The purpose of the UK Recruiter discussion board
is to give recruiters the opportunity to discuss issues relating to their jobs
and the recruitment industry in the UK.
Whilst providers of goods and services to the
industry are welcome to partake in the discussions they should not use this
forum for advertising.
Please read and adhere to the board's guidelines which you will see when you click to "start new topic"
|
Home > Forum > UK Recruiter Discussion Board > Message |
|
|
|
| Start New Topic | Message Index | Threaded View |
|
| creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Transform Recruitment |
| Date: | Friday, 18th Jul 2008 21:24 |
| Views: | 2,370 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
If I may share our journey wrt. Conduct Regulations and end up with a call to arms !
When the Conduct Regs first came out in 2003 we were just one year old and frankly had other things to worry about (like getting some sustainable business going), however I remember reviewing them and being sh*t scared, as to the admin consequences, but there was a glimmer of recognition that if they could be applied across the board and then they could do away with a lot of the bad practice we see in the industry.
I got into them again in more detail about 3 years ago, as we were doing contracts, and wanted to understand how we could make the limited company opt-out work in our favour. I must admit we glossed over the stuff about checking workseeker's identity, justifying it to myself with the thought, "well, we're talking to them on the phone and verifying if the info on the CV stands up to a rigorous probing chat - surely that satisfies the need to confirm identity".
Fast forward a few years to Jan this year - I'd been back in the office one day from my skiing holiday when the phone rings and its the local Employment Agency inspectors to say they were making an appointment for a routine inspection. Talk about setting the cat among the pigeons! I managed to stall them for a couple of weeks and spent fourteen days poring over the regs and interpretations, trying to create processes where none existed, and "retrospectively" chase passport scans for recent placements etc.
Theres nothing like a bit of pressure to get one performing and I have to say by the end of the period we knew those regs off like a child learning the lord's prayer at school. The inspector came, and we managed to steer him in the direction of recent placements where we could demonstrate end-to-end compliance, and when he heard me genuinely shout over to a colleague "Stuart, which folder is the Reg18 stuff in?" his jaw dropped, as plainly he'd never experienced that level of interest b4. In summing up he remarked that if recruitment ever didn't work out for me to give him a bell as they were looking for another inspector (as if !.. but it was a nice compliment, and one that I have rehearsed many times with clients, as a demonstration of our committment to standards - if only he'd realised the gift he'd given me !!)
After taking on all the regs we did notice a big slowdown in our ability to get CV's out the door, and when a few weeks later we got a letter of compliance from the department, we started monitoring what our competitors were up to. This is easily done - just ask the candidates what other roles are you forward for, who is the agency, did they ask you to scan in your passport like I just did, did they agree terms, did they give you the company name, etc. etc.
Big shock = very little compliance, even among REC members (we are too) who we felt should know better. The inspector had invited us to pass info on to him about who was breaching, and as our turnover was being compromised by all the extra admin, chasing for ID, etc. we decided to do just that as we felt it wasn't fair that we should be penalised for doing the right thing, and we needed to level the playing field and drive to get everyone compliant
A coupla months on and we must have logged 50 seperate incidences of out of compliance. The key ones seem to be
- ID not confirmed before introduction
- terms of business not done with candidates (sorry "workseekers" !)
- incomplete/none information on the client/job given to workseeker at introduction stage
I sent the first 40 or so away in 2x seperate letters of complaint, and while the inspectorate are not allowed to say who or what or when they're doing in response to any complaint, I was able to glean by probing questions and asking innocents (you pick these skills up after 9yrs in rec.!) that all companies name-checked had been inspected.
Lordy, there would have been high pulses and sweaty armpits in many a local agency on my account over these last few months!
We still have a job to do, as several of the agencies haven't paid much heed to the first inspection, apparently. So there are 20 or so further complaints to be put into letters, and we are gathering more all the time. I have the team superbly primed to get the info out of candidates and they feed me little emails titled "compliance issue" several times a week. When someone is ending a resourcing call and they've forgotten to probe I shout over "get the dirt! feed me the dirt!" and sometimes we get lucky.
We've even got some of our clients in on this - tend to be the fussier, more process driven ones. We had a showdown over candidate ownwership - we came in a few hours behind some other crowd, but because they hadn't been compliant with the regs (no terms agreed, no ID taken, incomplete job description) the client awarded us the ownership !
in the end it didn't lead to a placement, but it shows that clients are there to be educated, and some of them can even come down on the side of quality
....so I invite any owners, directors, managers out there who are committed to their profession, and maintaining standards to give up whining about the cowboys and lets TAKE THEM ON!
Lets put the fear of G*D into them by going through the proper channels and tipping off the department every time we find a breach. |
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Transform Recruitment |
| Date: | Monday, 21st Jul 2008 10:33 |
| Views: | 104 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
UPDATE: I got my senior recruiter to check over this and he reminded me that we DID actually make the placement from the disputed ownership situtation I mentioned above (where we threatened to go to the department and the client if the other agency didn't withdraw).
SO IT CAN WORK !!
I'd love to hear feedback from other agents who are up for standards, and can identify with our story to any degree, even if you don't know if you are fully compliant with the Regs, but know that there are others who are making absolutely NO EFFORT, and especially if your business is being compromised by the activities of the rogue agencies.
We can offer our experience and letter templates, share how we've played situations, point you in the right direction etc. (although my original post is long, there is much more detail we can share).
My hope is that we can create a movement to clean up our industry and bring rogue agencies bang to rights.
By the way, we hoping to try the same tactic again today - we've identified a candidate for one of our major clients, but a competitor put them fwd a few weeks ago without checking ID or agreeing terms. Fingers crossed and wish me luck :-)
|
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | CREC |
| Date: | Monday, 21st Jul 2008 11:40 |
| Views: | 96 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
My main question is what power do the inspectorate actually have? Even if someone does not comply to their standards, what can they actually do? Send a stiff letter? or do they have the power to impose fines or shut people down.
Its all very well having a industry watchdog but unless they are backed with real powers, most recruiters will just ignore them. |
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Transform Recruitment |
| Date: | Monday, 21st Jul 2008 12:04 |
| Views: | 104 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
They have powers of entry and inspection.
For a minor breach you will get a ticking off and two weeks, or an appropriate period, to set it right, before a follow up inspection.
For major breaches, or repeat breaches, they can move to a fine, or in extreme situations they can go to tribunal and have a director / owner / employee barred from being involved in the running or employ of an agency for up to 10 years.
So they have teeth!
ITS WORTH DOING....
|
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Transform Recruitment |
| Date: | Wednesday, 3rd Dec 2008 13:38 |
| Views: | 78 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
Hi Josie,
Your reply to my post has not appeared on the site (see below) - so I'm wondering if you'd be kind enough to forward it directly.
Not sure why it hasnt' appeared - possible reasons could include:
(1)
use of expletives in your post :-)
(hopefully not)
(2)
because its a controversial subject, maybe the site webmaster has censored, or wants time to review your post
- I certainly noticed it took them 24 hours to put my original post up, yet when I made a one line throwaway comment (totally uncontroversial) to someone elses post, it came up in minutes
(3)
none of the above and just a technical delay
in any case, pls forward !
cheers,
TR
|
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Tom Atkinson |
| Date: | Wednesday, 3rd Dec 2008 14:55 |
| Views: | 81 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
Hi Transform,
Glad to hear that things are going so well for you and that you are doing your best to be compliant. However, I just illustrate that with the best intent things can go wrong and also why some might cynically ignore the regs.
You have studied the Conduct Regs so it might be worth noting that they didn't in fact come out in 2003 as you suggest but in 2004. They are the 2003 regs but they didn't apply until 2004.
Secondly, Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses were expected to abide by them. However, our Government bodies have ignored them where they have choosen to.
For example. Customs and Excise (was then - but is now HMRC) did not like what the DTI (was then - but now BERR) put in regulation 8 re VAT, so they immediately wrote their own Business Brief 10/04 saying they weren't going to enforce it.
Now I am not suggesting that anyone should ignore lawful regulation. However, if Government bodies can be seen to ignore regulations they don't like, then it is perhaps not surprising others will too. Tom. |
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Transform Recruitment |
| Date: | Thursday, 4th Dec 2008 23:06 |
| Views: | 92 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
>> For example. Customs and Excise (was then - but is now HMRC) did not like what the DTI (was then - but now BERR) put in regulation 8 re VAT, so they immediately wrote their own Business Brief 10/04 saying they weren't going to enforce it.
I don't get it - regulation 8 doesn't say anything about VAT. Also, it applies only to employment AGENCIES, and surely all your clients are employment BUSINESSES ?
text of reg 8:
Restriction on paying work-seekers’ remuneration
8.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an agency shall not, in respect of a work-seeker whom
the agency has introduced or supplied to a hirer –
(a) pay to;
(b) make arrangements for the payment to; or
(c) introduce or refer the hirer to any person with whom the agency is connected with a
view to that person paying to, or making arrangements for the payment to,
the work-seeker, his remuneration arising from the employment with the hirer.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case of an introduction or supply of a work-seeker
to a hirer where –
(a) (i) the agency is permitted by regulation 26(1) to charge a fee to that work-seeker in
respect of that introduction or supply; and
(ii) the agency complies with the provisions of regulation 25 and Schedule 2; or
(b) the hirer and the agency are connected. |
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Tom Atkinson |
| Date: | Friday, 5th Dec 2008 16:53 |
| Views: | 85 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
Hi Transform,
You are exactly right. 8 does apply to agencies. In essence it says that they cannot supply and pay temps (thereby making them a business) and charge VAT on only the margin above cost of wages as "agencies" had historically done. Businesses were already obliged to charge VAT on the whole invoice (except in health care when acting as Principal).
Government bodies jump all over the spirit of the legislation too. See below:-
The Recruitment Employment Confederation (REC) has launched a campaign to scrap a clause in NHS framework agreements and local authority contracts which allow clients to “poach” temporary staff from agency books after only a four-week notice period.
The specific term essentially enables the client to take the temporary worker on to their own books (either as a temp or a permanent employee) with only a four-week notice period being given to the agency.
Commenting on the need for such terms to be amended or scrapped altogether, REC director of external relations Tom Hadley says: “There is always pressure on public bodies to cut costs and manage their risk but all procurement has to be about finding the right balance. The extended hire term is unacceptable both in practice and in principle and lays the door open to what amounts to asset stripping of the core offering that recruitment agencies have, namely the workers on their books. Agencies cannot provide a free recruitment service and the need for temp to temp and temp to perm fees is enshrined in the Conduct Regulations.”
If my memory is correct, the NHS is trampling over reg 13. Not illegal but certainly not in the spirit of the regs. Tom.
|
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Transform Recruitment |
| Date: | Monday, 8th Dec 2008 17:21 |
| Views: | 71 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
Hi all,
Lets get this back on topic -
Rather than hearing from suppliers to the recruitment industry,
I'm keen to hear from recruitment companies like ourselves(employment agencies and businesses in the everyday understanding of the term, as opposed to DTI's anything goes definition) about this proposal.
How come there has been such deathly silence ?
Is there no-one out there paying any attention to these regs ?
Or are the "good guys" too busy fending off the cowboys to and trying to save their businesses to be reading this forum, or making posts ?
Or are we all being too British about it, "stiff upper lip" etc. and tolerating this because no-one wants to point the finger ?
Or are we worried about someone looking over our own shoulder if we raise our heads too far above the parapet ?
("people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" etc.)
Are we getting what we deserve as an industry, for being disorganised, selfish, seperate and alone, and lacking vision ?
answers on a postcard
- Please keep it ON TOPIC :-)
TR |
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Liz |
| Date: | Monday, 8th Dec 2008 17:42 |
| Views: | 79 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
I would say that the lack of response is because this thread seems so intense and complex frankly! Some of the posts are practically essays and I have too many much more interesting things to do than read about regulations.
Yes most consultants are busy doing their jobs. If something comes up that threatens what they do they'll listen. However, most of this just goes right over my head. |
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Tom Atkinson |
| Date: | Tuesday, 9th Dec 2008 15:43 |
| Views: | 78 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
Hi Transform,
The opening sentence of this thread was yours. I quote:-
"If I may share our journey wrt. Conduct Regulations and end up with a call to arms !". I then read the rest.
I apologise that I thought the topic was the Conduct Regulations. I re read. If it isn't, I must be losing my comprehension powers.
I also apologise that as mere supplier to the recruitment industry, I was deluded enough to think that having investigated the Conduct Regs on behalf of many agencies and advised many agencies on the effect of the Conduct Regs on their businesses when they came into being, (the results of which many agencies still use today) my comments might be helpful to the debate.
Liz hit a nail on the head. Such things can be complex. That is why some agencies seek help in ensuring that they don't fall foul of inspections re the Conduct Regs and other regulations. Others, like you, seem perfectly capable of acting when you need to. Yet others will bury their heads in the sand unless or until their bums are bitten.
My main thrust was that public bodies found ways to ignore and get round the Regs or ignore the spirit of them when it suited. Therefore, we should not be surprised if some recruiters do the same.
I did not pass explicit opinion on your proposals but I do now.
Overt cheating is one thing but recruitment has a mass of regulations, some of them overlapping and I believe you would be wrong to shop agencies who fail to do all the complex things that are expected of them. Firstly, sorting that out is the job of the inspectorate. Secondly, some are simply following the example of government bodies. There is a third one. I call it the failed brake light syndrome. It would be possible for a Policemen to find a fault on a car which broke the law that the driver was genuinly unaware of. I know that ignorance is no excuse but I have yet to find the agency that, when inspected, has been compliant in every complex area. I do not say this is right but if you report others and create enemies, you might just find yourself the subject of investigation and even though you might think that you have everything done correctly, you could suffer the brake light syndrome.
Even experts at starting wars, like Tony Blair, don't always get the results they expect or want.
For all the reasons above I would suggest caution in response to your "call to arms". Tom. |
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Tom Atkinson |
| Date: | Monday, 5th Jan 2009 12:54 |
| Views: | 62 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
Hi All,
Today's news seem to find a sensible perspective:-
Jan 5, 2009
The REC has welcomed today's annual report from the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate
REC pledges continued commitment to rooting out rogue agencies
The REC has welcomed today's annual report from the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, which underlines the Government's commitment to effective enforcement of agency regulations. The REC is in regular dialogue with the Department for Business and has consistently campaigned for the activities of rogue labour providers to be addressed.
Responding to the findings of the Annual Report, REC Chief Executive, Kevin Green says: "As the Employment Minister recognised in his statement, the vast majority of agencies are doing the right thing and abiding to the regulations. However, decisive action is needed to address the activities of rogue operators that not only exploit workers but also undercut legitimate agencies. The REC will continue to work constructively with Government on this issue and will accelerate the professionalisation of the industry as a whole through our Code of Professional Practice and industry qualifications".
The REC has its own Enforcement Officers who monitor compliance with the REC's Code of Professional Practice and will be regular contact with the enlarged BERR Inspectorate Team.
Commenting on the opportunities for effective co-operation, REC Head of Professional Standards Fola Tayo says: "Breaches of the regulations or Code can be sometimes be of a technical nature or linked to a lack of awareness rather than real rogue practices. Raising awareness and enhancing the training of staff may be the solutions in these cases but more serious and systematic breaches must be flagged up and dealt with on both an industry and Government level.
“The REC Professional Standards team is committed to working constructively with the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate over the coming year in order to deliver the best possible outcomes for workers and for law-abiding agencies".
|
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Transform Recruitment |
| Date: | Friday, 16th Jan 2009 13:59 |
| Views: | 58 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
Hi Tom,
Sorry, bit of a delayed response, been up to my neck in other stuff.
This news is to be welcomed and seems to signal a tougher stance from the REC.
The REC will certainly have to continue to work hard in this area to justify membership fees in the current economic times.
Upholding standards (or should one say "implementing standards where precious none have previously existed") is for me one of the key areas I look to the REC for, and they will have to up their game in the coming months and years to earn our membership fee in the future.
By the sound of some of the comments on the board I am not alone in this respect.
Standards is one area that we cannot tackle EFFECTIVELY as individuals, therefore we must act as a group, and the one with the most clout is the REC.
BTW can Louise or a moderator get the spam posts removed on this thread removed ?
Also maybe set up some sort of system to stop them going on - e.g. any post with more than 5x URLs in it is liable to be spam and can be blacklisted automatically (should be easy for your website person to implement) ? |
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Nick Way |
| Date: | Tuesday, 20th Jan 2009 09:50 |
| Views: | 37 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
Louise, regarding Transform Recruitment's post above (which is a very good point).
Our web developer can help you with this if you like (no charge to you :) - I would suggest the implementation of a simple "captcha" should do the trick.
Personally I'm not a huge fan of captchas but as long as they're kept simple, I certainly prefer them to spam!
If you'd like us to help with the implementation of this please do just drop me a line when you have a moment and I'll do my best to help out.
Kind regards
Nick Way
allRegionalJobs.com
Chichester Recruitment Advertising | Worthing Recruitment Advertising | Brighton Recruitment Advertising |
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Col |
| Date: | Wednesday, 21st Jan 2009 12:59 |
| Views: | 45 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
I've just read the beginning of this topic. I find it incredible that a company who have managed to escape the full force of legislation by the skin of their teeth for so many years, are so keen - not to educate their peers - but to drag them down with them!
|
|
|
| Re: creating a level playing-field |
| Author: | Ruffski |
| Date: | Friday, 23rd Jan 2009 08:45 |
| Views: | 51 (excluding Digests and RSS feeds) |
| Category: | Standards and Reputation | | URL: | http://web.ukrecruiter.co.uk/forum/Forum/read.php?i=113413 |
|
@ Col,
Perhaps the company, having learned from experience have now corrected their behaviors, systems and procedures and are now acting in a very responsible manner to ensure that they do perform to legislation. From reading the postings on this thread and others, I think that what Transform appear to be doing is admirable and exactly what more businesses in our sector should be doing to ensure that we all commit to working within the legislative and best practice guidelines. I fail to understand how acting responsibly and reporting poor professional behavior is as you say dragging other companies down. People and businesses can change and improve can't they?
Ruffski |
|
|
Please note: The reply form is not showing because the posting is older than six months or the thread is locked. Please start a new topic or contact the forum administrator.
|
| -->
|
|
