Talking About Money

yeah. when i hire sales guys, or product guys, they just tell me how much money they generated (or their products or teams generated) at previous companies. it doesn't always have to be a $ figure. sometimes it's, "my work at previous company X was used by Huge Company A, Huge Company B, Internal Division C, etc. here are my references."

these are just nuts-and-bolts dollars-and-cents conversations people have when hiring non-engineering professionals or executives.

you can talk about all of the above without actually stating how much money you made. it's moot. it's irrelevant. what matters is what they accomplished, if they are enthusiastic about doing the same for our startup, and how much money/compensation they need to feel good about it. i am trying to make people feel good about working for me! the first step is to have an honest conversation about everyone's needs (maybe requirements is a better word).

It is standard to ask in Germany too. But do they get an honest answer or expect an answer at all? I always say what I want instead.

Please tell us the name of the company! Are they still in business?

> Interesting response. Loathe recuiters? Let's take it easy on the echo chamber cliche here.

That's my personal opinion based on personal experience. Feel free to attribute it to others but the echo chamber does not factor in there unless you wish to consider my office part of the echo chamber.

> Yeah, lots of bad apples out there,

Present company, as always, excluded.

> but ask any reasonable professional: a good recruiter is extremely valuable.

A good recruiter is a good recruiter for their paymaster. I've yet to see 'reverse headhunting' where you submit your resume to a recruiter and they then go out to find the best possible position for you. So for now recruiters are exclusively working for companies looking to employ people.

> You did forget that there are 2 types of recruiters: agency (outside) and corporate (inside).

I've dealt with both, neither group to date has me particularly impressed. And I've dealt with them both as an employer and as someone who somehow made it onto the list of recruiters. Clueless wouldn't begin to describe them, they used to have a joke saying that 'those who can do, and those who can't teach', you could probably amend that with 'and those that can't teach recruit' and it wouldn't be too far off the mark.

> I, the agency recruiter, do not want to "dislodge" the candidate for the minimum amount required. Not because my fee will be higher with a greater salary, but because I'm actually incentivized to do what is best for both the employer & employee.

And what is that?

> This is called sales.

I don't particularly care about what you call it, to me it felt more like interacting with a class of buzz-word wielding vultures trying to make money from placing people based on an extremely limited understanding of what makes the tech world tick.

There are multiple ways to make money in any industry: you either dig for gold, you sell shovels to the miners or, in the case of the recruiters, you sell the miners to the mining company.

> When you do good by all parties to the transaction, it pays dividends long-term.

Yes, I'm sure it does. In the long term your loyalty has to lie with your repeat customer, the corporation that hires you. Since you are not going to get any repeat business from the individuals that you've placed (unless you're willing to risk that long term relationship, but there are plenty of other recruiters that will be more than happy to play the game again).

> So, no, we're not trying to "snag" them.

Said the fox to the chicken.

> I appreciate your paranoia, as you're not alone; many people dealing with bad recruiters probably need to vent.

So, many people dealing with bad recruiters on the one hand..

> But for the most part, your perception of the recruiting industry is different from the reality.

And yet my perception is different from reality. That's an interesting concept but I can't fit both of those into my head without significant cognitive dissonance.

Either my experiences match those of others and the venting has - as you apparently confirm - a basis in fact or my perception (and by extension that of all the others complaining about their experiences with recruiters) is wrong. You can't have it both ways.

And you conveniently forgot to address the main point I made and instead latched on to my 'perception issues'.

None of this makes perfect sense, and reads like just-so stories. On 1), you could just as easily say "of the 10 candidates you liked, 8 of them were still interested given the salary bracket." For 2), you could say "the job pays $X-Y, with flexibility on the top end if they really want you."

It's interesting ("gaining intelligence") to read an account of recruiter allegiances, though.