next »

[Jason]

Probably.

But I hate the word: outsourcing.

Understandably, because it means taking work out of one company and putting it in another, but it is what it is.

I do wish I had an unlimited budget to do everything, but I don't.

Was the second comment connected to outsourcing? Surely in cases of recruitment it costs more to outsource than do in house? Forgive me if I mis-understood you.

No you didn't misunderstand me.  It depends on what your budget is.  Spending days going through hundreds of cv's is not time well spent and if I don't have the staff to do this for me I'll get a recruiter to do it.

[Jasper9]

LAZY people use recruitment agencies.
"Days going through 100's of CVs?"  Really.

If you  gave each one an initial 20 seconds and that is generous you could get through 360 in a little over two hours!
You would find five "suitables" in the first 100 anyway.

[Jason]

ok Jasper, fair enough you got me.

I am just lazy but was far too ashamed to come clean.

Thats a £26.5 billion industry, built on us good lazy people.

But yes, last time I advertised directly I got 200 cv's (actually more came in after the deadline so 350 odd in the end), the standard of most was very poor, it was a tedious soul destroying task.

I'll stick to the lazy way of having 2 or 3 recruiters offering me 5 or so vetted people so I can pick 5 or so of them to interview, arranged by the recruiter on a day that will suit me.

[Bob]

Oh sure twenty seconds is great...I'm sure an agency will look at it in more depth so potentially an agency is more likely to find the best candidate than even an employer! You've kinda sold me on agencies a bit with that comment Jasper  .

[Jasper9]

Oh sure twenty seconds is great...I'm sure an agency will look at it in more depth so potentially an agency is more likely to find the best candidate than even an employer! You've kinda sold me on agencies a bit with that comment Jasper  .

No I haven't!  Agencies don't "spend more time" looking at CV's "in depth".  They use key word scanning of CV's and if you haven't done EXACTLY the SAME job as that advertised in your LAST employment you are screened out, no matter how much experience you have and what you could achieve.

AND............ you only look at Cv's for 20 seconds in the first instance!  The pile of maybes then get looked at in more depth.  It isnt rocket science!

BUT again let's face it if you can get your company to PAY for an external agency to do part of your job, who wouldnt rather be on here than doing some actual work!

[Jason]

BUT again let's face it if you can get your company to PAY for an external agency to do part of your job, who wouldnt rather be on here than doing some actual work!

haha, what a totally ridiculous thing to say.

Stick to the subject of the argument lad, don't attack the person.

So you don't spend 20 seconds per cv,  that's just an initial scan.  How long do you spend on each cv on the "maybe" pile?  How big is the "Maybe" pile?

Lets see if your labour intensive recruitment process is cost effective Jasper.  What is your criteria for the "maybe" pile?

Assuring you of my benign intentions at all times

J

[Jasper9]

OK you love agencies and I hate them. 
Let us agree to differ!

[Jason]

 

[syed2011]

They shouldn't treat everybody as though they're scrounging though. Especially in this economic climate.

Well..Bob you are right, now-a-days people change according to economic changes.