Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tech Recruiters Defend 'Blacklists,' Lack of Feedback, Screening Techniques

Posted by timothy on from the established-procedures dept.

Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes Remember when executives at Apple, Google, and other firms "fixed" the market for highly skilled tech workers by agreeing not to steal each other's employees? That little incident made a lot of people think about the true modus operandi of corporate and third-party tech recruiters. Dice sat down with some of those recruiters, who talked about everything from "no poaching" tactics to the "blacklist" that exists for candidates who make boneheaded mistakes in interviews. The bottom line? Recruiters seem to pass the blame for some of the industry's most egregious errors on "junior recruiters and agencies," while insisting that their goal in life is to get you a job. How does that align with your experience?

7 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. oh boy! by notequinoxe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From my experience, the boneheads were almost exclusively in the HR agencies. And that's a light term for fucking-unbelievable-idiots. I have tons of incompetence-filled horror stories. Techies (anything from coders to any branch of engineering), IMHO, should only be recruited by their peers. Period.

    1. Re:oh boy! by drafalski · · Score: 5, Funny

      Recruiters would reject an application from Steve Jobs to work at Apple, because he didn't have 20 years of experience in the smart phone field.

      To be fair, his performance has fallen off quite a bit since he died.

    2. Re:oh boy! by Cederic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's the thing. NETWORK the hell out of yourself while in school and especially when you are in the workforce.

      Here's the thing. I started working in IT because I don't understand people, can't talk to them, find it hard to build relationships and rarely remember anybody's name.

      Computers don't need that shit, they respond to simple well structured inputs.

      Networking is all lovely for people with great communication skills. I've spent an entire career trying to gain those and although I can walk into a room full of Execs and convince them to back my ideas I still can't fucking network.

      Some of us have to rely on merit and job interviews.

      And if you ever want to become independent and contract...it is invaluable to have contacts out there that know you and like you.

      ..which is why I'm not a contractor. I guess I should be glad I at least recognise this.

    3. Re:oh boy! by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 5, Funny

      For example, pretending to not discriminate on age by asking precisely selected interview questions.

      "Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention. Now, imagine you see some children on your lawn. What's your reaction?"

  2. Re:Scum by briancork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I run a recruiting company. And, I am genuinely sorry to hear such criticisms. On the other hand, most people looking at career transitions lament the lack of response they get from technology-centric recruiting platforms like Monster, DICE, and Linkedin (there are a great many). Several years ago, the process of almost any online application realized a 90%+ non-response rate and job seekers were more frustrated by that silence more than anything else. From what I'm hearing from candidates its not getting much better - and, this includes hot hiring areas that include IT development, Accounting, and even Actuaries. In my organization we certainly like to make money. However, we typically earn it by understanding our clients and caring about candidates finding a terrific cultural fit. In fact, we guarantee our placements for a year. That requires solid work and great results. That benefits all three elements - the company, the candidate, and the recruiter. - Cork

  3. Re:TL;DR "Recruiters" Suck. by CrankyFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work for a tech company that, for exactly this reason, tends to hire people who've never recruited before into its recruiting group -- that way, they're less likely to be broken (we also consider hiring managers responsible for recruiting, and recruiters don't have any technical conversations with candidates).

    That said, I'm not all that opposed to blacklists, and I know that we use them ourselves. If you interview with us and make profoundly idiotic statements (I was once in a hiring loop where the candidate told the recruiter, an Asian-American woman, that he'd never hire an Asian woman because they're too diffident. After a moment's pause, he then amended to note that it wasn't that he was sexist -- he wouldn't hire an Asian-American man, either) I don't see a huge reason why we'd want to bring you in, ever again, for another position.

    (Anti-poaching agreements, though, are just evil)

  4. Dice could fix it by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since we have DICE in this discussion, why don't you fix it? If DICE is our friend and helping us to get a job, you could very easily change the rules to make this more worker friendly. There are only really 2 job sites, Monster and DICE. Why doesn't DICE get together with Monster and agree on some changes.

    #1. require salary info in the job posting. It's insulting and dishonest to allow employers to not even bother telling us what they're willing to pay until after the interview process.
    #2. require employers to assert that they don't use blacklists and no poaching agreements or risk losing access to your services.

    Alternatively, maybe we the workers should setup our own employment site that does protect us and then refuse to use sites like DICE and Monster. We have the power, it's our laziness that allows them to continue abusing us.