Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

9182 Posts in 2295 Topics- by 184 Members - Latest Member: benjonesaa

April 25, 2014, 03:24:31 AM
HireScores.com Recruitment ForumCandidates, Job Seekers, Employees, Consultants & Contractors CentreRecruitment: CVs/resumes and Applications (Moderators: Lisette, Forum Management)Employers Careers Vacancies
Pages: [1] 2
Send this topicPrint
Author Topic: Employers Careers Vacancies  (Read 3476 times)
Jasper9
having fun
****
Posts: 457


New Homes and Building Expert


WWW
« on: September 29, 2010, 11:54:33 AM »

I have discovered that many employers are NOT advertsing their vacancies on their own websites prefering for whatever reason, to use recruitment agancies.

In the current climate, surley it makes sense to cut costs and the expense of using agancies in an attempt at least to aviod the Agencies fees?

HR departments cannot be that busy as most companies re not recruiting many staff.

Perhaps they just dont want to be plagued by 100's of calls from agancies wanting to find candidates for them.
Report to moderator   Logged
Malcolm
having fun
****
Posts: 413


« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2010, 03:55:26 PM »

Isn't is easier to get rid of someone if they aren't working out if they're an agency temp? I think this is why companies recruit in this way.
Report to moderator   Logged
Bob
somewhat obsessed
*****
Posts: 850


« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2010, 12:05:23 PM »

What Malcolm says is true.

Sad...but true.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jasper9
having fun
****
Posts: 457


New Homes and Building Expert


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2010, 09:43:45 AM »

I would agree if it is temporary appointment.  But these are FULL TIME PERMANENT vacancies with national companies.

lets face it it isnt difficult to get rid of someone who is not working out. First of all there is the 3 - 6 month probationary period.  Then there is "redundancy"  unless you discriminate its easy.

Lets face it HR departments have become lazy.  Agencies are the easy option.

Report to moderator   Logged
Jason
liking it
***
Posts: 115


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2011, 10:40:16 PM »

you can quite easily sack someone witin their first year if they're not working out without much worry at all.  The recruitment process, like it or not, is very time consuming and companies use recruiters to save time, however, the comany I work for IS trying to save money by recruiting directly.  I honestly think it's a false economy for a small employer but that's just IMHO.
Report to moderator   Logged

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society
Malcolm
having fun
****
Posts: 413


« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2011, 11:29:51 AM »

How can you quite easily sack someone in the first year if things are not working out? I understand that you could do this if the person is still in some kind of three month trial but if they are a permanent worker surely it's the same as any other permanent member of staff?
Report to moderator   Logged
Bob
somewhat obsessed
*****
Posts: 850


« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2011, 11:44:09 AM »

Last in - first out?
Report to moderator   Logged
Gota
having fun
****
Posts: 362


« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2011, 12:03:56 PM »

I don't know if they can really get away with that excuse can they? They have to go through the whole redundancy procedure don't they? Does anybody know?
Report to moderator   Logged
Jason
liking it
***
Posts: 115


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2011, 08:41:21 PM »

How can you quite easily sack someone in the first year if things are not working out? I understand that you could do this if the person is still in some kind of three month trial but if they are a permanent worker surely it's the same as any other permanent member of staff?

You don't get full employment rights until after 1 year.  The conservatives (or coalition) are trying to make it 2 years.  You can't win an unfair dismissal case if you are sacked in the first year.

NOTE WELL:  I am just a guy posting on the internet.  This is not supposed to be taken as proper legal advice Smiley

Having said that, I'm quite confident about this but will gladly stand corrected if there are any HR professionals reading.
Report to moderator   Logged

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society
Jasper9
having fun
****
Posts: 457


New Homes and Building Expert


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2011, 02:13:27 PM »

Jason is right.  No employment rights until after a year.

And even then you would have to be a disabled lesbian ethnic minority who is pregnant to win!

So why all the fuss, hire people if they don't work out you can get rid of them no problem.  They will know why they have had to go anyway.
Report to moderator   Logged
Malcolm
having fun
****
Posts: 413


« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2011, 03:11:15 PM »

Thanks for the information I didn't know this. Bloody Tories I hope they don't get it made to two years. Hopefully the LibDems are in there fighting for the average Joe.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jason
liking it
***
Posts: 115


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2011, 07:47:45 PM »



And even then you would have to be a disabled lesbian ethnic minority who is pregnant to win!


It is a fact that employment tribunals almost always favour the employee.  The whole system (after a year) is anti employer.  No employer will "unfairly dismiss" someone if they are good at their job.  If they do they won't be in business for long.

There was a care recently where the employer lost because they unfairly favoured a pregnant woman on maternity leave over a male employee.  They had to make one of them redundant.  In this case the employer would have lost whatever they did.  Sack the pregnant woman, lose at tribunal.  Sack the man because you're scared of sacking the woman, you lose. http://www.lawspeed.com/news/Avoid_temptation_to_over_compensate_because_of_pregnancy_or_child_birth.aspx

But a tip to the hat to Jasper, don't need to worry too much.  Get hiring.
Report to moderator   Logged

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society
Jasper9
having fun
****
Posts: 457


New Homes and Building Expert


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2011, 12:58:35 PM »



It is a fact that employment tribunals almost always favour the employee.  The whole system (after a year) is anti employer.  No employer will "unfairly dismiss" someone if they are good at their job.  If they do they won't be in business for long.[/quote]

Not correct.  I was "constructively dismissed"  proving it is another matter.  I was the best at my job earned the company a fortune and complete contracts ahead of time enhanced the company's reputation the lot. In fact I did EVERYTHING they wanted and more.  i lived for the bloody job.

My reward, no bonus, no pay rise, no PRP, four different line managers all useless all needing carrying and in the end they forced me out by giving me ever more impossible deadlines and bullying, in the FULL KNOWLEDGE I had been off sick with stress!

I hope and prey they go out of business!

Report to moderator   Logged
Jonathan
having fun
****
Posts: 402


« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2011, 01:16:47 PM »

Are you taking them to a tribunal Jasper? This happened to a friend of mine a few years ago (constructive dismissal) and in the end his ex-boss paid him off.
Report to moderator   Logged
Jasper9
having fun
****
Posts: 457


New Homes and Building Expert


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2011, 08:47:45 AM »

The history was this:

I claimed on my home insurance for legal expenses to pay for representation.  By the way everyone should add this cover cost 15 covers 50,000 of expenses.

They passed my claim and sent what was my INITIAL Supporting documents to their appointed solicitor.
The solicitor then gave it to a JUNIOR/trainee who looked at the chances of success from the information he had.
I told him I had loads more proof and it would take several weeks to go through it all, including secretly recordings of meetings with my employer which proved their "guilt"
The trainees solicitor went out of his way to be negative and find reasons why my claim had the potential to fail.
He then recommended to my insurer, without any contact with me that in his opinion, my case has a less than 50% chance of success and my insurer therefore withdrew cover.
The solicitor then said they would act for me directly but I would be responsible for their expensive hourly rates.  Even a letter would have cost me 150 even if I drafted it myself.

Finally I discovered the most I could get was about 50k and that  was not guaranteed even if I won, the whole process would have taken up to two years (if my employer had not settled out of court) even with a solicitor so I let it drop fro my own sanity if nothing else.

Even with hindsight it was the right thing to do.  With a  couple of other matters, a claim in the County Court for monies owed and a Data Protection breach the employer lied in sworn statements and "lost" in both cases.


From my experience, I would advise everyone to join a union, even if you are in management being a union member can make all the difference.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2
Send this topicPrint
Jump to:  


Find out more about hirescores recruitment scoring
Theme orange-lt created by panic customised by creospace