I do recall now hearing about some agencies charging fees for office workers in NYC in the 80s, but there were far more that didn't. Some newspaper ads said "fee paid." I always thought anyone who paid an agency fee just didn't know they could find agencies where employers paid the fees.
Many corporate and law offices still use agencies today to screen applicants, but many do not. The ones who don't use agencies like to do telephone interviews to decide if they want to bring in applicants for in person interviews. There are still hundreds of people applying for most decent paying positions, so it has to be very time consuming. Agencies charge something like 5% of the salary negotiated between clients and applicants, which is a lot of money for making a few phone, in-person interviews and administering skill and knowledge tests.
I'm not sure companies save money by having one or more of their employees screening hundreds of job applicants from online applications, but it gives them the illusion they're saving money.
From my experience, these days agencies generally only want to work with applicants who have seamless resumes with high profile companies/law firms and the exact experience in the exact field the clients need. Agencies can place these employees easily. They will pretty much ignore you if you have gaps in your resume or didn't work for just one or two employers over a 10 year period. That's how it has been here for the past 6 years for secretaries. There's just too many available people in the pool with the exact experience employers are looking for. It used to be that great skills and any legal experience was enough to get hired. Now less experience is valued more than more experience because salaries for less experienced people aren't as high. Sigh ....
The employers doing all their own recruiting aren't working on commission, so generally, they're not going to waste your time or theirs.
AustinMom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There used to be a lot more employment agencies,
> and there were a lot more companies that used them
> to recruit. A lot of things have changed, and
> with the internet, there are far fewer actual
> full-service employment agencies and fewer
> companies use them. It also varies by region. In
> 1970s Houston, employment agencies ruled.
> Although some companies advertised positions in
> the newspaper, most jobs were filled through
> employment agencies. About half the fees were
> paid by employee and half by employer. Examples of
> jobs would be bank tellers, loan officers, and
> managers, secretaries, accountants, other
> professional positions, full-time permanent
> positions. When I moved to Houston in the early
> 70s, an employment agency located my position, an
> entry-level Human Resource manager position with a
> small company. I paid the fee. After that, I was
> adamant when I walked through the door of an
> employment agency that I would consider only jobs
> with companies who would pay the fee. It's a
> whole different world today, with 25% of jobs
> filled through online job sites like Monster,
> improved state agency workforce commission job
> banks, et., although a few full-service "executive
> search firms" operate. Most of the fees are
> employer-paid although it is negotiable.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2014 05:26PM by nycrocks.