When Do You Fire a Headhunter? 344
Captain Sarcastic writes "I have been a contract programmer for a few years (with some time off when a contract-for-hire paid off and made me a full-time employee). Currently, I'm between projects, but I'm a little worried about one of the contracting companies who's helping me. First off, a little history. "Zeke" (not his real name) was with ABC Contractors (not their real name) when I first met him, and he took my resume and started processing me through the jobs that ABC had available. A bit later, Zeke left, and his replacement Yvonne (standard disclaimer) submitted me to a company (call them "Acme") for a contract-for-hire. Everything looked like a good fit, and she E-mailed me a copy of the resume they submitted to Acme. Came the interview, I realized that Zeke had left out part of my history and had mis-dated other aspects, to keep me from appearing unemployed. Like an idiot, I tried to correct this at the interview, to find out that Acme had decided that I had fabricated all of my experience, and chewed out the rep for ABC for sending an unqualified applicant. Fine, learning experience for me — double-check what the contracting company says about you, and don't try to correct things in the middle of the interview." Read below for the rest of the story. What other difficulties have others gone through with headhunters and when is it time to leave one behind?
A couple months later, Zeke contacted me from his new position with Blue-Sky Consultants (standard disclaimer), and sent me on a couple of interviews. Once again, I found out he'd "corrected" my resume — the same way he did with ABC. I raised the issue with him, and he apologized and said he'd correct the resume, and he's submitted me for other positions, but none seem to have gotten to the interview stage. I suspect that he's not trying very hard, and I wonder if he's soft-pedaling submissions for me to keep his own bosses from recognizing he'd altered my resume. So, I have the following questions:
- Am I suspecting malice and/or clumsiness where a competitive market is the true suspect? (An answer of yes would be harder on my ego, but a relief.)
- Do headhunters modify resumes, and if so, should I just shut up and go with what the headhunter says? (I was always told that eventually, the truth comes out, so I'd be uncomfortable doing that, but life isn't always comfortable.)
- Should I tell Zeke to get lost and stay that way? (I was always told that making enemies unnecessarily was "considered harmful", but I get the impression that Zeke isn't a friend).
- Have fellow Slashdotters dealt with similar situations?
run away (Score:5, Informative)
get another but... (Score:1, Informative)
Why work with just one? Get another. Keep Zeke around in case he does something useful.
Always take a copy of your CV (Score:3, Informative)
Alternatively, don't forget to promote yourself on sites such as http://linkedin.com/ [linkedin.com] and http://careers.stackoverflow.com/ [stackoverflow.com] - build up your own client base and get to keep the 10-25% the agency "skims" for just download bunches of CVs from job sites, adding their logo and sending them on.
Re:Dumbass (Score:5, Informative)
Headhunter? WTF for? (Score:3, Informative)
Rather than answer the question, I'd like to pose another one: Why are headhunters even needed?
I am an employer. I can't imagine using a headhunter right now. Why? Because there are millions of people to choose from. I don't need help finding people at all. There are more jobs than people. Call me when there are more people than jobs. That's when I need (and will pay for) a headhunter. I am 100% certain I am not alone.
Methinks the headhunters are duping people into thinking there are more opportunities than there really are. I mean just stop for a second and think about the entire headhunting business: the employer pays a recruiter to go find him qualified candidates. Note, the employer pays for this service (usually 1 months salary, ymmv)
Who the hell is doing that right now? Answer: nobody.
It just an industry that is currently unnecessary. Surely, it will be needed again. But not for a while. Anyone using one to currently find a job is probably doing worse than they could do on their own. So the answer to TFA is: fire them now.
Employer's Perspective (Score:3, Informative)
We have a few recruiters sending us resumes. The only time we ever get good people from them are when there are lots of people sending us resumes directly. This puts us in the situation where we have to decide between someone with an artificially inflated salary and significantly higher risk profile if they quit in that first year.
We also have the very real risk that the recruiter starts playing both sides of the game and going after our employees. Far too many of them are really unethical.
We now just try and spam-block them on email and phone systems it has gotten so bad.
Always do leg work yourself and never rely on just a recruiter. More leg work gives you much better exposure than a recruiter ever will. But I am in a different industry (consulting engineering), so YMMV.
Re:Dumbass (Score:5, Informative)
Not only have courts said it, it happens all the time. My wife (a human incarnation of Catbert) has fired maybe 20 people over the last decade because they lied on their application paperwork.
Normally it plays out that something questionable happens and the employee starts to get scrutinized. Then looky, looky, they lied on their application and are a problem. Time for security to walk them out of the building...
Re:Personally I'd rather you were honest with me (Score:4, Informative)
Too soft. For them to lie about your information to potential employers is a big no-no. I suggest dropping them immediately and going to another recruiter (it's not like there are a shortage of them out there). Only problem is that if they've made efforts on your behalf, there may be some obligation if you get hired for a position where they sent your resume (whether or not their actions resulted in your hiring).
When you deal with a respectable recruiter, they get your approval on any changes before sending it out. Any deviation from this is a sign you need to run. Keep in mind it's YOUR reputation as well as theirs that can be affected.
I've blacklisted recruiters because they've sent me resumes that were substantially different (as in your case) from the resume the employee handed me at the interview. Unfortunately, that means the applicant has been rejected as well -- but the only way the recruiters get it is if it hurts them in the wallet. If I hired one of those applicants, the recruiter would be *rewarded* for lying... not a good thing.
we'd FIRE you in a second (Score:2, Informative)
dude.. if Zeke or whatever submitted your resume to us, and we decided we liked you enough to bring you on, we'd do a background check (we're obligated to, due to the nature of our work, and the Federal regs around the kind of people we can hire). we'd check those references independent of your headhunter. if there was an inconsistency (like the dates for your previous jobs) we'd fire you on the spot.. like escort you from the building, we'll send your stuff along in a week or so fired.
Zeke is not only costing you work, but he's costing his company money too.
dump him.
A bad experience with a Headhunter (Score:4, Informative)
Most of the Headhunters I went to asked if they could tweak my resume. Most of them added things that were (at best) stretching the truth. Some of them did do some things (formatting, wording) that I liked which I integrated into my permanent resume. A few times after not looking into their changes enough I got called into interviews and had them ask about my experience with . Those moments were quite embaressing and needless to say I did not land those positions. I'd call the Headhunter and tell them not to have that on my resume and they would say "I thought you knew Java. OH! Javascript! I'm sorry. I thought they were the same" or something of the like. Ugh.
The last headhunter I dealt with got me a job in about two days. I was hurting for a job and was pretty darn happy at the speed in which he got me into his office, got me in to see the client, and got me employed. It was going to pay $37/hour. Nice. I went to my first week on the job, liked the environment, and generally got along fairly well with the people. My first check was a live check (until they got direct deposit set up) and I eagerly awaited it, as I was getting pretty low on money. I opened it and....wow. What did I claim on my taxes for it to be this low? Hmmmm, taxes don't seem that out of whack. Maybe I didn't get paid for the entire week yet. No, all my hours are on there. What is this? Hourly rate....$21.00.
I called the Headhunter and him and his secretary both "Clearly Remembered" that he said Twenty One and would not have said Thirty Seven. He told me I could ask the company I was working for if they wanted to pay me more, but he guessed that would upset them at this point. I cursed at myself for making a handshake agreement, sent out some more resumes, but went back to work. After a month of being there my boss sat me down to ask me what I thought of the place. I was doing a really nice job and they were really happy with me. I told him that I liked the company and figured I'd just throw out the information about the headhunter and my salary. He just about hit the roof. He grabbed the contract out of his file cabinet, called the headhunter, and asked him about my pay. Apparently he had a written contract indicating how much the Headhunter would be payed and how much the employee would pay. Those numbers were more in line with what I had expected. By the next week after some phone calls between my employer and the Head Hunter, I was out of my contract and hired on as a "permanent" employee at $37/hour but with no health benefits until I had a year with the company. I was really pleased at how the company went to bat for me despite being there for only a month. I'm in my fourth year with them now. ;)
Re:Personally I'd rather you were honest with me (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, I am cursed with a very large head. I would need to fire them if they looked hungry at all, no matter who else was in the room.
I'd post a link to the obligatory Far Side cartoon where a man with a ginormous head approaches a headhunter village (thus stepping into headhunter lore forever), thereby telling all you "obligatory xkcd" kids to get off my damn lawn, but I can't find a damn link to it. Maybe it's here under the onion on my belt...
Re:Headhunter? WTF for? (Score:3, Informative)
They all suck, unless they get you a job. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Headhunter? WTF for? (Score:2, Informative)
Let me get this right, for almost 39 weeks now, we've been seeing an additional 500,000 people unemployed every two weeks. I can't pick up a paper without reading about more layoffs...
Rather than answer the question, I'd like to pose another one: Why are headhunters even needed?
I am an employer. I can't imagine using a headhunter right now. Why? Because there are millions of people to choose from. I don't need help finding people at all. There are more jobs than people. Call me when there are more people than jobs. That's when I need (and will pay for) a headhunter. I am 100% certain I am not alone.
I am a manager at a large Fortune 500 company, and I have hired a fair number of people for accounting positions in the company. I certainly won't rule out a person who is out of work, but I certainly have a bias towards people still in their job. Here is what goes through my head when I see a person applying for my position who is unemployed:
a) Where they fired for cause?
b) Were they laid off, and thus at the bottom of the performance rankings at their previous company?
c) If they quit (to find another job), isn't their judgement sound enough to stay with their current job until they find another?
If your spouse has taken a job in another city, and you are the "trailing spouse", the question of unemployment (in the new city) is easy to answer....and I don't mind hiring such an individual.
If your previous company has outsourced the entire department to another country or location, that is also a very easy answer.
But your answer needs to address the three questions I posed. If you cannot satisfactorily answer them, I will probably lean towards hiring the guy who currently has a job (assuming you have similar qualifications). That is because you pose a risk to me (I am afraid you might be a problem employee), while I can be more confident that the guy who is currently employed can keep a job and perform.
Best wishes.
Re:run away (Score:3, Informative)
Lost wages due to non-hiring due to the discrepancy. Non-hire damages used a lot in discrimination suits. Problem is that you'd have hard time proving this, as you'd need the cooperation of the (non)hiring company to make depositions and possibly testify.
Also, there is loss of reputation, which is much harder to quantify.
The problem is not that they claimed the person was "better at their job then they really are" the problem is that their actions resulted in the person being seen as dishonest.
Re:making enemies unnecessarily (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed 100%. I have had headhunters revise my resume from a format perspective so that it could fit within a format that the companies were looking for (often they want very little formatting) and when they did so they sent me back the revised copy.
The only other thing I have seen them do is remove my direct contact information from resume, to prevent the company from going around them. I respect that.
There're more HH than available positions (Score:5, Informative)
You're never given a second chance at a first impression.
Your headhunter has placed you and your prospective employer in a difficult situation and you are the canon-fodder. If you can't trust your headhunter to honestly represent you then you need not work with them.
I, too, am a contract programmer currently between gigs. If some headhunter calls you and says you're Mr. Wonderful but refuses to pay travel expenses for your interviews then don't even entertain them. Find out before you are submitted to the client because if you are submitted first and then refuse to pay an $800.00 air fair for a Face-to-Face then you are screwed and will never get a F2F with the client. One, you are not guaranteed the position so you'd be out $800.00 based on conjecture. Very hollow, indeed. And, two; being doubly-submitted is very taboo. Depending on whether you signed a right-to-represent from the headhunter they could take you to court which makes you a risk to the prospective employer. Which leads me to my next topic.
NEVER sign a right-to-represent without fully reading the entire document. If you must sign, then ENSURE that the right-to-represent is ONLY with the single client position for which you are being submitted. Some headhunter houses are *very* shady. These hunters will, and have, sued people for not using them to get positions at locations in or around cities in which the headhunter-house operates. It has happened. Sure, it's a scam; but, desperate contractors do fall for the scam and lose out on large amounts of money. (Mostly, it's small claims court; so, usually $5000.00. No need to bring in those meddlesome attorneys.)
NDAs. Don't sign NDAs with companies simply for an interview. I did this. Epic fail on my part. Basically, I was creating similar systems on my own that a company in Missouri was creating. I, arrogantly, thought I was a shoe-in. I didn't get the job and for a period of two years I am contractually restricted from creating like-devices for that industry. Recently, the company began looking for more people. When I inquired to one of my trustworthy Head Hunters he told me who it was. He informed me that they're not looking for anyone they've already interviewed. Honest and OK enough. I asked him if they hired anyone the first time around and he said, "No, they didn't." Imagine my surprise.
Save your NDA signing for when you have already been given an offer of employment and it has been accepted.
Last and certainly not least: Never discuss your offered positions with other Head Hunters. If they find out what position you are being represented for by another head hunter they will attempt to undercut you and you will never get the job. Need an example: Here. I know a guy who was traveling to his next assignment. One of his head hunters called and began talking to him about his situation. He informed the HH that he was going to start work in 1 week at company X, 600 miles away for $X.00. They spoke for about 10 minutes. The next day the contractor that got him the job called and told him not to come as the client found somebody else cheaper.
Moral of all this: Don't slit your own throat. Lose lips sink ships.
On Dealing with Head Hunters (Score:3, Informative)
Some cautionary tales
http://world.std.com/~swmcd/steven/crypt/recruiters.html [std.com]
Re:Personally I'd rather you were honest with me (Score:4, Informative)
My question for the OP (Score:3, Informative)
Why redact the headhunter and headhunting firm's name from your story? If the facts are true it seems they should stand on their own merits. I say spill their name and let it serve as a warning to all. Even better, submit your story with all of the relevant facts to The Consumerist [consumerist.com].
Re:Personally I'd rather you were honest with me (Score:3, Informative)
there's a difference between not mentioning awkward facts, sending out a CV tailored to emphasize the information about you relevant to the job and outright lying. Don't lie in the recruitment process, don't ever lie. All your employment protection goes out the window if you lied when you were recruited and you can be dumped immediately at any point afterwards.
Knowing what documents your agent has sent to the employer may be useful so you can surgically correct them (rather than floundering about over them in the middle of the interview), but there's no guarantee that the agent will send you back what they really sent to the employer, and if they do send you the real falsified documents it becomes doubly important to correct them immediately.
Re:Personally I'd rather you were honest with me (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Personally I'd rather you were honest with me (Score:1, Informative)
Here in the UK we don't use the term 'resume'. We have short CVs and long CVs but no resume. Generally I have my nice short CV for sending off to companies and a longer document just in case they want more details. I've never been asked for it and never had problems getting interviews.
A CV is not necessarily the long version of a resume. They are both really the same thing and advice really does vary on what should be in a CV, how long it should be and what style it should be written in.