Tips From A Recruiter: Don't Make Me Read Your Resume

Tips from a Recruiter: Don't Make Me Read Your Resume

I will read your resume unless it's 10 pages, but (just as you didn't want to write your resume) I really don't want to read your resume. To put it another way, I don't want to read it because I must in order to make a yes/no decision.

This post originally appeared Job Tips for Geeks.

Ideally, I can decide to speak to you based on a few sentences in the body of an email/application, and then primarily read the resume to prepare for our initial dialogue and use it as a framework during the call. Give me a few sentences to make me want to have that talk.

I never ask for or expect a full cover letter with addresses and dates and all the formatting. Personally, I don't want to read that either, and I'd rather not task applicants with the hassle. All we're trying to do is start a conversation, and it shouldn't take much to get it started. Reading only a few sentences before making a decision will clearly make my job easier, but it will make the job seeker's life a bit better as well. There is much less pressure to have the perfect resume if you can get past the first stage without that document being carefully judged. Invest five minutes in the application, and you can spend less time customising resumes.

Roughly 50 per cent of the applications I receive are resume only. In 2013, almost 90 per cent of my client hires included additional content. The data set is not large, but over my 15 years I'd expect that the figures would be rather consistent. Whether applying for an advertised job via email, an online application, or even if you are just blindly sending a resume in the off chance a company might consider you for hire, the key concepts to address in the content that accompanies the resume are:

Tell Me What Prompted You to Apply for the Job

Where did you see the ad? If you were on the major job boards, you saw hundreds. What was it about this ad that caught your eye and made you act? One sentence is plenty. If you saw the ad on the company's website, kudos -- you weren't out trolling the boards; you were actually looking into us. What did you like about us?

Show Me Why You Believe You Are Qualified

It isn't necessary to write a long and detailed summary of your experience here, and you shouldn't. One or two sentences that distill the most relevant experience will get us to the next step. You can quantify years of experience in the industry and with a couple technologies listed in the ad, reference a noteworthy accomplishment, or briefly describe how a current or past role prepared you. A link to past work might help in certain cases.

Express Interest

If you've covered what prompted your application and your qualifications nicely, a simple "I'm very interested in learning more about this position" can suffice. If you feel you may need just a bit more to put you over the top, demonstrating that you did a minute of research on the company can help. Is there a product we offer that you'd like to know more about? Did the way we described our culture have particular appeal to you?

Mention the Company's Name, Twice

Doing this lets me know you cared enough not to send a pure form letter. Applications that use generic phrases like "your company" (or the worst, "your esteemed organisation") name scream "I'm just looking for any job" and not "I'd like to be an employee of COMPANY". The first mention can be in the opening sentence when you list the job itself ("apply for Senior Python Developer at COMPANY"), and specify again in your closing.

Don't Do Anything Stupid or Desperate

Referencing the wrong company name due to cut/paste miscues is a common one, and although we are willing to forgive a small error it does give the appearance that the candidate has applied to several positions simultaneously (which is fine, but decreases our odds of hiring). Creating a tone that you are desperate to work is not helpful, regardless of how true it is. Make the recipient want to hire you based on your skills and not on sympathy. Don't ask me to hire you, just explain why I should want to.

And a few tips for specific situations…

If You Are Asked for a Salary Requirement…

If you are uneasy about providing salary requirements, at least acknowledge the request tactfully (as opposed to completely ignoring it). Try something like "It's difficult to provide an accurate salary requirement before knowing any other elements of employee compensation packages, as well as the job responsibilities and company's expectations for this role."

If You Are Applying for a Job in a Different City…

Recruiters receive many resumes from out-of-town applicants. When we see a non-local address without any explanation, it is often safe to assume that you are applying for many jobs all across the country. There is nothing wrong with that, but the odds that we will hire you become much lower if you are looking everywhere (more choices lower the chance you'll choose us). Combine this with the complexity of relocation -- cost of living differences, moving costs and potential reimbursement, changing schools for young children, etc. -- and the recruiter has to weigh the decision to spend time with you or someone local. Therefore, unless your resume is spectacular, non-local applicants may not be given the same level of consideration.

When targeting a move to a specific city, mention this in the body of your application. Companies will pay close attention to candidates that have concrete plans to move to their city, and agency recruiters are much more likely to work with you if you are only seeking jobs in one or two locations. If you can provide a future local address on a resume, that may help.

If You Are Somewhat Underqualified for the Job…

There will be times when a job looks very appealing but your experience clearly falls a bit short. In this situation, the opportunity to write a few sentences in support of your resume is your best shot at consideration. Recruiters will often give at least one chance to underdog candidates who attempt to make up for a lack of years with some enthusiasm or an interesting story. It is much harder to say no to someone who demonstrates that they are eager to work for you.

Don't Make Me Read Your Resume [Job Tips for Geeks]

Dave Fecak is an independent recruiter and consultant that helps technology companies hire. He is the author of Job Tips For GEEKS: The Job Search and blogs about career and hiring topics at JobTipsForGeeks.com.


Comments

    Dear Recruiters, don't post jobs anonymously, then we can contact you and tell you why we're awesome, so you don't even have to read our application.

      But then their resume screening software can't eliminate you based on keywords.

      Call the agency, ask who is in charge of the role, sell yourself, profit.

      Last edited 13/02/14 10:33 am

        Please don't.

        The recruiter probably wants you to apply for the role just like everyone else. They probably won't appreciate those trying to jump the queue.

    Dear Recruiter, it would be nice to be able to "tactfully acknowledge" salary needs, but if your company or agency simply provides a drop-down list of salary ranges, then it's unlikely that you're going to get a chance to respond to our delicious prose.

    In fact, dear Recruiter, it would be splendid if you provided a mechanism to send you an email or cover letter rather than just upload a resume, and even more splendid if you responded in less than six months with something other than a formulaic paragraph.

    Finally, dear Recruiter, don't keep publishing idiosyncratic formatting requests when every other beloved Recruiter is publishing contrary advice. It's a lottery, so don't over-egg your individual reading needs. Instead please focus on creating position requirements that have been competently proof-read and contain more than a soup of acronyms and buzzwords. Doing this lets me know that you care enough about who works there and how the company is publicly perceived.

    Last edited 12/02/14 1:30 pm

      Just quickly, I usually slip my cover letters into a blank page above where my resume starts, then call it something like "Cover Letter + CV for [company]" and attach it to the application. As a bonus, this makes it super easy to keep track of where you've applied to and when.

        This is clever.

        I'd still say that a cover letter is pointless, but if you have to have one then incorporate it into the resume.

      "Finally, dear Recruiter, don't keep publishing idiosyncratic formatting requests when every other beloved Recruiter is publishing contrary advice. It's a lottery, so don't over-egg your individual reading needs. Instead please focus on creating position requirements that have been competently proof-read and contain more than a soup of acronyms and buzzwords. Doing this lets me know that you care enough about who works there and how the company is publicly perceived."

      Just a response to some of the comments you've made.

      - Dear Applicant, please consider your salary requirements carefully. Don't say that you don't care about salary, when you do. That's why you go to work, remember.

      Give it some proper thought, and when you're asked what salary level you're looking for, please provide an answer. No one can read your mind. Recruiters shouldn't have to extract this information like pulling teeth.

      - Uploading a resume does seems a dreadful pain. Attaching your resume is the way to go. Word or PDF. Done.

      - Word to the wise. If you read an advert and it's very hard to understand anything meaningful about the position, don't apply. Why don't apply? Well, because there's no reason for you to apply - you're not in competition with anyone to apply for as many jobs as possible. You don't have to apply just because you see an advert. Also, because if the recruiter has written and posted an extremely vague advert, and if they have also posted dozens of other extremely vague adverts, what do you think the chances are that the job doesn't exist?

      Read adverts properly. If you're interested and meet the requirements, apply. If you don't, don't.

      In regards to receiving feedback, can the world of applicants please drop this as a complaint. We've all heard it a million times before.

      So recruiters are guilty of not getting back to people. Guess what, we get a stack load of applicants. In a perfect world we'd all have time to have a nice cup of tea and a chinwag with each and every one of you, but unfortunately that's not the case. The world spins at a fast click and you're not our only priority.

      Before the attacks begin, the company I work for is extremely good in informing applicants at every step of the way but none of us will ever be perfect. Just stop with the unrealistic (and unpaid for) expectations.

        Quite a number of major employers and agencies don't even allow you to attach or upload a resume now: they require you to retype a highly constrained subset of it into a few hundred form fields. For a number of professional sectors, it's precisely these people who you depend on for employment, because they're the ones with the business need or facilities that match your skills & experience. Federal and NSW State government bodies fall into this widening category.

        So when they ask about desired salary and only provide a web form dropdown with dollar ranges (which you can't skip), you don't get a chance to provide an answer which shows some qualifications.

          Yeah, i've not experienced that myself, but I do think that you're right, and that a lot of the larger organisations are trying to be clever by having their own internal systems. It just makes it difficult for people, and that's no good for anyone.

          On a slightly associated note, Seeks dropdown salary selector is also far too narrow. Seek have a number of minor trivialities with their system which they'll never get around to fixing - afterall they own the market, why would they need to get things right.

            The NSW's government jobs site, built on the infamous Taleo system (acquired by Oracle for $2 billion) is an example of how awful it can be. Their mobile version is even worse, which forces $10K bands for job search.

            Almost every public sector job I've applied for in Australia runs on Taleo. A great number of the large international companies use it as well: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=i+hate+taleo

        I wonder when we are all going to remember that the candidate is the raw material in the financial transaction taking place between the recruiter and the employer?

      t would be nice to be able to "tactfully acknowledge" salary needs
      "How much are you on at the moment?"
      "I see..." *click*

    The day I take advice from recruiters is the day I fall over dead. Never had a good experience with one and none of the jobs I've had have been through one.

      Well since pretty much every company has recruiters (internal or external agency) it might be a good idea to listen to some of the advice, and these days it's a common theme of "time poor" "make your shit stand out" with them.

        An internal HR department is not a recruiter. You know exactly what we mean when we say the word "recruiter".

        Last edited 13/02/14 3:00 pm

          In large companies there are HR people who do nothing but recruit for the company, and they are called recruiters.

            ^^^ This.
            I think there are a few people taking exception to "Recruitment Companies" but painting all recruiters with the same brush

            "Large companies" are not "pretty much every company" though. There's a big difference.

        Yeah I think "make your shit stand out" does seem a common theme in these advice columns.

        Not from me, mind you.

        It's not about standing out. It's about presenting yourself professionally. And in terms of your application / resume that would be easily understandable, not too long etc.

        But yeah, why would these guys take advice from a "recruiter". They're pompous, arrogant, backpacking dicks apparently. And I'm the one with the chip, lol.

        Making your shit stand out to a computer algorithm that looks for buzzwords or dangerous evidence that you're too old or overqualified is a tricky skill. A brilliant friend of mine had his application (with resume and cover letter) rejected by a form email at 10pm at night, within minutes of submission.

          There's every chance that there was no job - or that applications had been closed.

          Analysing via computer does seem dreadfully silly to me.

            Real job, and position still open a month later.

            Analysing via computer is silly but very popular: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=resume+analysis+Software

            I read a trade journal article recently where various companies were claiming that within a couple of years you'd be able to not only bypass recruiters altogether but they'd do a better job matching person to position than a human. Even if you think that's as silly as I do, it reminds you of a mindset that's out there wanting to make it true.

              Coming up with strategies to avoid using high charging recruiters is likely a very good thing.

              Here, let me give it a go...

              1. Don't use high charging recruiters

              2. Actually 1 seems to do the trick.

              Last edited 15/02/14 10:33 pm

    Mention the Company’s Name, Twice

    How about instead of posting generic bullshit ads you give us a bit of detail, like, oh I don't know, the fucking company name!

    Really, this guy is so far disconnected from reality it surprises me he has the brainpower to function beyond making grunts and shitting has pants.

    If you want this information, ask for it! If you don't want to read a 10 page resume, but want a short and sweet introduction to a conversation, ASK FOR IT!

    If you fill your ads with bullshit jargon, demanding people with experience being the Pope of the Roman Cathlic Church, don't be surprised when people go overboard and try and prove all the requirements in their resume.

      I agree. But remember, you don't have to apply for those jobs.

      Also, you should understand that there are reasons why company names are generally not mentioned. Several good reasons, and one bad reason. The bad reason is that the job doesn't exist.

      But I can let you know, as a recruiter who does advertise the company name, that a high percentage of applicants do not realise that the company name is advertised. I'd say about 30 to 50%.

      This is the standard of preparation that applicants put into it. It's pretty woeful.

        With all due respect Dave, that is also the percentage of job ads that have spelling and/or grammar mistakes. I don't usually hold out much hope that I can convince someone I am right for the job when they can't put maybe 50 words together without fucking it up.

    Dear Recruiter.

    I didn't read your article because it was too long. I skimmed through it.

    If your job is to read a resume, but the effort into it and read it. Don't be lazy.

    I have had a few recruiters work for me in my time. 25% of the time they hire the pretty girl with the boobs and not the person with the experience, because they don't read people's resume.

      This is what a lot of people do not realise.

      It is not the recruiters job to service you.

      You pay them nothing. You will never pay them anything. Likewise, they owe you nothing.

      "I have had a few recruiters work for me in my time. 25% of the time they hire the pretty girl with the boobs and not the person with the experience, because they don't read people's resume."

      Well this doesn't ring true at all.

      If you're the employer, you're the one doing the hiring, not the recruiter.

        > Unhappy client of recruitment.
        > Oh its your own fault you're unhappy.

        Said no legitimate industry ever.

          Huh?

          Here's the deal.

          Recruiters don't hire staff. Employers do.

          Employers don't have to hire staff just because the recruiter presented them.

          The employer has the responsibility of making the hiring decision.

          If the employer blames the recruiter for the employers decision, the employer is being delusional.

          When you go to a restaurant and the waiter tells you what the special is, you don't have to order it. You can stick with bangers and mash if you prefer.

            If the recruiter is incorrectly selecting from the job pool and presenting the wrong candidates to the employer, then recruiters should get a swift kick.

            I've been in hiring positions where we've had to move recruiters out of the way because they are completely delusional about the candidates they send our way, and the ones they reject.

              Absolutely.

              If the recruiters aren't performing, and that's most easily identified by forwarding inappropriate applicants, then they won't be used for long.

              I think it is accurate to say that most employers that use one agency will use several agencies, so the employer has no real reason to remain loyal to any recruiter. A dog isn't loyal to its fleas either.

              Yes, rejecting applicants incorrectly is arguably even more damaging than forwarding inappropriate applicants but for sure this would not have been intentional - and I would suggest that a lot of the errors made by recruiters stems from the weak and tentative relationships that recruiters have with employers.

                I'm not sure I've ever worked with a recruiter that was even moderately competent at screening prospective employees. I'm with Tony1967: read the damn resumes; people don't send them in for fun.

                  "people don't send them in for fun"

                  Hmm. A vague statement. What is it that you really mean?

                  Do you mean that recruiters are obliged to spend a set amount of time on a persons application given that they've gone to the trouble of clicking a "send" button? In which case, you'd be wrong.

                  Or do you mean that all applicants have considered their appropriateness for the position prior to making their application (in which case you'd be wrong) and on the basis of that they're likely to be correct (in which case you'd be wrong) and as such the recruiter is obliged to spend time with them, in which case you'd be wrong.

                  I am trying, but failing to identify any valid point that you could possibly have.

                  Perhaps next time you could make a clear and valid point as opposed to throwing out a vague insult that helps no one.

                  Perhaps next time instead of pretending to contribute to the discussion and failing dreadfully, you could do us all a favour by just thumbing down, moving on and occupying yourself with a spot of porn. Or teletubbies. I'm not quite sure of your age.

                  Last edited 15/02/14 10:19 pm

    Well the recruiter is certainly never going to like dealing with a company that expects a selection criteria response with their application. You have to read that. They're painful as you need to cross reference what is being discussed with the CV to ensure consistency.

    As far as I'm concerned the cover letter is optional unless you need to explain a location situation.

    Is the recruiter a backpacker, of course they won't read your resume, maybe they cannot make head or tail of it.

    Recruiters are the new Call Centres, they scour the wanted postings, then place the same on their own sites/channels and try to sell you (the candidate) to the potential clients and hoping to get a finders fee. The catch is they understand nothing about the client's requirements nor your skills.

    Employers are avoiding these agencies *specifically*. There are no more HeadHunters, recruiters are just call center agents. So @Tony1967 you can image their motivation to *not* choose you.

      What do you have against backpackers? Are they not entitled to work, is that it? And why do you think those that are travelling this vast land are any less educated than those who don't?

      If recruiters are posting adverts for roles in which they do not have a genuine relationship with the employer, then they are being very naughty indeed. And I would say that this has been a standard in the industry for decades. It goes completely unpoliced, which is a massive shame given that the job market affects all of us.

      Where I work we needed more electricians. We use several different ones and one in particular was good enough to send us a chef.
      By recruitment agency I mean labour hire service as they're essentially the same thing these days.
      Also had another send us an a-grade electrician. Who wasn't an a-grade just said he was and they played him as one. Never once checking his qualifications.

      Last edited 13/02/14 10:26 pm

        Labour Hire companies are a part of the recruitment industry for sure, but they are a different flavour than the recruitment companies that I've been referring to.

        To let you know, we don't check qualifications. It's just not our job to do that. Again we, recruiters, hire no one. Checking qualifications and ability and residency status and licences and working rights etc etc is simply not our responsibility. That actually may be different for Labour Hire companies as they tend to employ the staff directly.

          Can I ask what does a recruiter do in that case?

            Here's what recruiters do..

            Recruiters get paid by employers to help employers find suitable staff.

            Help being the key word.

    Likewise, Recruitment Agents who act like this are the worst and a waste of the job seekers time. They don't care about the applicants, or the company, all they are after is getting that commission. Sadly, there are a lot of them out there.

      Of course recruiters only care about commissions.

      Recruiters aren't counsellors. They're not baby sitters. They're not your friends.

      They're simply doing a job, just like everyone else.

      Why get so melodramatic.

      Why have these bizarre expectations.

      Do you criticise your taxi driver for not sending you a Christmas card?

      Sadly, the recruitment industry is still ruled by commission charging recruiters. It doesn't need to be. There are alternatives out there. If employers continue to ignore those alternatives the situation will continue as it currently is.

    New article title: "Reasons why recruiting is a failing industry, where only headhunters will persist into the future".

    Other suggestions anyone?

      Recruitment is a failing industry because the economy is down the toilet.

      It's nothing new.

      If no one's employing there's not much need for recruiters. If managers aren't that busy, they have time to handle recruiting themselves.

      New article title: why I wish we could send headhunters after recruiters?

        Boom boom. Now that is hilarious. You sir, are a wit of the ages. Here, have a wet cigar. I just pissed on it.

        Last edited 15/02/14 10:28 pm

    Here's an idea for recruiters: read people's f'ing resumes. That's your job, so do it.

      How do you know what there job is? Do you pay them?

        That's clever. Instead of responding to my point with a sound argument, you could just thumb it down.

          Is that aimed at me? If so, you do realize that I wasn't aware of your comment until I saw the notification just now, right? Not everyone can slack off at work and justify to strangers online why we don't do the basics required of us in our job.

            It was aimed at whoever thumbed down. I hadn't checked if that was you or not. It was thumbed down by you, so yes ultimately it was aimed at you, and whoever else thumbed this down.

            I wasn't aware at all, I didn't and don't care either.

              Yes, I gave you a thumbs down after I commented. It's not like it's the end of the world, so I'm sure you'll get over it. And if you didn't care, then why comment on it?

                You asked me a question. I answered it.

                I did not and do not care about you not being aware of the comment.

                My apologies if that wasn't entirely clear. Next time I shall draw you a map.

                Last edited 15/02/14 10:27 pm

        Isn't a recruiter's job to find those they believe would be the best person for the position and put them forward for it for the employer to interview them? How can a recruiter do that if they don't actually read resumes? Or do you guys just sort of pull names / numbers out of a hat?

          Yes, we pull names out of a hat. Well done. You've rumbled us.

    So glad I have enough personal contacts not to have to deal with these oxygen thieves anymore.

    What's good is my employer feels the same way - 80% of our recent hires have come without using recruiters, and they are considered the absolute last resort for finding staff.

      If the recruiters are charging excessive amounts, and pretty much all of them do, then they absolutely should be the last resort for finding staff for pretty much all companies, pretty much all of the time.

      Not all recruiters over charge.

    I'm a recruiter and I won't read your resume.

    Or rather, I'm not going to sit there with my feet up on the table mulling over it for half an hour.

    I will skim read it, or more accurately skim read the first page up until the point that I identify that I probably want to speak with you. Then guess what, I'll call you.

    And before you splutter about being lazy or what not, it's a skill that comes with experience. Simple as.

    It's not about grabbing my attention. It's about presenting your experience and qualifications in an easily understandable manner. And if you've done that, and if you have good experience and qualifications (relative and relevant to the position) then that's all I need. And if you don't, that will be that.

    When I skim read your resume I know what I'm looking for. I know what will impress me. I know what will add up to a pile of poop. If your resume has what I'm looking for, wunderbar, and if it doesn't, auf wiedersehen.

    Forget cover letters. Gees, this isn't 1992.

    We have internet. We have email. We have 24" monitors. We read your resume on a screen. We don't care what's in your cover letter. What on earth could it possibly say that we'd be interested in?

    We have your resume, we'll (skim) read that.

    Yes, you don't have to customise your resume. It's largely a waste of time. If you're interested in a sales role, have your resume sales oriented. Don't adjust your resume to be reception oriented. Decide if you want sales or a reception role and stick with that.

    It's not just about what you're capable of doing, or what you have a vague interest in. It's about what you really want. And if you haven't figured that out you should stop applying for jobs altogether until you do. Or waste everyone's time why don't you.

    "Tell Me What Prompted You to Apply for the Job"

    Yes, this is important, very important - but I would not expect this to come out at the point of forwarding your application. This is interview fodder. But to be clear, if you can express that you've done some research and have an understanding of the company and the role that will go a long way. Firstly it's going to show that you're taking things seriously, and you know what, you should - afterall the recruiter / employer doesn't have to give you their time. And if you're not taken things seriously the recruiter / employer is likely to resent having their time wasted. Waste their time, you're wasting yours.

    "Show Me Why You Believe You Are Qualified"

    Again, very important - but this is interview fodder. But yes, if you can display some kind of answer you'll be displaying that you've given the position some thought - and that goes a long way.

    "Express Interest"

    Very important - but I believe this is covered by the above two points. It's all about interest - it's simply not all about ability. Employers NEED to take on staff that WANT the job, not staff that will PUT UP with the job just because it's convenient for them. Staff turnover is massively expensive and any decent employer will be smart enough to pre-emptively weed that out - as best they can anyhow.

    Massively important.

    "If You Are Asked for a Salary Requirement…"

    Just bloody answer them. They're not asking because they're nosey buggers, they're asking because it's an integral aspect of your application. Don't pretend otherwise.

    Yes it's a sensitive subject but what can you do. Not providing an answer, or dragging an answer out, or getting shitty about being asked a question isn't going to help anyone. Least of all the applicant.

    Do you think recruiters can go to their clients and say we have this great applicant but for all we know he could be looking for twice as much as you're looking to offer. We did ask, but s/he got ever so moody and condescending. It's just not going to work in the troublesome applicants favour.

    "If You Are Applying for a Job in a Different City…"

    Totally agree with the writer on this one. Unless you're applying for a very specialised position, and have concrete plans to relocate very soon, and will be available for an interview, forget about it.

    There are other applicants out there that are available, and don't have relocation issues etc. Of course the recruiter / employer will consider them way before yourself.

    A cold, hard fact. Deal with it.

    Remember, the recruiters and employers aren't here to cater to you. Yes you might be in a difficult situation, but that's not the recruiters or employers problem. We're not care workers. You have to figure your own problems out. That's just life in a capitalist society. No need to demonise recruiters for it.

    "If You Are Somewhat Underqualified for the Job…"

    Recruiters need to please or impress employers. Sending them underqualified applicants is unlikely to do that. Sorry.

    That doesn't mean that there's no chance, but it does mean that generally there will be little chance of the underqualified progressing. And you just have to accept that.

    The best advice for the underqualified is to be very realistic and flexible with your salary. If there's plenty of experienced applicants out there, then being flexible with your salary is pretty much your only hope.

    An employer may have an experienced applicant looking for $70,000 + Super, and an inexperienced applicant looking for $45,000 + Super - and they may think to themselves, you know what, let's save $25,000 and take a punt.

    If you're looking for $60,000 + Super with no experience, you won't stand a chance.

    Overall I'd agree with most comments made by the writer.

    Here's the rub...

    Make things easy for the recruiter / employer.

    Have an easily understandable resume.

    Present all relevant information.

    Apply for roles that you're suitable for.

    Do some basic research - or at least have a solid awareness of the position.

    Answer questions.

    Don't get shitty because the recruiter isn't doing their job in the way you think they should - you're not their boss, remember.

    Be respectful and professional. Employers don't want applicants that aren't. Bottom line.

    Drop your ridiculous expectations. No one is obliged to give you anything. Fact.

    Leave your baggage at the door and deal with a professional recruiter in a professional manner.

    When applying for any role, no matter how good you are as an applicant, the odds will always be against you. Don't get uppity when you realise that that's the case.

      Nobody cares. Your industry will last another 5-10 years tops. Employers are more and more realising that though recruiters promise some magic formula that will get them the 'one in a million' employee, that the results are VERY often just incredibly bad compared with direct hires.

      Probably 50-80% of us here would have experienced it. Time to find another job, and drop your attitude.

      Last edited 13/02/14 9:12 am

        This is silly.

        What evidence do you have that the industry will end. It's been around for decades.

        The principles of recruitment services are entirely sound - the problem for recruiters is that they typically massively over charge and dabble in illegal activities.

        Not all recruiters do this.

        And why are you insulting me? It's pretty weak isn't it? If you have an argument, make it. Insulting me just makes you look small and pathetic. Oh well.

    "But to be clear, if you can express that you've done some research and have an understanding of the company and the role that will go a long way."

    "Do some basic research - or at least have a solid awareness of the position."

    How ?

    Nine out of ten recruiter-advertised position don't say who the employer is. A similar proportion have comically generic boilerplate job descriptions that are basically copy-pasted from one advert to the next, and tell you very little about what the job entails.

      Good question. I'm going to try to give you a good answer but I don't have time to tackle everything 100%.

      Let's talk about recruiter adverts to keep things simple, but we'll note that direct employers frequently keep their details confidential too.

      Some, okay the vast majority of, recruiter adverts will not discuss the company name.

      Why is this?

      Several reasons.

      - Client confidentiality. The client has asked for their details to remain confidential. Why? Many possible reasons - one example might be that they don't want the incumbent to know that their position may be replaced. Another reason would be that the client doesn't want to be contacted by 100 recruiters all flogging the same over priced ineffective and outdated service.

      - To protect against other recruiters. If Recruiter A advertises that ABC Plumbing is looking for a receptionist then Recruiter B, C, D, E and F will be calling ABC Plumbing and will be trying to work with the employer too. Recruiter G,H, I and J won't call ABC Plumbing but will advertise for the same role, and will forward applicants to ABC Plumbing in any case.

      - So that the applicant is not able to circumvent the recruiter. I'll explain this a little. Most, not all, but the vast majority of recruiters will work with the employer on a winner takes all commission basis. If no placement is made the recruiter get $0 and 0 cents. If a placement is made the recruiter will be paid a lot of moolah - typically 15% of the salary. Let's look at that. $60,000 + Super = $66,000 x 15% = $9,900. Not bad for forwarding a resume.

      Now if the recruiter is working on a commission basis and advertises the company name, then the applicant will likely think to themselves "I don't like recruiters. I might save the employer some money by applying directly. I know who the employer is. I'll apply directly". And that's what they'll do. And they won't send a thank you card to the recruiter either.

      So I would say that the main reason that recruiters do not advertise the company name is simply to protect themselves as they're working on a very flimsy and flawed payment structure - which, by the way, employers have worked with for decades.

      - The role does not exist.

      - The role does exist, but the recruiter has no relationship with the client.

      The company I work for in most cases advertises the company name, and only doesn't when specifically asked not to by the client.

      Bottom line:- there are genuine reasons not to advertise the employers name, but I would say that it's very fair and reasonable to suspect that most recruiter adverts that do not state who the employer is do not do that as there is no real job or relationship.

      So what can the applicant do?

      Well, use your head.

      If you read an advert that is exceptionally vague, think to yourself, is this a real job?

      Have a look at other adverts posted by the recruiter.

      Do they currently have 600+ adverts posted when we're in the midst of a recession?

      Are they the best recruiters in the world ever, or are they telling a few porky pies.

      Don't trust the advert or the recruiter? Don't apply.

      Don't want your time wasted? Deal with recruiters that post detailed adverts.

      It shouldn't be that complicated.

      We know that things won't change. We know that applicants and employers will continue to work with those recruiters that act like cowboys.

      Unless applicants, recruiters and employers ALL start behaving more responsibly these issues will persist.

      I can tell you that the employer that I work for is working responsibly and is trying to make a change. And there are other recruiters that are also doing this. But without support it will add up to nothing.

      Last edited 13/02/14 11:34 am

    EDIT:- This post was a reply to a comment by @michael_debyl which appears to have been deleted. I wonder if that's the moderators FINALLY doing something about personal insults.
    _______________________

    Wow, you're just annoying aren't you.

    Are you still in kindergarden?

    "You are a prime example of what is wrong with your whole industry"

    You don't care to explain your statement? No, just another baseless throw away comment? Fair enough.

    "You actually believe you hold some power over people. "

    Why are you telling me what I believe? Instead of hyperbole and melodramatics, why don't you just make a clear point. Would be easier that way. But then, you would need to have a point so I can perhaps see your difficulty.

    "you will probably only invest less than a minute in 99% of their lives anyway"

    Oh my gosh. You say this, which by the way is completely unsubstantiated, as if it's a bad thing.

    We're not paid to spend time with people. We're not counsellors. Get with it would you.

    "Welcome to our blacklist Michael DeByl"

    No, we don't maintain a blacklist. Not for any reason other than it's not time effective to do so. But I can tell you this, if we were to speak with you and you were to display any level of disrespect, it will be a quick call. You don't pay us, remember. We're not obliged to take your bile.

    "I would ever be foolish enough to waste my valuable time with a recruiter who treats people the way your employer and yourself clearly do."

    Again, just another ridiculous and utterly baseless statement. Why do you waste our time with this?

    You have no idea how my employer or myself treats people. And if you did, you'd likely not be making such a silly statement. Grow up.

    You really are quite typical of a sub-section of applicants. You're just acting like a child throwing a tantrum. Oh I'm not getting my way so I'll bitch and moan and cause a fuss. Yeah that's going to help.

    "Recruiters like you only prove the point that recruiters realistically do not give a crap about people"

    You've made your point very badly but I think it's fair to say that you've made a point this time, so well done for that.

    Of course we don't give a crap about people - if we must use such reductionist terms.

    We're not counsellors. We're not paid to be your friends. This isn't me being a big meany, this is me shining a light on reality. If you're too silly to realise that that is not the fault of the recruiter. Again, grow up.

    "Head hunters will be the only ones to persist, investing actual time in specific people, you will become redundant. Or perhaps not.. Who knows. Lots of terrible industries persist after all."

    Oh. You appear to be changing your tune. One minute all recruiters are out of a job, the next we're all thrown a lifeline. You do seem a little unsure don't you.

    Here's my take on it....

    Employers will use recruiters less often. That is money hungry recruiters. They are simply too expensive and ineffective. I don't think alternatives will be embraced over night, but I suspect that they'll continue to slowly gain traction. But of course, unless the economy picks up the recruitment industry will remain in the doldrums.

    Last edited 13/02/14 11:10 am

    Wow @davedrastic - defensive much? How have you had time to look at any resumes today given the amount of time you have put into comments here? Got a lot of spare time have we?
    Thank you though because you have confirmed a lot of suspicions I had about recruiters.

      Yep, silly me. I forgot the whole "you're spending too much time on this" way to win an argument.

    Personally, I dislike recruiters, not all of them but most of them. Reason being that there are too many that seem to enjoy the small amount of power they get with deciding who gets recommended and who doesn't and unfortunately for the most part they have little to no knowledge about your chosen field.

    I don't blame them though, as Davedrastic pointed out they really are just filling a void, Managers don't always have the time to go looking for someone because are too busy trying to do the job they are attempting to hire someone to cover!! I blame the lazy managers most of all, the ones who think they can just farm out the job of hiring and then complain when they expect a recruiter to give them the perfect person as opposed to a couple of options. If you want the perfect applicant do the work yourself.

    In my mind there are only 2 real levels that you should use a recruiter for, the lowest levels where it doesn't really matter as they only need to be able to follow exceptionally simple orders and not steal anything and the very high level jobs where a recruiter is able to find people who are well known in their industries by their reputations and try to lure them to your company for you.

    Personally I'm the Chief Pilot of a small company and deal with a lot of resumes and a lot of people that come knocking at the door and a lot of what Davedrastic has said is what the people doing the hiring and firing are looking for.

    My tips (Yes, some of them are re-hashed from the article!):

    1. Do a little research and include this in your first email, for my industry something like "I See you fly X Aircraft type, I've always wanted to fly one of these" or "I have 1000hrs in the Aircraft types that you fly", he's right, the generic "Your company" crud usually ends up with your resume being placed in the round filing cabinet on the floor...

    2. For the initial contact keep it short, especially if you aren't replying to a specific job advertisement, my time is precious I just want to know why you are applying and what you are applying for and why you think you would be valuable to our company.

    3. A single page resume is perfect for the initial email, keep it simple and to the point with only things that are relevant to your chosen field, your 5 year winning streak at your local quiz night probably won't be that relevant unless you're looking for a job as a Quiz Host. Personally I have 2 ready to go, my single page one and a 2 page one, the single page one gets sent first and then when they get back to me inquiring further I include the 2 page one which has some extra info to help sell me.

    4. Spelling and punctuation?!?!?!?! ok, you can get away with not being 100% on a web forum but for gods sake, it's your resume, you want these people to hire you and give you their money then give it a little extra time and effort. Get someone else to proof read it for you! When I put up a job ad and get close to 200 hundred resumes I often start to get bored by the 30th application and start binning them based on poor punctuation, it shows me you couldn't even be bothered to use spell check!

    5. Don't JUST stick to the job ads you find in the paper or on the web, there are literally tens of thousands of others looking there, start researching any companies that may hire you for your chosen field and send them an email. If I can get a job application from someone who is perfect for a job I was about to advertise the next day then you've probably just saved me a butt load of time sifting through resumes and I'm going to love you for it...

    6. This one leads on from the last, if you are applying for a specific job advertisement I would advise calling quickly to get the name of the person who is going to be reading it, it's a nice touch and shows that bit of extra effort. If on the other hand you are doing as described in 5 then feel free to call up and ask if you can book a time to come in and see someone about a job, it'll get you out from ahead of the pack when they can place a face to the name!

    7. Last, but not least, avoid places that use recruiters wherever you can (Sorry davedrastic!!) (Recruiters should not be confused with Head Hunters btw...), I've found that the ones whom usually use recruiters are big, cold and uncaring, they're the types of companies who don't give two craps about the people earning them their giant pay, if you apply for a job and find that the only point of contact throughout the entire recruiting process is someone who has no idea about your job then my suggestion is run for the hills, you'll probably find yourself working in a place that has hired a lot of people who can't really do the job they are meant to do because no one from management could be bothered to come down from their lofty perch and use some actual industry experience to sort out the final applicants and personally, I find it exceptionally frustrating working with idiots!

      Firstly please note that my style of writing is free-flowing and I don't want my response to be directly related to yourself - I'm more responding to the topics that you raise that I believe other people agree with - I hope that makes sense.

      "Reason being that there are too many that seem to enjoy the small amount of power they get with deciding who gets recommended and who doesn't and unfortunately for the most part they have little to no knowledge about your chosen field."

      This seems to be guess work to me. How do you know that they're enjoying their power? And why shouldn't they enjoy their job? I don't quite get what the problem is. We're all supposed to break down and cry when we identify someone as not being suitable, is that it?

      Get real. We deal with too many applicants. If we get 100 applicants and there's one position, the vast majority of you will not get very far. That's just how it is. Don't throw a strop when we identify you as not being ideal. We're just doing our jobs. It would help everyone if the applicant could respect that.

      Also, recruiters don't need to have anything more than little or no knowledge about your chosen field. We need to be able to identify (the most) suitable applicants. I can do that in fields that I've never worked on previously. Good applicants stand out naturally. So do bad. It's not rocket science.

      You may disagree with this, and you would be doing so from an uneducated position (I presume you're not a recruiter) and I can assure you that you'd be wrong.

      "I blame the lazy managers most of all, the ones who think they can just farm out the job of hiring and then complain when they expect a recruiter to give them the perfect person as opposed to a couple of options"

      This is a good comment, and I agree or half agree with a lot of it.

      My take on it may be controversial, but I would say that those employers that utilise high fee charging recruiters are not only being lazy but fundamentally being neglectful and fuelling the issus that the recruitment industry face.

      I won't go into a full explanation here, but essentially this happens a lot:-

      Employer uses as many recruiters that give the employer a call - i.e. 6 to 20 recruiters. Each recruiter gets minimal information, and doesn't really have the opportunity to check their understanding of the position as the relationship with the employer is tenuous and antagonistic (employers resent paying $15k for forwarding a resume). Each recruiter is paid jack sqwat unless a placement is made. Recruiter that makes a placement will get 15% or so of the salary to be offered (i.e. $10,000 to $20,000).

      Do you think the recruiters will be well behaved, or scrap to give them every benefit they can? Do you think the recruiters have an incentive to lie, or to post adverts for positions that don't exist in the hope of finding an applicant today for a position they're working on tomorrow?

      This is why employers that use high charging recruiters can't be excused from the discussion of the issues. Without them the recruiters would have to improve.

      "In my mind there are only 2 real levels that you should use a recruiter for, the lowest levels where it doesn't really matter as they only need to be able to follow exceptionally simple orders and not steal anything and the very high level jobs where a recruiter is able to find people who are well known in their industries by their reputations and try to lure them to your company for you."

      I disagree with this.

      Recruiters are fundamentally no different to any other out sourced service. Employers could do what recruiters do, but for whatever reasons some choose to outsource the process. Nothing wrong with that. Where it goes wrong is in the manner in which they choose to engage with recruiters - are far too many do so on the basis of high fees only if a placement is made - which causes the problems that we're all aware of.

      I would say though that a large company that is looking to fill a very senior position should look at whatever there best options are, and if that means paying a recruiter $100,000 then that's what it means. For other positions I would say that high recruitment fees are simply unjustifiable.

      "Personally I'm the Chief Pilot of a small company and deal with a lot of resumes and a lot of people that come knocking at the door and a lot of what Davedrastic has said is what the people doing the hiring and firing are looking for."

      Thankyou for saying this. I know what I'm saying is what employers want because I deal with them all day long. It's unfortunate that so many applicants within these forums choose to be so aggressive and abusive when they're essentially being presented with an excellent insight. Unfortunately this happens all the time. Applicants just don't understand what's going on. They think recruiters are there to satisfy their needs - and they're not. Applicants aren't children that need their nappy changed.

      Don't get me wrong, of course not all applicants are like this - but a lot are - I would say somewhere between 30 to 60%. Those applicants that are respectful and allow us to do our jobs are in the minority - or certainly that's how it feels.

      ""1. Do a little research and include this in your first email," - yes, as an employer I would imagine that this is something that you would like to see, and would have the time to read and appreciate. As a recruiter we don't have time for such niceties, and we have to focus on the more important aspects of their application.

      "2. For the initial contact keep it short" - Yes, yes. yes. Keep it all short please. Time is precious for all of us. Part of the problem is that recruiters tend to be massively wasteful of their own time and the time of applicants. The whole behavioural approach to interviewing has fostered this belief that interviews are supposed to be hour long introspections and it's just massively flawed. Certainly for the recruiter. If the employer wants to waffle on with the applicant for hours, have at it, but recruiters just simply don't get paid to do that.

      "3. A single page resume is perfect for the initial email" - A single page is likely to lack information, so I would say 2 to 3 page - but certainly keep things brief and simple, and easily understandable. Career summary sections are ideal for those with a lot of experience to keep things tidy and short.

      "4. Spelling and punctuation?!?!?!?! " As a recruiter I'm not as fussy as an employer, I'm generally more forgiving in this regard. But employers are entitled to be fussy. That's their right. If they're paying someone $70,000 a year (as an example) they want to be happy with what they're paying for.

      I think the lack of spell checking is symptomatic of peoples belief that they're owed a job. That's just not how it is. No one owes anyone anything. If you want it, you have to earn it.

      Watch out, i'll be called a meany again soon.

      "5. Don't JUST stick to the job ads you find in the paper or on the web" - that's how I went job hunting when I was 13. If you want it, make it happen. If others have to do it for you, sit and wait.

      "6. This one leads on from the last, if you are applying for a specific job advertisement I would advise calling quickly to get the name of the person who is going to be reading it, it's a nice touch and shows that bit of extra effort." - Nooooooo. Now this is where you and me are going to fall out :) Do not call. We are busy. We did not ask you to call. No you don't get to go to the top of the queue because you want to. Just let us get on with our jobs please.

      "7. Last, but not least, avoid places that use recruiters wherever you can" - no, I would agree with this, in general. I happen to work for a recruiter that is wildy different to most others. I would not trust most recruiters - as an applicant or as an employer.

      I'm not here to defend the recruitment industry. I think, sorry know, that the recruitment industry is fundamentally perverse.

      I don't think it's sensible to bemoan an industry incorrectly though - I think it's best to identify the real issues and analyse and discuss them, as opposed to make weak blanket statements such as blah blah blah backpackers.

      "you'll probably find yourself working in a place that has hired a lot of people who can't really do the job they are meant to do because no one from management could be bothered to come down from their lofty perch and use some actual industry experience to sort out the final applicants and personally"

      Bit harsh this. I do agree to some extent, and I think large corporates are basically being neglectful (to shareholders) when they rely so heavily on recruiters, but there are a lot of small businesses out there that need help - time and expertise, so using a recruiter makes sense as long as the fees aren't extortionate.

    This thread is like a car-crash... I can't stop watching.... @dave...whateveryoucallyourself...

    Much of a CHIP on your shoulder there buddy ? You and your arrogant pompous self aggrandising colleagues are the Used Car Salesmen of the 20-teens. A concocted and invented industry that's desperately trying to justify itself in a world where it's services are less and less needed.... if they ever were.

    It's clear from skimming through your back-to-the-wall series of angry rants, that the person who's LEAST clear as to what the nature of your actual job is... is YOU !!!

    Good luck with your projects mate... you'll need it if your behaviour in this thread is how you're going to conduct and present yourself to the world at large.

    Last edited 13/02/14 8:58 pm

      OK, so you insult me, and an industry, and it's me that's not conducting or presenting myself correctly.

      If you have an issue with me, or the industry - state it clearly. Just throwing out insults isn't helping anyone.

    The issue is that you don't do the job you're supposed to do (and you basically just wrote a whole article telling us how you don't do that job).

    The other disaster that you and your ilk have wrought with your "I don't read your resume so you've got a few sentences on a letter to convince me" attitude, is this American idea of "more than a one page Resume is too long".

    So now when I get job applicants, I get a single page with a few bullet points of the last jobs they took and a bit of an intro essentially saying "I'm awesome". Useless for telling me anything about what they've been doing in their last few jobs, what projects they've worked on (and what was involved), where their skills lie, etc. After getting dozens of these useless one page wonders, I essentially have to take a punt on a few of them and spend a couple of days doing interviews to find out what the people are actually capable of, rather than a couple of hours reading a bunch of resumes that would actually tell me, if a large group of people trying to make themselves relevant hadn't convinced everyone telling the people you want to work for details about what you're capable of is a bad idea.

    All because recruiters are too ****ing lazy to do the one thing they actually exist to do: READ RESUMES.

      "The issue is that you don't do the job you're supposed to do (and you basically just wrote a whole article telling us how you don't do that job)."

      Wrong.

      "The other disaster that you and your ilk have wrought with your "I don't read your resume so you've got a few sentences on a letter to convince me" attitude, is this American idea of "more than a one page Resume is too long"."

      OK, forget about convincing the recruiter. That's just the wrong mindset to begin with.

      Concentrate on presenting yourself via your resume in an honest and easily understood manner.

      We'll be able to understand it if you do. And we'll be able to identify if it's worth pursuing with your application or not. And remember there's a good chance that you won't be (the most) suitable. That's a statistical fact.

      If you're in need of convincing us, then you're very unlikely to be suitable.

      "So now when I get job applicants, I get a single page with a few bullet points of the last jobs they took and a bit of an intro essentially saying "I'm awesome". Useless for telling me anything about what they've been doing in their last few jobs"

      Yep, totally agree with this. Resumes need to be short but there does need to be good info there. It's a balance, and to be honest it really shouldn't be that difficult to get that balance right. And, to be honest, the applicants shouldn't really require too much in regards to tutoring how to write a resume. It's a 2 to 3 page document detailing your work experience. How difficult can it be.

      "All because recruiters are too ****ing lazy to do the one thing they actually exist to do: READ RESUMES."

      Yeah, you don't have a real grasp on what recruiters do. And I also I think you're not quite understanding the comments that I've made previously, despite having made them very clearly.

      Perhaps this is clearer.

      Recruiters tend not to STUDY resumes. We'll read them. Quickly. We'll scan for information that we're looking for - which will be specific to the campaign we're working on. So in the terms that I mentioned before, it would be fair to say that we skim-read the resumes.

      I really don't understand the point of telling highly experienced people that they're doing their job wrong when you have no real understanding. It's just pointless. Please grow up.

    "OK, forget about convincing the recruiter. That's just the wrong mindset to begin with."

    You are playing semantic games with the word "convince".

    Recruiters are, generally speaking, the gatekeepers to employment. "Convincing" them you're a worthwhile applicant is a fairly fundamental step towards getting a job.

    "And, to be honest, the applicants shouldn't really require too much in regards to tutoring how to write a resume. It's a 2 to 3 page document detailing your work experience. How difficult can it be."

    Resume writing is a whole industry. You just wrote an article and quite a few comments explaining how to do it in such a way as to get noticed. Apparently it's quite difficult indeed.

    "Yeah, you don't have a real grasp on what recruiters do."

    Perhaps, then, rather than blaming everyone for not understanding what it is recruiters do, you should have started with an explanation of what it is they should expect recruiters to do.

    Because most people here seem to have expressed quite a disconnect between their expectations and the service that is delivered. In my experience the opinions given here are representative of those across the community as a whole, so this is not a problem isolated to this particular audience.

    The fact you need to tell potential applicants what you think they should be doing, berating those who disagree, and blaming subsequent problems on your clients, should be sending up a huge red flag. But all it seems to be doing is making you more obstinant.

      "You are playing semantic games with the word "convince"."

      No I'm not. If I've misunderstood your meaning perhaps you could clarify it.

      "Recruiters are, generally speaking, the gatekeepers to employment."

      Correct.

      "Convincing" them you're a worthwhile applicant is a fairly fundamental step towards getting a job".

      I'm not an English grammar expert, and I'm not trying to be purposefully pedantic, but convincing is an active verb, It expresses a determined effort - to convince.

      I don't want the applicant to make a determined effort to convince.

      I want the applicant to present their details in a clear and easily understandable manner so that I can make a judgement call.

      I don't need a sales pitch thrown at me.

      The experienced recruiter will be able to identify if you're suitable or not, there is no convincing required.

      "Resume writing is a whole industry."

      Yes, people spend money on silly things don't they. Did you know that butlers still exist.

      ""You just wrote an article and quite a few comments explaining how to do it in such a way as to get noticed"

      First off, I didn't write an article.

      Secondly I didn't write a few comments about how to get noticed. I might have made a few comments to help you have a clearly understandable resume (I haven't scrolled above to check) - but they are two different things.

      "Apparently it's quite difficult indeed."

      Resume writing? No. It's not. If you're struggling to write a resume I dare say that you'd struggle with a lot of things.

      "Perhaps, then, rather than blaming everyone for not understanding what it is recruiters do, you should have started with an explanation of what it is they should expect recruiters to do."

      Oh, because it's my responsibility to do that? Silly me.

      Here's what recruiters do..

      Recruiters get paid by employers to help employers find suitable staff.

      Recruiters are not your nanny. They are not your baby sitter. They are not your counsellor. They are not your care worker. They are not paid by you or your taxes. They are not obliged to provide you with any service. They are not obliged to give you room service. They are not there to be disrespected. They are not your friend. They are not your guardian.

      Clear now?

      "Because most people here seem to have expressed quite a disconnect between their expectations and the service that is delivered"

      Yes, and this is not new - we are in full agreement on that one.

      So where does this disconnect come from? Is it the recruiters not understanding their obligations to the (non paying) applicant, or is it the applicant not understanding the obligations (or lack thereof) of the recruiter?

      I think I've made my (correct) thoughts on this matter clear.

      ""The fact you need to tell potential applicants what you think they should be doing, berating those who disagree, and blaming subsequent problems on your clients, should be sending up a huge red flag. But all it seems to be doing is making you more obstinate."

      Wow.

      Why wouldn't I tell potential applicants that misunderstand the situation what they should be doing?

      Who have I berated? And have you not seen the level of abuse that's been hurled my way? Are you blind?

      I don't blame my clients. Where did I do that?

      I blame employers that continue to fuel a flawed payment model. Two different things.

      There is nothing wrong with being obstinate. My views have been considered over a long period of time. Let's not fool anyone here, the level of experience that I have within the recruitment industry far outweighs that of your own, or others here that have heckled their ill-considered views. If you expect me to change my opinions for anything other than well considered and well reasoned points you're mistaken.

      Sorry, some of us are not swayed or intimidated by majority views.

        I think you've spent enough time here mate - time to go back to CV farming for your fake job ad bud.

          You have no idea.

          But you do seem to have managed to down vote every comment that i've made, despite not making a single relevant or valid comment. I'm not sure if this is entirely appropriate, and it's certainly not in the least deserved, but in any case, please accept my congratulations for a job poorly done.

          Last edited 15/02/14 11:05 pm

    Hahaha !
    "I'm not sure if this is entirely appropriate"
    You must be new to the internet ? Hahaha nice trolling !
    Next thing you know you are going to indulge me with a Back in my day story followed up with an almighty "Harrrrrumph, I have never been so insulted like that before - by Jove ! "
    anyway gotta run and here's a free tip for you sweetiepie...Life begins when you get one.

    HR managers are the worst people I know. They will be together with lawyers and politicians in the end.

    Informative blog! For all the blogs I read today your article was the best and I got lot of tips that I can use on applying job. I will share all of the tips that I learned here to all my friends who are looking for a job.

    Our company of 500 employees actually got rid of recruiters last year, and for the better. Far too often and understandably: recruiters would go by out-of-date or uncomprehensive job descriptions. Without the job experience they dismissed great candidates and sometimes forwarded buzzword-tards. When you put in perspective as a manager that you are recruiting an individual who you will be spending likely thousands of hours with... those extra hours you have to spent sifting through hundred applications don't seem like a big deal after all. The team who is recruiting should do the recruiting.

Join the discussion!