I want my money back...

An article published in The Times (Online) caught my interest this morning. James, who gave up his home to his ex-wife in a divorce settlement, found out a year later that the daughter he had lavished with love - and maintenance, school fees etc - for seventeen years was not his child. He suspected and accused his wife of having an affair three years into the marriage, which she denied, and at the end of the year their daughter was born. By the time she was ten or eleven, James says that he had doubts about her paternity - but he didn't do anything about it. His wife and he were seperated, although not divorced, by this time. A few years later, he felt he finally had to find out for sure, and had the test done without telling his daughter first. Devastated, and feeling betrayed, James has informed his daughter of the result - and he is taking his wife to court to get back his share in the family home, which he chose to relinquish as part of the divorce settlement. So, effectively, he wants a refund on his daughter, as she is not his and he was been tricked into believing she was (although his ex-wife claims she had no idea he wasn't the father either). One has to wonder if it will be worth his while - not only has he deeply hurt his daughter, he also has a court case costing an estimated £250,000 looming over him - but he claims it's the principle of the matter.

This made me think about refunds, and rebates in recruitment. There is a train of thought here - we're basically dealing with human capital. Most recruitment firms have some sort of rebate period to ensure that, should a candidate not work out, the client has some sort of financial safety net. Rebate periods are usually calculated on a sliding scale, with the average being three months - although some can be for as long as a year. I wonder though, at what point could the issue of a candidate leaving (whether by their own choice, or having to be dismissed) be unclear about which side should bear the costs? It is the job of the recruitment company to nuture the best candidates, rather like James nurtured his daughter, so yes - they should be 1000% sure that the person who moves into a role is suitable, reliable and capable for the job, and if they fail to do so, then the rebate is fairly claimed by the client. On the other hand, with the average company undertaking three interview stages before hiring, the client often has an adequate and lengthy period of time to make the best decision of whom to employ.

James says he was suspicious of his daughter's biological parentage well before he and his wife divorced - so why not have the test done and confirmed before signing over his share of the house to his wife on the premise that his daughter needed to remain secure in her home? Rather like an employer who has doubts at interview stage but chooses to hire anyway, James perhaps should have done a bit more research, and trusted his own judgement before making a costly mistake. So, say, if a company requests a business analyst with excellent SPSS skills for £42k, and the recruiter finds them someone whom they interview and subsequently employ, whose fault is it should they fail to match expectations? The candidate is the only one involved in the process that has nothing to lose if they underperform or simply change their mind about the job. I suppose it's much like a warranty on an electrical item - if you buy a new kettle, which six months later stops working, then John Lewis or whoever will replace it or refund your money. John Lewis genuinely thought it would work when they sold it to you, but it wasn't up to the job after all. In a recruitment sense, this could apply to a candidate - not knowingly mis-sold, but not up to doing the job that they were bought for.

For James, his case revolves around his being deliberately "mis-sold" his daughter. In the recruiter/client relationship, we may have to deal with rebates, disappointments and mistakes - but at least we miss out on the heartache and massive financial cost to both James and his daughter.

Police recruitment cops out...

And you thought it was tough applying for jobs in your industry! According to BBC News, North Yorkshire Police's recruitment phone lines crashed on Monday, after receiving 20,000 calls during the first day of their recruitment campaign. Following a new number being issued, they have since taken over 200,000 calls from interested parties. And the number of vacancies available? 60. Last month, Lincolnshire Police had to close its recruitment drive after running out of application forms - 1000 were requested in the first 2 hours of a campaign expected to last a week. Their number of available jobs? 60. Seeing a pattern here?

Public sector jobs have become more and more difficult to get into, the most notorious being the police force. It can take years from the initial application to be offered a position. It seems amazing to me that there is such demand for police work, especially in these times when we hear so much about poor police relations, sexual and racial discrimination cases within the force, and the worsening risks of attacks on policemen and women in the rougher areas of society. But it's a good thing that people DO want to keep applying - after all, someone's got to look after the rest of us! And, police work does offer a stable salary, the chance of some overtime, and a great pension. Plus a uniform.

With this immense demand for a place with Britain's finest boys and girls in blue, how ironic then that many forces are implementing recruitment freezes - meaning that applicants who have already passed through the recruitment process successfully are now put on a waiting list for the next available job. West Midlands Police have 240 officer applicants currently in this position, with another 500 waiting to be assessed. In Gloucestershire, almost 100 successful candidates have now been told that their job offers will be put on hold until 2011. And the Met have 2000 applicants hanging around in the system waiting for a job offer and start date. Apparently, recruitment drives have been more successful than anticipated, and less officers left the force last year, leaving fewer vacancies. Greater Manchester Police have announced a complete recruitment freeze from April, as have other forces. Avon and Somerset Police, though, are still advertising available vacancies and it is possible that candidates put on deferral from other forces may apply to them instead.

All down to economics, unsurprisingly. Retention of staff is higher as people haven't been prepared to leave their roles in times of such economic instability. And of course the government are all about cost-cutting wherever they can - all 43 police forces in England and Wales are expected to find combined savings of £545m by 2014. So we need more police, and more people want to join the police, but nobody wants to pay for it. And seriously, who in their right minds would be happy to apply for a job, undertake a rigorous recruitment procedure, be offered the job and accept it and THEN be told that they will have to wait 12-18 months for the position to be available? Because that's what the police force are doing. It's like winning The Apprentice only to be told to sod off back to your crappy old job (or your unfulfilling million pound turnover business if some of the previous candidates are to be believed)and wait a year before Siralan will take you on. Although, personally, I think I'd prefer a 12 month cooling down period to give me time to think of an excuse not to bother turning up in the end.

So, the moral of the tale is this - if you need a job this year, forget the force and look around for acceptable alternatives. Perhaps consider applying for The Apprentice... After all, it's a solid 12 month contract, by which time your police application might even have been looked at.

That, or move to Bristol...

Apparently almost half of UK employees are looking to move on in 2010...

According to an article in Recruiter Magazine, nearly 50% of people in the UK are planning to change jobs next year. 42% will be actively seeking a new role, and 22% are already feeling more confident about their prospects in 2010. Whether these figures encompass the same jobseekers (e.g. do some of the active jobseekers also feel they have the mojo when it comes to finding a new role), is not clear - although I suspect that these figures must cross somewhere... it seems to follow that to seek a new role one must be feeling pretty confident about one's prospects, and that to feel confident about moving on would be a major reason for actually looking at new opportunities. Any statisticians out there might be able to make more sense of these figures, but from a recruiter's point of view, the most important point seems to be the percentage of people out there who are eager and willing to consider a change of job in the coming year.

As for industry figures, Recruiter reports that there are high levels of workers in both financial and banking services (63%) and sales, marketing and media (61%), who will be seriously considering a sideways, onwards or upwards move in 2010. As a consultancy who deal mainly with sales and marketing roles, this news is very positive for us, especially following what has been a rather candidate-dry last few quarters!

However, I shall be exercising a modicum of reserve before getting too excited. On the face of it, the figures are very encouraging, and would point to an upturn in recruitment opportunities for both clients and candidates as well as recruiters themselves. But - and it's a big but - figures can be misleading, especially in this industry. People are likely to say, when asked, that they would consider moving on, or are going to be actively seeking new roles. However, this doesn't always mean they are. If asked, of course most of us would agree that, should a really tempting opportunity present itself, then we would consider it. This doesn't mean that a) it will or b) we really will. How many candidates have we all spoken to who have posted their CV on every job board going, apply for every job that appeals for them, enthuse with us over the phone and assure us they are interested in interviewing for their dream role... only to withdraw prior to interview or even offer, because they don't really feel ready to move on, and were reacting to a bad week at work, or a row with their boss, rather than seriously job hunting? How many of those who claim to be feeling more positive about their prospects will actually be looking for new roles - as opposed to sitting on the fence waiting to see how things go in their current job, before tentatively having a look around for something that might be better? This will only be something that becomes clear when us recruiters start to speak to candidates, and get a proper feel for the real intentions and aspirations of the 42% of those who say they are ready to move on. Hopeful, it is - realistically translating into business and placements? Only time will tell.

Read the original article here: http://www.recruiter.co.uk/nearly-half-plan-to-move-jobs-in-2010/1003739.article

Rachel Lawrence