Korean Job Discussion Forums

[phaedrus]

What we've come to is the agreement that teachers can employ agents, and so can schools. From the teacher's perspective the school's agent is a 'recruiter'.

If a school owner is not smart enough or enough of a hard worker to get his own teachers he can pay an agent. This agent will work for the school owner and get him a great deal. Even if the school owner has to pay the agent 1000 dollars the savings the owner will get when his agent/recruiter cuts down the teacher's salary through negotiation will make up for it. I assume that just like Gord's agent gets Gord the big bucks, the schools agent/recruiter will get the school owner the big bucks at the expense of the teacher, or at the expense of the students if the recruiter is no good.

Now, because of this, the teacher should employ an agent so as not to get screwed. The teacher needs an agent to go out and find work for him and to make sure he is getting paid enough. When the teacher's agent deals with owners or clients the agent is trying to get a good deal for the teacher. I don't think you can call the teacher's agent a recruiter though unless the teacher is running a school and the agent is in fact recruiting students . The teacher's agent is probably setting up jobs, not recruiting.

The final analysis: from my perspective as an employed teacher, job recruiters are not necessary- they are trying to screw me. I do agree that an agent may be good for me. I also agree that if I open a school I may wish to hire someone to recruit students. A recruiter of students is not the same thing as a recruiter of employees though. I will rephrase the question for the benefit of all to read------

Are job recruiters necessary?

[chronicpride]

If the collective Korean mindset was not so co-dependent on trust and �� between their business relationships, and therefore, the relationships that directors form with recruiters, then they could advertise and hire direct, thus making recruiters unnecessary.

If Korean directors didn't view the recruitment process as an inconvenience that is best delegated to be done by someone else (head foreign teacher, recruiter, etc...), then we would see less reliance on recruiters.

[humanuspneumos]

I don't think recruiters are necessary. They have muscled in on a market and make it difficult for teachers to get employed without them, and more difficult for schools to find teachers without them. They do something both schools and teachers are capable of doing by themselves.

I agree. The evolution of recruiters hit really hard around 2000. Before that there were tons of jobs being advertised by the schools themselves. I think its evolution has this mix:

A. Owners couldn't communicate in English, make an English contract, reply in English to the potential teacher's questions... Also- owner created a bad name with staff and didn't trust the staff's evaluation of the owner- leaving him/her unable to trust the staff to not say bad stuff.

B. Incapable owner goes to hogwan owner buddy who could speak English and had an "in" on finding teachers. The "in" owner has Western friends and begins offering $ to foreigner teachers that are still willing to communicate and not bad-mouth Korea.

C. Such teachers discover a market they didn't imagine and make some side-cash while in Korea. Also- the locals begin noticing money going back and forth and create Korean-only services in the market.

D. Teachers couldn't/wouldn't endure in Korea year after year only teaching English- so- they leave and do the "next best thing"- recruit.

I agree- the whole thing on job boards has become one big bl___dy mess! But- when you combine laziness, last-minute-ism, point "A"- lack of communication, and owners making such a mess in their school that they "can't trust the staff" to not bad-mouth while finding teachers- it all seems unavoidable. How can it be avoided if the owners don't smarten up in the office (where teachers could have recruited/posted jobs) and attend English/business classes themselves???

[humanuspneumos]

Part B


There's a part B to all of this crap- that is- a culture of "middle-man-ism." Owners don't like to:

A. Be asked direct questions (or question upon question) about their school by lowly employees. "How dare he ask that question!" - I've heard again and again.

B. Be accountable later-on over an email, conversation, point in the contract they made. So- the middle-man becomes the "way out." It's a great way of disguising any real intention they had right from the beginning.

C. Sell their school, students, apartment. They want someone else to do the selling- that means breaking bad news too.

I can't count the times where the "head-teacher/manager" degraded down to the "bad news guy/gal" to the point where the owner would deny the "bad news" when he/she saw the teachers upset- leaving the middle-man the fall-guy. Another tool of escapism on-top-of recruiters.

These are people (directors) who never paid-the-piper of business school/business studies (I mean really studying/learning- not paying someone to ...), someone financed their dreams on a silver platter, and who do almost everything by the seat of their pants and take 0% of the blame when things go badly wrong. The perfect environs for recruiters to be born.

[phaedrus]

[lawyertood]

Gord stated

[Derrek]

An important notation I like to make in these type of posts:

Two years ago, I came to the conclusion that the resume sections of the job boards were worthless. They only seemed to draw e-mails from recruiters.

It's taken a full 180-degree turn, however. Now they (resume postings) are very worthwhile. I found that most of the schools who were "good" by my judgement, found my resume on there and contacted me directly.

That's how I got this job.

The reason is because now boards like Dave's charge for everything. Schools don't want to pay, and they don't want to pay recruiters either, so they scan the Resumes and call based on those.

Use the resume sections... they really do work these days!

[just because]

[Mr. Pink]

I think for some recruiters are necessary.

Unfortunately, finding a GOOD recruiter is hard.

My first gig in Korea I found using a recruiter in Toronto. The guy was fantastic. I was VERY lucky to have found the guy. He set everything up for me, even met me to do the paperwork etc. I basically only had to sign the papers and show up at the embassy to get my visa.

I think for first timers, GOOD recruiters can make the difference between a good experience and a bad one.

I haven't had to use a recruiter since, but I would gladly do as Gord does and pay an agent. If I knew where to find a well connected agent that could get me doing some evening work or editing work, I'd pay for that service, as I just don't have the contacts and I am not into networking.

On the same note if I knew someone who could hook me up with privates, I'd give them a piece of the pie. I have no problem with paying a certain amount of money for GOOD quality work.

[humanuspneumos]

I think for first timers, GOOD recruiters can make the difference between a good experience and a bad one.


I'm trying to think of what would qualify a recruiter as good.

Call me cynical- but I've seen what I thought were good recruiting agencies get caught again and again in "The road to hell is filled with good intentions." What I mean is it basically breaks down to the same story as the good intentioned "head" teacher, or the good intentioned office manager, and so on and so on. The ultimate power lives and resides within the owner who lives under the power of the market.

The good recruiter can't deliver the teacher from getting caught in a cross-fire where the original apartment arrangement is changed, the original schedule is changed, the original hours of work are changed- all the good recruiter can do is say- "Gee, that's too bad. Hang in there!"

The only good I've seen is me sitting on a sofa and opening my email on my laptop and having someone find offers that come close to what I wanted. "Hmmmmmm- naw- move to trash. Hmmmmmm- naw- move to trash. Hmmmmm- maybe."

[Homer]

A good recruiter can be quite usefull.

Save you time and energy. Probaly knows the market better then you.

That being said, the recruitment scene seems to be largely populated by less then consciencious people.

There some good ones out there.

I also think good recruiters are more usefull to inexperienced teachers or those that have not been to Korea before.

[humanuspneumos]

A good recruiter is someone who _________________________???

[Toby]

OP - NO