Job Discussion Forums

[SENTINEL33]

Recruiter/Contracting Company

There 2 terms appear to be used somewhat loosely on this Forum and I
was hoping someone could describe them more specifically.

Is there a difference between the two terms? To me, a recruiter is an employee of a contracting company. He's the person who actually recruits a teacher for an employer. In the US, the term "headhunter" is often used to describe this character.

A recruiter could be "self-employed", I imagine, and this is how he comes across on this board. A contracting company appears to be a separate entity from a "recruiter", although they appear to do the same thing......getting new enployees for an ultimate employer.

Thanks for any comment.

[nomad soul]

Generally, a recruiter is tasked with reviewing potential applicants' CVs/resumes per the job requirements and qualifications, interviewing selected applicants, and making hiring recommendations or referrals.

Recruiters are either:

1) regular, salaried employees of an internal or in-house recruitment department in a company, institution, or organization who handle their company's recruiting and direct-hiring needs; or

2) third-party agents or agencies that work on a commission-only basis. They're independent (external or outside) of the company or organization and are contracted to handle recruitment/hiring responsibilities on behalf of their "client," (e.g., a university or a contracting company). Once the employee is fully hired, further contact from the recruiter usually ceases.

A contracting company is an outside entity---a business---that's under contract with a "client" (e.g., university, oil company, etc.) to provide certain staffing and HR functions that go beyond recruiting and hiring. Some of these companies use their own in-house recruiters or they subcontract with an outside recruiter solely for recruiting/hiring purposes (see above). Those workers who eventually sign on with contracting companies are employees of the company and not of the "client," and thus, receive their salaries and benefits from the contractor. (Note: In the case of KSA, bona fide employment means the sponsoring company must have provided the employee an iqama and not a business visit visa.) Contracting companies make a profit by taking a percentage from their employees' earnings, which is why salaries are typically lower compared to employees who were hired directly by the "client."

[The Angry Brit]

A recruiter accepts commissions from an employer to find employees. Teach Away, Footprints, Chase Resourcing, etc.. etc... Once they send you off, get paid, they are done with you.

A contract company owns you. In Saudi they are your sponsor, and your Igama is under their control - not the employer. The educational institution pays the contractor who then pays you, less their monthly percentage. Unlike a recruiter, a contractor is normally in the country and you can refer to them for assistance. But, as you've probably read, many of them don't practice with the principles you might expect. Another concern is that the contractor wants to keep their customer, the employer, satisfied - not the employee. Of course, in an ideal situation a good contractor would be expected satisfy both parties. But...

An interesting dilemma is trying to get away from a contractor. If you're good employee they don't want to let you transfer into a direct hire. If you're not, they revoke your Igama and deport you.

[SENTINEL33]

Thanks for both replies. It is as I thought about the "contracting companies" owning you.

Under this situation, you are really under the thumb of two (hostile) entities......the contractor and the client. Ugh.
In my opinion, this is yet another example of the "contempt" and low esteem accorded to your regular ESL teacher in the Gulf in general.

No university would dream of acquiring its physics, engineering, etc. faculties through a "contractor".....and no academic working in these fields
would even remotely consider such a relationship with a contractor where the contractor had legal jurisdiction over the teacher. No way.

But there goes the ESL dumb-bell lining up along with the Bangladeshi sweepers for a chance at Paradise. How demoralizing it must be.
Faculty? You must be joking.

[nomad soul]

[The Angry Brit]

There's a reason I use terminology like 'the contract company owns you.' It's important the reader does understand the foreign worker status in Saudi Arabia. We are chattel my friend. It could be very misleading to dress up our situation in Western legal language with words like 'employee/work visa, legal work purposes', etc... Regardless if these are the terms stamped on our visas, the truth is we are at the mercy of our employer. In every case, our only recourse to a greivance is to leave, yet most don't even have that luxury. There are many foreign workers who have their passports taken.

We had a teacher who was accused of showing his students pictures of his girlfriend. Granted a stupid move, but I'm sure we can all think of worse things. Students complained, and he was called into the Dean's office and told it was a serious matter which needed to be invesigated by higher authorities who could decide it to be a 'legal' offense. The Dean, who was gentle and polite as he delievered this warning, while talking with the teacher, mentioned in an off-hand way that there were many teaching jobs in the Gulf. For a day or so afterwards, the teacher was outraged and filled with righteous indignation, until they scheduled the next meeting with the Head of Security. He did a runner.

I'm not sure if this is a precise example of my point, but it sure is an interesting story.

[nomad soul]

[The Angry Brit]

Dear NS,

First, You said my terminolgy was off. I disagreed by pointing out that I deliberately used that terminology because I believe it's a mistake to think of these contracts from a western legal perspective.

Second, I didn't really diss contract companies at all... the story I told was a direct hire.

Third, I'm on one of the best contracts in the Kingdom, direct hire and all.

Fourth, I've been in Saudi a long time and I know what can happen. You are mistaken if you believe you have special rights and protections because of an employer. Like the Bangledeshian cleaner or the Indonesian house maid, we are all foreign workers. You have the same protections as they do - the whim of the boss.

[johnslat]

Dear The Angry Brit,

Is there anyplace in the world where one is NOT "at the mercy of one's employer?" If so, after teaching for over 35 years in four different countries, I haven't been fortunate enough to find it yet.

Oh, certainly, in some places there are appeals possible, suits that can be brought, etc. But even in those places, if they want to get rid of you, they will. And any "Human Resources" person can make it seem totally legal.

Actually, in Saudi, if you accumulate enough wasta, you're far more "fireproof" than in most, maybe all, other places.

Regards,
John

[nomad soul]

[The Angry Brit]

Dear John,

I agree in every land our jobs are at the mercy of the employer. And I know of your lengthy experience; I've been reading your posts for a long time.

Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom. A small kingdom, and as such we suffer or are rewarded by the capriciousness of those above. Almost every month, especially the last couple of years, there are decisions made that we can feel on the ground. Completely different than western liberal democracies, we have zero input - we don't even know what's being discussed. And that's my point of using the term 'own' in my first post, unlike anywhere else I've worked (and I too could boast of lengthy international experience), nothing written or said can be depended on. Just last month the Ministry of Immigration decided to no longer grant two-year Igamas regardless of the length of your contract. What effect will that have?

What we rely on is the benevolance and good will of our employer which so far, fortunately for me, has been wonderful.

I'm not sure foreigners actually have wasta. They earn respect and loyalty, and can sometimes pull a favour, but it's extremely limited. I know of a couple of situations where a guy thought he had wasta until he came up against a Saudi.

[rollingk]

Sure, all workers are at the "mercy" of their employers. However, as AB has pointed out, some places actually incorporate a form of mercy in the law, which is in fact a real law, that gives protections for an employee. Not only is there an absence of such sentiment here, but even if an employer feels obliged to incorporate western style considerations into an employment agreement in KSA (for appearances usually), there is really no recourse when those considerations are abrogated.

In my experience with contractors and direct hires I've seen no difference between the two. What often matters is if the contractor has been here so long that it has capitulated to the absence of accountability that prevails here. As such, newer entities originating outside KSA are often better in my experience. Of course, this seems to make littlle sense, but what does make sense around here really. Counter-intuition prevails as that great fountain of oil makes its own logic.

[johnslat]

Dear The Angry Brit.

"I'm not sure foreigners actually have wasta. They earn respect and loyalty, and can sometimes pull a favour, but it's extremely limited. I know of a couple of situations where a guy thought he had wasta until he came up against a Saudi."

I'm sure - but my situation was probably not all that typical: 19 years (on and off) for the same place. Some of my students when I started off reaching at the IPA were "lower-level" employees, headed for the States to get their MAs and Ph.D. Later on, they were running the place - and I was teaching their sons.

I had more wasta than I could use.

Dear rollingk,

" . . . some places actually incorporate a form of mercy in the law, which is in fact a real law, that gives protections for an employee."

In my experience, the US isn't such a place. Oh, sure - there are all sorts of laws and supposed protections - but, as I mentioned, if they want to get rid of you (or not hire you), and there seems to be no legal way for them to do so, they will find one. I've seen it happen again and again here - people getting fired for "personality conflicts" with superiors, nothing "legally" fire-worthy but it's not too difficult to "manufacture" a "legal" reason.

Can employees so fired sue? Of course. they can - and spend a fair amount of time and money in their quixotic quests. But their chances of winning are, again based on what I've seen, somewhere between slim and none.

Theory and practice sometimes don't match.

Regards,
John

[jaffa]

When I was a contracted employee working at Aramco I was offered a different job in KSA (not teaching) and the contractor said no. After some negotiation the contractor asked for a month's salary (paid by me). Aramco, being Americanised, would have let me go, but the contractor just couldn't resist cutting off that little bit of extra flesh.

In the end, the Bush/Blair project invaded Iraq and I left Saudi. But it shows that it can be done. The alternative is/was the 'washing the passport technique' but I think with the new fingerprint system you won't get away with that anymore.

[sicklyman]