"Not qualified" for job at former office?

May 17, 2018 11:06 AM

Last year I worked a long-term temp job for an academic journal. The position lasted the better part of the year and I left with a good relationship with my department. My former supervisor volunteered to be my reference on all jobs going forward, and has given me good recommendations for places where I've applied. The temp agency who placed me there posted a position on LinkedIn for which I'm qualified -- many of the responsibilities overlapped with what I was doing, but has a stronger editorial bent. When I contacted my recruiter about being submitted for the job, she said that because I "already worked there" I "wouldn't be eligible for the position".

This doesn't make sense; this agency has placed me at similar jobs in the past, and because I previously worked for this journal I have a more extensive knowledge about formatting and house style. I pushed back on this a bit (and mentioned that I would be a stronger candidate for these reasons). She's looking into it, but in the meantime: Would it be acceptable for me to reach out to my contact in HR at the journal to find out what's happening with the position? (I assisted with some training and onboarding prep and had to speak with HR a few times during my time there.) I don't want to ruin my relationship with this agency by going behind their back, but I also want to return to this journal.

posted by pxe2000 to Work & Money (25 answers total)

No real information or experience in this, but I would guess that the agency's attitude is based on their fee arrangement with the employer.
posted by uncaken at 11:18 AM on May 17, 2018 [8 favorites]

Response by poster: What do you mean? That because I'd be returning, I would be expecting more money?
posted by pxe2000 at 11:21 AM on May 17, 2018

I'm not sure about the temp agency's reason for not putting you forward for the job. Maybe the reason entered into the system for why you left wasn't correct. For example, they entered "terminated" when it should've been "assignment closed" or something.

But as for contacting HR, you have probably signed an agreement with the temp agency saying you won't go straight to the agency to take a job (for at least X amount of time since you last worked there).
posted by dawkins_7 at 11:21 AM on May 17, 2018 [1 favorite]

Also, did they say "not qualified" or "not eligible"? Those are two different things. Staffing agencies have all kinds of agreements with their client (the academic journal) and that might prevent them from sending you for this job.
posted by dawkins_7 at 11:23 AM on May 17, 2018 [6 favorites]

Response by poster: It's especially strange, since they had to get a letter of recommendation from my former supervisor at the journal for two of the long-term temp positions where they tried to place me. They know I have a good record with the journal.

I re-checked the email and my recruiter said "not eligible".
posted by pxe2000 at 11:25 AM on May 17, 2018

What dawkins said. Don't confuse "not eligible" with "not qualified".
posted by Winnie the Proust at 11:26 AM on May 17, 2018 [8 favorites]

Best answer: Temp agencies often have agreements with employers to the effect of "You cannot hire this person outright until they've worked six month's worth of hours." If you go back to the same place, the clock probably resumes. The temp agency probably would rather you start over somewhere else, resetting the clock.
posted by General Malaise at 11:28 AM on May 17, 2018 [11 favorites]

Best answer: At the university where I used to work there were specific rules about how long and how often a temp could work within a given department, governed by the clerical union's contract with the university. So, for example, an office temp couldn't work in a single department for more than 90 days, and once they had worked 90 days in a department they couldn't come back to that department for 6 months. The point of those rules were to keep the university from undermining the union by filling all of their clerical roles with perma-temps who were lower paid and had little or no benefits.

As a temp it sort of sucked, but once I was hired into a full-time position I was really glad that those rules existed, because my role probably wouldn't have existed (or wouldn't have paid nearly as well) if the university could have filled it with an endless stream of $14/hour temps.
posted by firechicago at 11:29 AM on May 17, 2018 [26 favorites]

Oh, incidentally the university I used to work for is one of several within a couple miles of the location in your profile, so it's distinctly possible that it's the same one that you're currently dealing with.
posted by firechicago at 11:37 AM on May 17, 2018

My guess is it's something like your recruiter wouldn't get their finder's fee as they haven't found a candidate previously unknown to the employer.
posted by kapers at 11:40 AM on May 17, 2018 [4 favorites]

Best answer: Temp agencies often have rules in place designed to keep employers from hiring employees found via their service outright. Oftentimes, the employer is paying double or more what you'e paid, so hiring you outright would 1) be cheaper for the employer, and 2) lose money for the temp agency. Read your contract or other documentation from the temp agency - they may have rules stated there to this effect. A common one prevents employers from hiring a temp directly if the temp has temped there via the agency within the past X months (often a year). Stinks.
posted by pammeke at 11:40 AM on May 17, 2018 [3 favorites]

Best answer: It's not unusual for temp agencies to have a "no return" policy similar to the policy described by firechicago, by which I mean you can only be placed with the same employer once within X number of months. The agency I worked for would only let you work a maximum of year with a given employer, and would not place you with that employer again until an additional year had lapsed. (The agency I worked for often aimed to have their temps hired permanently by the employer after 3 to 6 months, so the upper cap of a year was relatively rare to hit.) Your agency likely has a similar policy.
posted by Fish Sauce at 11:42 AM on May 17, 2018 [2 favorites]

Response by poster: I got off the phone with my recruiter. Apparently the journal requested me, they wanted to place me there, and this policy prevented them from placing me there. Everyone's annoyed, but there's nothing we can do.
posted by pxe2000 at 12:37 PM on May 17, 2018 [7 favorites]

I came to say the same thing that firechicago said--My employer (a college that does sometimes use contractors and temporary employees) has limits on how long an individual is allowed to work as a temporary employee before they/their position either has to end or be made permanent. You have probably exceeded the academic journal's temporary employee time limit.

That said, especially because you had a good experience working at the journal before, I wouldn't hesitate to reach out to your former supervisor or HR at the journal to ask about the position. Depending on their rules and the temp agency's rules, they might have options.
posted by mjcon at 12:37 PM on May 17, 2018

I used to work for a temp agency and a number of times was hired by the place I was working, above-board. The employer who hired me was willing to pay the fee to break the rule. See if there's a fee and if they're willing to pay it.
posted by Peach at 12:54 PM on May 17, 2018 [7 favorites]

Best answer: This is ultimately about money. Someone needs to be paid (a fee or otherwise) so that this rule can be respected, but overcome. You just need to find out who needs to be paid what by whom.
posted by AugustWest at 1:49 PM on May 17, 2018 [8 favorites]

Response by poster: Would it be worth connecting with the person I know in HR? I have a good relationship with this agency and don't want to burn the bridge.
posted by pxe2000 at 1:51 PM on May 17, 2018

There is always a way to fix this (speaking as someone who's done many years both of agency recruiter and in-house recruiter work.) It's just a question of negotiating a fee. The agency would probably like to get paid for a whole new candidate, rather than sending you, who (if converted) would convert for much less than a new person, because the employer has already paid for several months of temp work.
posted by fingersandtoes at 1:53 PM on May 17, 2018 [1 favorite]

I'd call your HR contact and see what's up. No need to be shifty, but the "rule" as explained to you makes no (aboveboard) sense. If the HR person wants you, they can work something out with the agency.
posted by fingersandtoes at 1:55 PM on May 17, 2018 [3 favorites]

Best answer: I would absolutely contact the person you know in HR. Express in very clear terms that you are interested in this job and are ready to step into the role today because of your temp experience. Tell them what you're being told by your temp agency. Say something like, "I'm sure you have an agreement in place with the agency but I don't know any of the terms. Are you able to speak with them and determine what steps can be taken so you can fill this role?"
posted by phunniemee at 2:09 PM on May 17, 2018 [16 favorites]

If it's a union rule at the employer, rather than a rule from the employment agency, it may not be something that can be gotten around, so do keep in mind that the answer may still end up being "no" without anyone actively acting badly.
posted by lazuli at 3:25 PM on May 17, 2018

I was in a similar position. The job hired me and paid the fee, but their relationship (and mine) with the recruiting agency was toast.

However, (much later) I used to work for a recruiting firm and they would have been fine with negotiating a fee, so mileage can vary. I don't think it hurts to talk to your HR contact, just to see if they have any sense of this.
posted by sm1tten at 4:46 PM on May 17, 2018 [2 favorites]

I'd contact the HR contact directly. Temp agencies do want to get a fee and generally there is a "placement fee" that the journal would have to pay. It's essentially a kill fee since the temp agency is no longer getting their slice. But it's negotiable. Perhaps the journal would be willing to hire you if you were willing to come on board for a little less for the first year, so as to a) lower the fee (it's usually a % of first year salary) and b) lower their cost since they're paying the fee.

The temp agency should NOT feel bad about this; it's part of their business model, or should be. Temp-to-perm is a common route.

If you go this route, have a STRONG understanding in place about getting a raise after 6 months to a year, and it's a big compromise, since it amounts to you eating a lot of the fee. Ideally if they like you well enough they should be willing to suck it up and pay the fee, but they may be budget constrained.

Another alternative: since you're coming off a strong recommendation from the journal, get that recommendation in writing and find another gig for yourself with that recommendation in hand. Get out from under the serfdom that is working for a temp agency.
posted by randomkeystrike at 6:28 PM on May 17, 2018

It has to do with an agreement between the agency and employer. What that agreement is is anyones guess.

I worked for a national temp agency as a CSR, long, long ago. I never felt so dirty in my life. It took years to get the stench off me(not really). I used to go home at night and cry over what was going on. I could list some of their sins, but I don't want to think about it!!

It would be a good idea to steer clear of temp agencies in the future.
posted by james33 at 6:02 AM on May 18, 2018

Just popping back in to say, if this position is at the university that I'm thinking of (begins with H and rhymes with "barvard") this is probably a pretty iron-clad rule, and is unlikely to be breakable short of massive negotiations involving union reps and deans.
posted by firechicago at 7:04 AM on May 18, 2018 [1 favorite]