all know that 'coaching' is the easier part of our job - in fact, we could do it all day . . . but we'd be dead broke before long :)
However, this uptick in volume has also been tricky because there are a number of great candidates who simply are terrible at writing great resumes. This is an area where my 'coaching' can have a direct impact on my performance as well as my Client's.
Sometimes the most beautiful pearl can be found in the ugliest oyster, right? :)
P.S. Oh, and by the way, I've come to have an affinity for great candidates that have poor resumes. Why? Because the lionshare of recruiters will look right past them in their hunt for keywords galore.
-
Yes, Stephan, it is Jeff who has been posting about this.
Metrics are faulty in so far as the greatest variable is the skill and behavior of the candidate.
When I work with someone, I start off by telling them that I cannot guarantee outcomes any more than a WeightWatchers coach can. After all, we know the diet works; there is ample evidence of that.
Frankly, the methodology I coach works and there is ample evidence of that.
If the WW member does not follow the program and continues to eat, the program is not at fault.
And so it often is when i work with candidates as a coach or as a headhunter. If they don't follow instructions and fail, my approach was not at fault; they were.
If they apply for jobs, I don't think they qualify for and coach them into a performance they still failed at, why should my metrics suffer when their decision to apply for something they weren't qualified for is at issue.
There's more but I'm sure you get the point.
Finally (and this is definitely an opinion), metrics are often an attempt to make objective something that may not be measurable in useful ways.
Respectfully,
-
Jeff (you are Jeff, right? I get confused...),
Your analogies to WeightWatchers (or a gym trainer, I think) are great ones. However, in times of belt-tightening, you may want to be able to show prospects measurable success they can achieve. In this day and age, even we recruiters ask for metrics to show us the money. I would not expect any less of candidates. I know it is often difficult to quantify quality measures, but if you can show achievable measures towards reaching conversion goals (alternate sourcing for positions, contact management, interviewing skills, follow ups, etc.) leading to getting the job, then I think you may more easily overcome the objections which are the topic of this thread.
Best regards,
-
Hi Stephen,
Thank You for sharing your thoughts...
Your focus is exactly what I was talking in my discussion. Sorry I cannot see your passion...
Regards,
-
Sara, I was the person who posted the definition of uncouth. You spoke of rarely getting responses from recruiters and, frankly, I am one of the recruiters who would fall into that category.
I do respond to every email with either a few question or with some job board recommendations.
I can't call every one or speak with everyone who wants to speak with me because I am reached out to too frequently. Frankly, if I called everyone who emailed me who doesn't fit what I am recruiting for, or respond to every caller who asks, "Hi! What's going on," I would never have time to do what I am actually paid for . . . filling a client's jobs.
And that circles me back to the question of getting paid for my knowledge.
Although I am an MSW, I am not working as a social worker. I am a head hunter, paid by organizations to hunt down leaders and staff for them.
If I deviate from that and do social work for all the people who want my advice and help, I will not be there to help my clients, both institutional or individual.
Each of us makes a choice about what serves best. I don't denigrate any one else's choices; being nasty about the choice someone makes to charge for access to their time and intellectual capital is inappropriate, too.
After all, no one is criticising the lawyer or accountant who bills their friends for their time. Why are recruiters singled out? How are we "less than" others?
Respectfully,
-
Hi Stephen,
I still stand by the definition. When I did have a job I still made the time to help people. Through this process I excelled in my pipelines and networks as well as saving the company I worked for lots of money.
Being now in this realm of not being employed, I am surprised that when having reached out to a company, for a Recruiter position, there is never a follow-up regarding status nor responses from the Recruiter when trying to contact them. This is not so in all cases, however a Recruiters job is working with people, having a passion for what you do. Suggesting other Companies that they may apply to, or you as the Recruiter sending their resumes to other Companies knowing the Recruiter.
I believe if a person is skilled at networking, then it is a no-brainer to help them out. However, charging the un-employed who is collecting un-employment and have other priorities like paying mortgage, gas and other expenses is what I think, sad...This is a bad time for millions of people and yes, I agree for Employers to pay for job posts but, charging un-employed people to look for these jobs is sad. This is my thoughts...
I remember when I was Recruiting, I worked closely with the DES, Workforce Commissions, Outplacement firms and did some training for them. People do not forget how people have helped them and I have experienced many returns by referrals and leads, that cost me, as a Recruiter 0 dollars.
-
Sara, this is the definition of uncouth I found:
1 aarchaic : not known or not familiar to one : seldom experienced : uncommon, rare obsolete : mysterious, uncanny2 a: strange or clumsy in shape or appearance : outlandish b: lacking in polish and grace : rugged c: awkward and uncultivated in appearance,
I'm not sure how coaching people through a job search fits this definition.
Can you help me?
Respectfully,
-
I am a Recruiter with over 25 years of experience. I am unemployed but, I believe charging the unemployed is uncouthed.
Even though I am unemployed, I still help people looking for work or help on their resumes. Making the time goes a long way and people do not forget.
-
Stephan, I appreciate you modifying your statement.
My particular sensitivity stems from the frequent hostility I experience from job hunters who seem to view me as a visible person in the recruiting business (3 e-books, soon a 4th, an audio series on job hunting, free ezines, a website that gives people the ability to post their resume to job boards and several other things) as being someone they should yell at from their own experience of frustration.
What I have also seen is that without someone who can target the millions of small pieces of information, much of it goes over their heads. Without someone to "push" them, they adopt a lazy attitude.
It's like working out.
Who needs a trainer anyway? You can be shown how to use the machines and craft your own program, lose some weight and get fit. On the other hand, a good trainer can pull it all together for someone, push them, and help them get there without the client having to worry about whether what they are doing will actually do it or cause them injury.
There's a bunch of other analogies like "Who needs to go to WeightWatchers? Just eat less," but you get the idea.
Respectfully,
-
Jim and Jeff,
I see your point and will withdraw that word.
There is obviously nothing wrong with coaching. All I am trying to say is that, in times of desperation, more of us will be inclined to give our dollars away without investigating the worth of the exchange -- and I think it is crucial that candidates investigate that aspect.
There are people (especially on the Web) who prey on the unemployed. I personally don't think any amount of money a candidate throws our way will influence an employer's decision to hire them. It's not the way our business model is built. That being said, services such as coaching or resume-writing to polish one's presentation may well enhance their chances of getting an interview or a job. However, unless the service is provided one-on-one, that information is already available free of charge on the Web.
-
I have to, respectfully, agree with Jeff. We live in a tough enough world without using words like "sucker" for people who I guess just are not as "cool" as others. Labels are dangerous things.
Perhaps a bit more compassion, appreciation for and respect of others is in order. I know I am blessed to have a network, both personal and professional, who lift me up when I find it to be a challenging day.
Seems like we throw around words like "sucker" with little appreciation for the lasting impact it may have, and usually does, on our fellow man...and perhaps ourselves?
-
Stephan, the use of the term "suckers" suggests that you hold the opinion that job search coaching has no value.
Why is that?
Respectfully,
-
" Nothing wrong with doing a limited amount of pro-bono work for those who are in dire circumstance, either. It really depends on circumstance, and frankly, your own revenue stream."
I agree. In addition to being a recruiter, I am also a career counselor by trade and I do as much pro bono work as I can afford. I think it is "good karma" for a lack of a better description. None of us ever know when we might need some help (especially in this economy). Still, I do recognize that not everyone can afford to do pro bono work so a sliding scale feel helps. When I was in graduate school, I worked with a very respected private career counselor who gave me a dramatically reduced rate so I could afford her services. That was 10 years ago and I still keep in touch with her. Needless to say, I am quite thankful.
Heather
-
From the perspective of a business model, companies who charge candidates will have initial success in recessionary times for those who may have a bit of disposable cash. However, the churn (cancellation) rate must be extremely high -- especially without any ROI -- and they would need to find new suckers constantly to replace those who cancel.
-
Unethical? No, as long as the person understands that if you produce nothing for them, they still must pay, and that that is a viable possibility.
Good business? I don't think so.
The reality is: the market will dictate your value, not you.
In addition, whether charging the unemployed is a good idea will be found out with your attempt to do it. Money being paid after services rendered, and only upon success, is often times the nature of our business. Those who want money upfront tend to be those who want to be paid for trying, rather than producing.
If a recruiter does not deliver, or produce for someone, why would they want to take money from someone who they provided no product to?
The product is a job - is it right to take money from someone who you do not provide a job to? Would you pay a mechanic for trying to replace your blown out tire, but fails to, and returns your car back to you in the exact same condition, but with time spent trying? No, that is absurd. A sports agent, for instance, does not get paid for representing an athlete, he or she gets paid on a percentage of the contract they get for their client - but if they don't get a contract for their client, they get nothing - I think this is right, as I think it is right for a recruiter to get paid for producing a product, not for trying to produce a product.
Steve Wilson
-
I'm with you Jeff, and that was me. I also think that it tarnishes our professionalism and expertise and opens the door for people continuing to think we do nothing and add no value. Of course, I'm exaggerating. But think of it from the client perspective too. Do you have so little to do that you can spend your time as a career coach? I've seen a lot of recruiters in the Twin Cities market turn into career coaches over the last year trying to take advantage of the situation, having lived with it in the past. However, I think it dilutes our craft and I don't want to do it. Yes, I'll spend a small amount of time. In this type of a market, distractions are what keeps many recruiters going. From the client perspective, they want to work with recruiters who find people others can't find. If recruiters are trying to find jobs for people, they are changing their business model. Just my additional 2Cents. Have a great monday, everybody!
-
It really depends on what you're charging them for. I'm unemployed, and I still have to pay for groceries, gasoline, rent, etc., etc. If a candidate chooses to hire a career coach to help them in transition, yes, you chould charge them. I would also say that you should have some degree of compassion for their circumstance and adjust your rates in accordance. Nothing wrong with doing a limited amount of pro-bono work for those who are in dire circumstance, either. It really depends on circumstance, and frankly, your own revenue stream.
That's how I see it.
Bob
-
Hi Folks,
A colleague forwarded this information to me: ............................................................
"Most states require that applicants cannot be charged a fee for a job until they are offered a job. There are legal fee limits and reimbursement to fees must be met within specific time frames. Many states require either licensing and bonding. At this time, I believe about 35 of them require licensing. Also, if a recruiter works in a state that doesn�??t require licensing or bonding but is working with an applicant who is in say, Nevada or Colorado which has very stringent requirements, then due to interstate commerce, the laws of the state with the more stringent law (Nevada or Colorado in this case) would apply. A good Google search for this information would be: "regulations license employment agencies applicant paid fees" An example of the law would be from the NY State better business bureau: http://www.newyork.bbb.org/SitePage.aspx?site=24&id=5172d99e-7554-40ce-8e8c-ac68443fd532 and from Nevada: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-611.html which requires that the licensee must also submit fingerprints and a background check An Article from the FTC: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/products/pro22.shtm FTC Issues Annual List of Top Consumer Complaints Employment Agencies in Top 20: http://www.ftc.gov/sentinel/reports/sentinel-annual-reports/sentinel-cy2008.pdf
An article written by an attorney: http://ryanfirm.blogspot.com/2009/03/job-seekers-beware-employment-agency.html I hope that this information does help. Today we must make sure that individuals are aware of their rights." ............................................................
Cheers,
Keith Halperin
-
I would like to change the title of this thread to "Spending Hours of Your Time to Help or Coach People Through Every Step of a Job Search Including Doing Therapy With Them to Overcome Their Fears and Anxieties and Do It 10 Times a Day.
To me, the subject life is charged like saying someone is "right wing" or "liberal" is charged to different people.
Whoever mentioned that many out of work job hunters are hesitant to pay for services-- they want us to pay for them getting work by investing time with them critiquing their resume, prepping them for interviews that we didn't generator and a host of other services that provide us with no income (but good karma).
About two years ago, I developed a VIP program program and a one hour coaching program to work with people who wanted intense support. My time is worth more than what I charge them but it is enough to justify my taking time with someone.
After all, my expertise and, I suspect, yours has value, too. Like your lawyer or accountant, bill people for your time or it will be devalued.
Respectfully,
-
Please forward or repost this information to whoever needs it. -Keith Halperin ............................................................................................................ If you are looking for a new position, here are links to collections of job-hunting resources: The Riley Guide (http://www.rileyguide.com/) and Job-Hunt: (http://www.job-hunt.org/). LEADS Here are several hundred recent (within the past 30 days or so) non-administrative Bay Area recruiting positions. You can change the search parameters to match your requirements.
CRAIGSLIST http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/hum?query=recruiting http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/hum?query=recruiter INDEED Leads for Recruiter, Recruiting, Staffing, Talent, Sourcer, Sourcing, Placement http://www.indeed.com/jobs?as_and=&as_phr=&as_any=&as_not=COORDINATOR+ASSISTANT+ADMINISTRATOR+NPI+PROCUREMENT+PURCHASING+BUYING+BUYER&as_ttl=RECRUITER+or+RECRUITING+or+STAFFING+or+TALENT+or+SOURCER+or+SOURCING+or+PLACEMENT&as_cmp=&jt=all&st=&radius=50&l=94065&fromage=any&limit=50&sort=date SIMPLY HIRED Leads for Recruit, Recruiter, Recruiting, Staffing, Talent, Sourcer, Sourcing, Placement http://www.simplyhired.com/a/jobs/list/mi-50/qw-administrator+assistant+coordinator/lz-94065/t-recruit+or+recruiter+or+recruiting+or+placement+or+staffing+or+talent/ws-50/sb-dd
-
I also agree that charging those who are down on their luck is wrong. I could never do this. I have developed and lead a Job Workshop here in Beaverton, OR. It is free, and since I have a Masters in Career Counseling and have been a headhunter for over 20 Years, I am availing my experience and skills to the people who have come. I give a different perspective, I tell them how do companies hire - an individual's job search is parallel to a company's candidate search. It has worked and the hope in the faces (and written evaluations), make me feel that I have given back.
Krista, it is great that you are sharing yourself with your community. Helping people to help themselves is a great gift and rewarding. For those who say that career coaching (a 21st new term for snake oil) is more needed for those who are out of work and worth the price are wrong. People in this situation are not so worried about assistance in architecting their careers, they are just simply looking for a job. Why don't you at least wait until they do get a job before you charge them.
-
I, too am compelled to post here. I actually worked as a career counselor and have an advanced degree in it. But what I found, was that people in this vulnerable situation really don't want to spend the money on future thinking and positioning. They want a job NOW. Career coaches can be invaluable to this, but sometimes the candidates simply don't want to invest the time. They feel panicked. They want someone to do it for them. Coaches can provide invaluable assistance that the people who are employed should utilize. The sad thing is, many job seekers are turning to resume writers who don't take the time to know them and I've heard many horror stories about scammers. Companies like the ladders and resume writers are providing some kind of immediate gratification to the job seeker. Job seekers feel like they are actually doing something active to find work. If they worked with a career coach, they would get so much from it. But it's hard work and a time investment, and sometimes people are hesitant to invest time or money.
I do think it's completely unethical to charge candidates for finding jobs. It perpetuates the myth that recruiters find jobs for people, so I wish this weren't happening. I try to help each person that contacts me in some way, to help them inform them on some strategies. The reality is, they need to work as their own recruiter now. We can help them do this. However, I only spend a small amount of my time doing this, because, well...I'm a recruiter and need to find people for my customers. I don't want anyone to be confused about what I can do, and I don't want job seekers to think recruiters find jobs for people. It makes me angry that there are so many scammers out there - it's up to us as a group to help these people. It will come back!
-
Despite traditional dogma that candidates choose recruiters and recruiting firms purely and solely because of the 'relationship', the larger component (in most cases) is the niche you specialize in and the Clients you have exposure to.
IMHO, this is why The Ladders can charge -- because Candidates perceive that they're paying a premium for exposure to Clients (and select positions) that are not present on any of the traditional job boards (i.e. Monster, Careerbuilder, etc.) The Ladders does an outstanding job in its print and television advertising to convey that they only feature $100k jobs. Little do Candidates know that The Ladders increases its quantity of positions (in large part) by scrubbing the larger job boards for jobs that 'look like' they're $100k jobs.
This question broods a firestorm of controversy time and time again (just as do questions regarding ethics and law in our space), and there have been enough responses to run the entire gamut at RBC, so I'll simply toss in the above as my $.02.
-
My humble opinion on whether or not people should pay for career consultation related services is that it should be a personal decision. HR and Recruitment professionals make a living on their expertise in finding candidates for their employers and offering career advice to employees and job seekers. HR professionals are really the acting in-house career counselors are they not?
If offering career advice, resume critique/writing, and assistance with job search are the core competencies of our profession, why is it a bad thing to charge a fee for the service? How are these services different from paying a CPA for filing our taxes, and a lawyer for handling a divorce, or a financial adviser for telling us how to reduce our credit card debt and better invest our retirement funds? All of these are activities you and I can do for free if we have the time and know how. But why do we still pay someone else for it? Isn�??t it the same reason why a job seeker would want to pay a career counselor to help improve their resume or give them career planning advice? Seems to me all these services are legal and ethical. What�??s the big fuss?
Additionally, many companies built their business model around �??self-help�?? or advisory services, whether it be improving their knowledge, skills or even physical appearance (e.g., losing weight or younger looking skins), it�??s the consumer that decides what is worthwhile and how much they are willing to pay. Similarly, helping people improve their resume is no different. As for the question whether or not one should offer FREE services to unemployed people, I think that should be a business and personal decision too. If you can make a living offering free advice, then all power to you. But not everyone is so fortunate.
Having said all that, I do strongly agree with the principal that recruiting firms should NOT charge job seekers fees to be considered for any positions they recruit. Clearly, that would be unethical and thankfully I don�??t know of any firms in the US charging fees in this way.
-
Personally (and how else should I answer this), I believe that Career Counselors who can prove their value have a place in this world. That said, I think that there is so much the recruiters of this world can do, even on their own time, that taking money from those in need is like charging for wristbands to get in the line at the neighborhood soup kitchen.
We get emails almost every hour from people asking for advice, help, resources and it can be very disruptive to our daily work. Especially when your heart aches with each person's story.
If we can focus our energies and time on helping lots of people at once, we'll accomplish two things:
- Provide valuable insight to the people who need it most.
- Enable communication between jobseekers who are for the most part, insulated from each other.
Wouldn't you like to know about an interview or resume mistake/oversight made by someone else looking for work in your industry? Don't you think some insight/perspective might make you think about your search more positively? Wouldn't making that connection foster personal growth and help encourage each other to "get back on the horse"?
Check it out if you want to contribute, need a job, or know someone who needs a job.
Like everyone else, it's just my opinion. ____________________________________
Join the new Recruitment Marketing Group
-
Hi everyone, I have been very curious about the responses here, and have felt compelled to respond. I have been a recruiter for the past 20+ years. I have always said to the candidates that I worked with that if a recruiter wants to charge you, you should run in the other direction as quickly as possible. The recruiters are paid by the client a percentage of your annual salary. The services that the recruiter offers to the candidates are free... services like, re writing your resume, understanding your background and being able to represent you, interviewing techniques, negotiating, closing the deal etc. all of these services have been offered to the candidate for free... Now as a recruiter, I can tell you that I did all of that and I did it well. The people that did not benefit is someone who didn't fit into what I might have been recruiting for. Unfortunatley, you can't help everyone and give them a good quality of service.
I am in the process of switching careers, and becoming a career coach. And I have been asked this question over and over. If people are out of work, how can they afford a career coach, and I think how could they not. As a career coach, you are working with someone to not only help you figure out what you want to do (maybe you hate being an accountant), but also to show you how to find that job yourself. How to market yourself, write your resume, and keep you motivated in these times. Not to say that they shouldnt use recruiters, but like someone said earlier, there are some recruiters out there that give the rest of us a bad name. As a career coach, I want to give these folks the tools so that if they ever find themselves in this situation again, they know that they can help themselves. You know the old saying "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime." Now I don't gauge people, and I don't think that I over charge, but I do charge something and here is why. When you are working with a coach, they give you all kinds of excercises to get you outside your comfort zone. If you have nothing to lose (money) then you don't have to push yourself to do these excercises.
The question could also be asked, if a company is not doing well financially and they are trying to make it and need to hire someone, as a recruiter, are you still going to charge them for your services?
This is just my two cents
-
Those of us in the recruiting industry are in a tremendous position to give back at a time when the rising ranks of the unemployed need us most. I think our businesses are better served by providing the assistance pro bono. For instance, I formed a Group on Facebook called Westporters Helping Westporters to enable neighbors in my town to help one another. (I also created a Cause by the same name to rase money for a not-for-profit organization raising college tuition for local high school grads.) The unemployed members of the group have not wanted to post their resumes thus far, and so I've posted blind items on their behalf describing the newly downsized who have become available and the kinds of opportunities they are seeking. On a number of occasions, business owners and corporate executive members of the group have responded with opportunities and interviews -- and I've arranged introductions. A group member called me to thank me recently -- he had been unemployed and had just found a job, though we were not responsible for that bit of good news. When I pointed out that we really didn't deserve thanks because we didn't get him the job, he corrected me: "No, you don't understand. You were there for me --the group was there for me -- during my darkest hour." The simple knowledge that there was a local group of like minded individuals in town dedicated to helping one another made all the difference. My efforts sparked coverage in the local papers, in blogs, and attracted publicity that I made no effort to attract. What ever you call it, doing the right thing in the spirit of true service is my preference over trying to squeeze a fee out of those who are least able to afford it. You become a far richer person by giving it away.
-
I agree with most of the "spirit" behind the content I am reading, especially the comment about "think about the long term ramifications......". However, I am still trying to figure out how companies like The Ladders is doing so well. I'm not even certain at this point if The Ladders can even compare to even a brief coaching session and support by a professional recruiter. Yet they still charge and people pay. Maybe it is a completely different concept?
My firm was approached multiple times by others who wanted to partner with us to offer our candidates (the ones who "really needed the help") their services for a fee. Each time we said no. If our candidates "really needed the help" we do all we can for them already. Does it cost us? Yes. Will it pay us back in multiples when the market comes back? Absolutely!
-
Being unemployed myself, I have to say that charging unemployed people for my services is a challenge. If a person lives locally, can spare a minimum (yes, really reasonable charge), I charge them a small fee for professional services. The large resume houses charge over $1k for services. In my heart, I can't do that. If a person comes to me in "desparation", I will not charge them if they are local and they meet me for a cup of coffee or come to my home. Just my .02.
-
It is not unethical to charge anyone for anything if they are willing to pay you for something. The "character" part is whether or not the "unemployed" are paying out of desperation and whether you are willing to take advantage of that.
Long term thinking plays here too. Are you building a reputation and credibility or just making short term cash. I get that the temptation is very real and more acute than ever given the "state of the economy" real or make believe.
Listen, our industry is filled with "professionals" who give us all a bad name for the quick hit. Ain't like "headhunter" was a term coined out of love and respect. I wish we all took time to consider the ramifications of our individual actions on our industry. Going back to charging our candidates and the unemployed seems like a big step backwards....or just a redefining of our industry. Nothing constant but change! YIKES
-
