Job Discussion Forums

[Mysterious]

I remember someone telling me that getting a direct hire job at KSU would be difficult. Looks like they're changing their ways. I hear on the rumour mill (I say that, but I know it's true of course!) that the university are currently looking to hire more people for direct jobs. And by next year they want to increase that some more...

I like this idea.. it'll be good to see universities get rid of recruitment companies. That middle party has always been a bum and a bit pointless in my eyes. Hoooowever.. direct hire doesn't pay so well! That really is one of the major downfalls for me. I remember looking into other universities (such as King Abdul Aziz in Jeddah) and comparing housing allowance.. 17,000SR a year (direct hire!) compared to the generous 40,000SR a year that ICEAT give you at KSU.

Gulp.

That's a massive difference! With 17,000SR you'll be lucky to find anything (depending on where you want to locate yourself)! With 40,000SR you'll find something amazing and have some pocket money, too!

Hmm... so does this mean big trouble for the recruitment companies? I hope they know what's coming! That goes for EdEx, too. I assume this will affect them too.

[nomad soul]

Mysterious, you need to factor in cost of living. In addition to a one-time furniture allowance, that yearly 17,000 SAR is for unfurnished housing in Jeddah, which has a lower cost of living than Riyadh. In fact, Jeddah ranks among the 10 cheapest cities in the world to live in according to the Economist Intelligence Unit's 2011 annual cost of living survey. (Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-49041998/10-most-expensive-cities-in-the-world/).

Either way, it would be good to see more universities moving toward direct hiring and away from third-party recruiters.

[Mysterious]

Totally see where you're coming from. However.. I've been informed that direct hire at KS is around the 17,000 mark, comparative of Jeddah's offers. I think that's disgraceful! KSU need to get their act together a bit if they want decent teachers. Not many people are going to want to fork out more money to rent (well, I guess it depends on peoples attentions and how much they can afford to do so).

The positives were things like being paid for 60 holiday day leave (that's juicy). And having a good education allowance for kids.

Getting rid of recruiters is a great move. I just fear that this will mean a drop in wages for all colleges and universities that decide to do so. Hm.. question is will they struggle to get teachers and therefore up their wages? I hope so!

[mesenjah]

Considering that direct hire contracts are governmental the packages are pretty low...... normally 10000 Sr base plus 17 000 housing per year... Thats normal.. you cant get jack for that price in Riyadh. Direct hire is the best way to goo but the price for that is a considerable drop in pay... Swings and round abouts come to mind...... Lets watch this space and see what transpires...

[BretHarte]

Have you heard not to count your chickens before they hatch? What you hear, and what laws/regulations are passed, and what actually happens are different things.

[Mysterious]

[BretHarte]

Luckily this isn't a public site that isn't monitored by Saudis. In Allah we trust, all others pay cash.

[JK01]

Thanks for sharing guys/gals.

Does anyone know how much KSU are currently offering for direct hire?

Last year a friend of mine interviewed with them and they were offering a substantially lower salary than the recruitment agent, he has an MA and was a previous Bell employee.

Any ideas?

Thanks

[Mysterious]

[AnneCO]

I'm confused.

Why would better salaries be offered through an agency? It seems as if the middleman is cut out the situation should be cheaper for the employer and possibly better for the employee? What am I missing here.

And I get the part about a salary could be higher and the benefits lower or vice versa.

[johnslat]

Dear AnneCO.

You're not alone - I'm confused by that, too. It seems to be very counter-intuitive.

In fact, you might say it's "Mysterious."

Regards,
John

[nomad soul]

I wonder if the salary and benefits are lower because they're factoring in that extra month of paid time off. In other words, direct hire gives you 60 paid days off and less pay, versus 30 days off and extra riyals in your wallet if working through a recruiter.

[Mysterious]

AnneCo, good question! I'm still trying to work that one out!

Especially the massive difference in housing allowance (40,000 vs 17,000). I can't see why the uni would want to offer such a low allowance considering the renting costs in Riyadh.

And nomad has a very good point!

Though it's still a bit twisted because they're saving so much by not even needing to pay agents, as well...

I used to think the reason for it was because they couldn't be bothered to do the hiring (and the paperwork that comes with it) within the university so would fork out a lot to get agents to do it and give great benefits and salaries so that it could grab people in faster. Direct hiring would mean saving money for themselves (and hiring in more people from within the uni to do all the paperwork).

I know... it was a crazy thought.. ! It's all I could come up with, heh.

[nomad soul]

You might be onto something, Mysterious. Perhaps the salaries are low because the recruiters are getting a commission or charging a finder's fee for bringing the teachers over in the first place. Instead of the university paying that fee, it's coming out of the teacher's salary upon signing on as a direct hire. It's a cheesy (and unethical) way for the uni to get out of paying the recruiting costs directly. Yep, just pass the costs on to the employees. However, if that's the case, then theoretically, those teachers who return after the break , should have their salaries and benefits recalculated/renegotiated at a higher rate. Reality? Who knows. Maybe the uni is just doggone cheap and those salaries will remain.

[It's Scary!]

(Sigh...)

I'll say this on this board for the umpteenth time:

While in Saudi, when my wife, a non-native speaker of English would exclaim, "That doesn't make 'common sense'", I would retort, "How can you expect 'common sense' where 'sense' isn't 'common'"?

It's just as plain as day!