Dear Mr. Raj Kumar,
I would request you to revisit my list, which describes what kind of candidates we must blacklist:
• No show on the date of joining
• Joining and leaving without notice, reason, or information within a week
• Accepting an offer and refusing to join on weak or flimsy grounds
• Accepting an offer and then becoming untraceable or unapproachable
• Giving false information on his/her CV about qualifications, experience, or projects, fake documents with the intent to cheat during the hiring process
Please let me know if you would have sympathy with the candidates as mentioned above.
Also, please let me know—in your opinion—how many out of 10 such candidates would have a "genuine" reason not to show up on the day of joining. Please remember that this is a "No Show." If there is a genuine reason, a sincere candidate would have called and discussed with the HR Manager or maybe pushed his/her joining date. He/She does not become untraceable, and this does not happen "once in a while" but fairly regularly at all levels.
Please let us know if a "No Show" is acceptable to you.
Raj Kumar Hansdah stated the following:
Maligning individuals publicly for the reasons given by you is neither ethical nor legal. It amounts to trying people in a kangaroo court, "witch-hunting," and the possibility of an innocent person being victimized. It is not only a violation of human rights but also a violation of privacy.
Taking names, especially in a public forum, i.e., on the web, and passing judgments unilaterally without giving the other party a chance to defend himself; I do not think are the signs of a good, civilized society.
• No show can be due to a number of genuine reasons.
• Joining & Leaving - in case a candidate feels that the assignment or the company is not what was promised; what option does he have?
• Offers are just "offers"; they are not "binding contracts" - that is what employers say when they retract their offers!
• Giving false information - There are appropriate laws for it.
In my humble opinion, no recruiting agency should act in a manner that implies they have been conferred a right to punish a candidate just because he did not act in a way that could have yielded them their consultancy fees from the prospective employer. Such vindictive attitudes should not be there, as it is only through these candidates that Recruitment Consultants earn their living. A customer should always be treated in a way as advised by the Father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi.
Warm regards,
Raj Kumar