Are you saying the same recruiter that placed the employee is now recruiting the same person again?
If so, that's horrible, unethical, despicable behavior.
Yes, have seen it.
It is mitigated to a small degree by the fact that reputable placement firms guarantee their recruits for a number of months, depending on position, for several months to a year.
Which would be great except that the guarantee only means you will get a replacement person at no extra cost. Which also means they are not super-motivated here.
To be honest, the times I have seen it has been when a recruiter at a firm changes jobs themselves and then goes on Rolodex redial mode. That is harder to spot and you have no one to threaten.
The best defense is keep your employees fairly compensated. No one wants to go thru the hassle of getting a new job just to make a recruiter $20,000. Unless a super oppurtunity comes out of the blue, the well compensated employee is going to stay put.
As an employer, I would mind that behaviour.
As a job-seeker, I would like to hear of new opportunities. If I am happy with my work place I will decline the offer. If I think there are better opportunities I will take them (this can of course back fire, job-hopping every 6 months is not good, but each one should make his decisions).
Gone are the days that a work place was loyal to the employees, during the financial crisis I heard of companies that fired emplyees just to hire new ones for the same position but at a lower pay. Why should the employee decline to get better opportunities.
1. It is obviously unethical on behalf of the recruiter. The company social media reviews alone would damage their cedibility and word has a way of spreading.
2. Employers who demonstrate unscrupulous behavior also get bad reptuations. There are some stories in this forum just this month that can demonstrate that quite well. Eventually your chickens do come home to roost.
3. This is why we have employment contracts for employees.
It important to have a clause in your contract that prevents the recruiter from poaching your all of your employees. It usually has a time limit of 2-3 years. I shared an office with a recruiter for several years, and he told me any good recruiting company would have that in their contract, and always tell their clients about it.
He said it was easier to find the candidate to place into a position than is was to find an employer willing to pay the fee, so they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Curious how companies in this industry recruit people?
This unfortunately is not unusual. Recruiters, like all professions, have people who are very near sighted and only live for today. True professional recruiters, like professional sales people, look at the long term big picture. My daughter was a very successful recruiter and shared with me certain companies that she would not seek placements for, because she wanted to recruit out of that company. She work for one of the largest firms in the country until one of her client companies hired her as a senior executive for their firm to do inhouse recruiting.
All, good afternoon. I'm the Region VP of Sales for Securitas in the "South" region, but for full transparency, I'm a former Exec Recruiter (i.e. "Headhunter"). There have been multiple outstanding points brought up in this conversation. My stance is that there are far too many Headhunters willing to trade their integrity for income. Trust me, there is one truth in the recruiting world that comes back over and over: Karma is a b*tch. Individuals that involve themselves in this behavior almost always get exposed over the longer term. If they were truly exceptional and have switched from one firm to another, the 'Client' in this case would have maintained loyalty with them as the person representing opportunities on their behalf in the marketplace. It's a big deal to leave your brand to a Headhunter - tread carefully and realize that they are speaking on your behalf. Here's the flipside, however - in many cases, the Headhunter is left in a transactional scenario competing against several other Recruiters (and internal HR) to fill a position. Because the relationship is so superficial and each party doesn't truly get to understand each other (i.e. through direct access to the Hiring Manager, through a deeper discussion that goes beyond what's solely in the job ad, etc.), these things all too often happen. My advice to Headhunters would be to think longer term and not treat your Candidates or Clients like cattle. My advice to Clients (i.e. Hiring Organizations) would be to slow down and pick a small cadre of Exec Recruiters to represent them and their opportunities. Although cliche, talent is a huge differentiator and can create way more market advantage than systems, policies, etc. Get the right people in the right seats on the right bus and it's surprising what can be accomplished and overcame.
Its worth noting, when trying to understand headhunters that:
Recruiters work for two masters, candidates and companies, and at any moment in time, either one of them is driving the business.
When times are bad and jobs are scarce, companies are more in control. Every opening they let you fill for is just a matter of choosing a reasonable candidate from the many qualified resumes you have access to.
When times are good and talent is hard to find, the tail wags the dog, and each qualified candidate looking for a position is golden. The question is not if but where can I place my asset to get the maximum return. Open positions are a dime a dozen.
Also, as far as a 3-year non-poaching agreement that goes beyond just replacement cost, in my experience, in CA and NY, such agreements are difficult to enforce because they can be viewed as limiting the employees right to seek a better job.
if you take a job you thought was good, but then turned out to be crap, you might naturally complain to your recruiter, and ask what else is around.
For the recruiter to say I can't talk to you about that is unfair to the employee. Lots of gray areas here.
Stay away from SS&C out of California. They do this consistently.
It is not a fair deal and it is not a fair recruiter either.
I know something about this topic as my wife is a top-notch IT recruiter hunting for Skype, Avast etc.. The comon practise (as it should be agreed in the contract) is not to hunt people from their clients. Even if that is not in written form, it should be a morale of that recruiter to respect the client and their needs.
The recruiter is in the business deal with the client and was hired to help with the hiring and building a strong team for the company. Once he/she starts to hunt from the client, he/she is definitely breaking the deal as well as the business morale. So there are no excuses for such behavior.
You should get rid of that recruiter, ask for the fine (which should be also part af the agreement - if is not, the recruiter should give you back the fee) and name him/her publicly if he/she doesn't give money back.
My wife usually signs agreements, where she guarantees $20,000+ to pay to the client if she hunts anyone from the company she hires for. She signs such agreement with no doubts or hesitation as she or her team would never do such thing. And even if this is not part of the agreement, she logically doesn't do that. It is like selling someone a piece of art, getting paid for it and than stealing it and selling it again.
IPVMU Certified | 08/26/15 10:17am
Hollywood casting agents are really recruiters in disguise.
Maybe the best compensated too?
(I had some other point that I've forgotten.)
Most reputable recruiters/head hunters offer a 6 months or a new candidate/money back type deal.
Anyone hiring in this day and age and NOT insisting on this... Well they need to look at their HR policy.
I am not so certain I would blame the recruiter solely, though it is certainly unscrupulous. If it is that easy to poach an employee, there are clearly underlying issues within the firm -- toxic culture, pay that is not competitive, low morale, etc. I have noticed that, in the course of being recruited, the hiring company always wants to negotiate down the rate. Perhaps that is just good business, but if you are not willing to pay the rate someone else always will for the right person and it may end up being within the range where the recruiter has gotten paid. If those new recruits can be kept around by a good corporate culture, a reasonable workload for the pay, or other positive employee relation methods then poaching should not be an issue.
I discovered after hiring an employee on my team last year that the recruiting firm that found him invoiced us right after his start date.
At a previous employer, they only paid the recruiter after the employee had been with them for 6 months. In talking to some other colleagues that are recruiters, they said some of their bigger clients pay 25% on date of hire, 25% at 6 months, and the balance at 12 months. This is to prevent the recruiter from poaching employees they just helped place.
It would behoove employers in this industry to demand similar requirements of recruiters in this market.
Just heard from a colleague who had two new hires jump within a couple months, allegedly with the encouragement of the recruiter from the recruiting firm that found them. They have another 5 or so with less than 6 months, so there was concern.
So, get this, instead of flipping out on the recruiting firm, he hires their recruiter as staff!
Then they flip out! "It's a violation of our trust...", etc.
Now he doesn't have to worry so much about the other employees or the next batch in. Then, knowing him, he'll fire the recruiter.
Cause that's how he plays.
I know of at least one integrator who lost a key member of their staff to a recruiting firm. This key person, in turn, reached out to every member of the tech staff and several sub-contractors.