The Insider: I don't want to rant against recruiters but they do need reforming
After quite a long period of being unemployed without a proper work visa, I have finally ended up at a big four bank on a sponsorship. It's not the most prestigious position but with further networking it could lead to something more exciting.
Before all this happened, I was doing some grunt temp work for an insurance firm and later as a contractor at my current bank. Both of these positions were provided by recruiters. I will attempt not to make this another standard "recruiter rant", so please bear with me.
As I am an economist at heart, I will instead highlight why recruiters' incentives are not always aligned with candidate or client needs.
For my first contract job in Australia, I soon discovered that the recruiter - who made a quick phone call to me to set up a very standard admin role - took more than 30 per cent of my wage before any money fell into my pocket. I thought this was a high margin for at best 30 minutes work, but our interests were still aligned, so I didn't care too much.
What really annoyed me was what happened next
After just a week as a temp, I was offered sponsorship and a permanent position. I was ecstatic because this was probably my last chance to stay in Australia. With only a few months left on my visa, I badly needed the sponsorship.
But there was a problem between the recruiter and my line manager. The recruiter wanted more than 15 per cent of my annual salary as a sign-on fee before he would let me become a permanent employee of the bank where I was already working. My firm was forking out money to pay for my immigration paperwork, so I was worried that any extra recruitment costs on top of this would lead to my job offer being rescinded.
Sure enough, negotiations dragged on, relations between my manager and the recruiter deteriorated, and my visa expiration date drew ever closer. I was frustrated because the recruiter was clearly putting her interests ahead of mine.
Although everything was sorted out in the end, in my mind the whole structure of recruitment needs to be reevaluated. Recruiters are more focused on sign-on bonuses than the clients (and candidates) they claim to be serving.
When recruiters gain most from being ruthless, this is how they will work. They are, after all, human. Arguably, they are just as focused on bonuses as everyone else in the industry. The solution must be to construct a bonus structure which is more aligned to the interests of the other parties involved.
I don't have anything against the general concept of recruiters because they can do an important job in bringing together candidates and companies. But from speaking to colleagues and friends in the banking sector, there are many people who don't like some of the aspects of how they currently work.
As it is now, candidates need to be on top of their game to avoid any nasty surprises.
