REC crackdown on members

[Pistachio]

http://www.rec.uk.com/press/news/672

Ooh, a crackdown. I love crackdowns.

We all know that SOME agencies and agents operate a little... well...... loosely. So it's good that the industry body is getting tough.

So... lets drill down to the figures:

4 Reprimands
7 Inspections (four of which were for one agency)
2 Compliance Orders
1 agency expelled from membership following revocation of its Gangmasters Licensing Authority licence

Umm.......

That's hardly a crackdown is it? They reckon they have 8000 agencies as members and you're telling me that's all they decided to give a good *******ing to?

Mind you, they handled:

827 complaints

Of which only 35% were against members (around 289 complaints). Incidentally, the rest was against non-members (14%) and misuse of their logo and notifications of scams (51%)

So, the lesson?

If you've received ****e service from a REC member, or they have screwed you over or refusing to pay you for a trivial matter, or just been generally unprofessional ****bags...

Grow some balls and complain

You owe it to yourself and your fellow contractors to weed the unscrupulous ones out (and maybe even owe it to the odd decent agent and agency)

Here is the link to do this

That is all.

[Bel]

REC have been keen to crackdown on members that flout their codes of conduct.

In 2005, they started an industry research unit to monitor the satisfaction levels of flexible workers with recruiters (they use a tracking methodology of 100 different flexible workers, across all industry sectors, per month - not necessarily REC members too). According to the latest 2007 figures, over 80% of flexible workers are happy with their recruiters.

I must admit, when I read these stats, I was surprised that the satisfaction levels were that high when you hear so many complaints about recruiters on the ground.

[Pistachio]

It's the British mindset Bel. Receive crap service and just shut up and accept it.

[The SMG]

Originally Posted by Bel

I must admit, when I read these stats, I was surprised that the satisfaction levels were that high when you hear so many complaints about recruiters on the ground.

It's true. I hear very few 'good news stories' about recruiters. Those companies that do receive decent feedback are generally the smaller agencies looking to gain a foothold on the market. Once you reach the dizzy heights of 30 + active contractors the customer service and relationship management are the first to go.

G

[Bel]

Originally Posted by The SMG

It's true. I hear very few 'good news stories' about recruiters. Those companies that do receive decent feedback are generally the smaller agencies looking to gain a foothold on the market. Once you reach the dizzy heights of 30 + active contractors the customer service and relationship management are the first to go.

G

A lot depends on what kind of recruiter you use. High margin, low volume networking recruiters (at the executive search - mid-senior interim management end) have far more incentive to maintain consistently good relationships with contractors, than those that work at the high pressure, telesales/lead genning recruiters that work to a Lower Margin, high volume model. It's those that tend to support the IT sector and many other industry sectors.

That's not to say that all high volume, low margin recruiters typically breach the codes of practice - although it is those we tend to hear about most of all. It's because they have many more flexible workers to deal with, so they can well afford to upset some, without losing clients.

I also agree with your point that it's the smaller, well-established niche recruiters will try to provide more support to candidates, than the larger, global concerns that tend to be responsible for many of the abuses you often hear about.

[Bel]

Originally Posted by Pistachio

It's the British mindset Bel. Receive crap service and just shut up and accept it.

It used to be called 'the good English stiff upper lip' Now look where it's got us!