Recruiters

["Eric L. Dunn" <edunn -at- TRANSPORT -dot- BOMBARDIER -dot- COM>]

As the subject of recruiters and their practices has come up...

In the case of a recruiter approaching a writer for a job that was listed
in the Sunday paper (as described earlier), I'd think that this
demonstrates the recruiter is doing their job and doing it well. Where
would have a problem is if this creates a conflict between the writer
applying for the job directly and the writer being presented as the
recruiters' candidate. In this scenario I think that the writers' direct
application should be considered.
What annoys me about recruiters is the way I and others I have talked to
are often treated. You are invited to the recruiters office with a vague
description of the post, given only a job description, and asked if you
want you name put forward as a candidate. All questions about location,
company, and project details are never answered and are circumvented. This
stinks.
I understand that they have to protect their profit by keeping the
reference as theirs and not having the candidate apply directly. But, if I
am to trust their professionalism in representing me they owe me the
professional respect that I will respect the agreement between myself and
the recruiter. Make me sign something that states any immediate dealings
between myself and the employer in question be through the recruiter. I
would have no problem with that. But too often the meetings with the
recruiter are a stupid song and dance/cloak and dagger game until the first
direct meeting with the employer.


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=