Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Recruiter Honeypot

ewherry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#151

Post by vineet »

lizzard wrote: post #130
vineet wrote: post #127

Great article. I was however confused by "I also needed a recruiter who was smart enough not to poach a founder". Was he saying this just because founders in SV are not a good fit to Meebo? Or are they bad employees? Or that it is considered bad to poach to hire a founder?

She. Did you really read the article and not notice it was written by a woman? On a blog titled "Elaine Wherry"?

Yes, I meant she. It really was a typo.

(I realized it not because of the name - I have seen very weird names before. I realized it because of her picture on the about page.)

Regardless, my question above is still open.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#152

Post by vellum »

simonw wrote: post #95
phillmv wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are giving them privileged information (who your best people are) Between linked in, google, your company's about page, github and twitter accounts, you can already figure this out in ten minutes flat. You don't even need to know that in order to recruit people. -- I feel that NDAs are kind of bullshit too, but they're typically not as expressly oppressive. Unless they stretch into noncompetes, which are incred…

"Between linked in, google, your company's about page, github and twitter accounts, you can already figure this out in ten minutes flat" I don't think that's true at all. Some of the best engineers I've worked with have had very small online footprints (they're too busy building awesome things at their company to spend much time on Twitter etc). Now that I'm responsible for hiring, I consider knowledge of that kind o…

I agree. Github is like a portfolio. But you don't need a portfolio if you're a great developer with a strong network.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#153

Post by kimmel »

robomartin wrote: post #145
flyinRyan wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've employed people and hope to again soon and the conclusion to your post is 100% wrong. All the costs you mention are your problem . Finding talent is expensive. But it's expensive to everyone. You're spending all that money to find someone willing to invest their precious time and skill/knowledge with you instead of spending that value some other way. That doesn't make them your slave . You don't get any special…

And your creative interpretation of my post is 100% wrong. This isn't about an unhappy employee leaving because the job is crappy. Of course not. If the job or the environment is crap I'd be the first one to say that they probably ought to leave. I am also deeply offended by your use of the term "slave". Nobody has used this term. Not one person has even implied it. I certainly have not. It is a despicable and desper…

> I am also deeply offended by your use of the term "slave". Nobody has used this term.

When I read slave I immediately jumped to 'Wage Slavery' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery and it happens all the time. People cannot leave their job or risk looking for a new one because they are living pay check to pay check.

That is what I took away from that statement.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#154

Post by normalized »

I am a co-founder of a startup. My takeaways from this article are:

1) Get a recruiter in-house.

2) Treasure the recruiter as much as the tech talent.

3) External Recruiters will violate non-poaching agreements.

4) It is still useful to have a non-poaching agreement, as it helps as a mild deterrent.

5) Dread thy fellow startup more than a large company.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#155

Post by flyinRyan »

robomartin wrote: post #145
flyinRyan wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've employed people and hope to again soon and the conclusion to your post is 100% wrong. All the costs you mention are your problem . Finding talent is expensive. But it's expensive to everyone. You're spending all that money to find someone willing to invest their precious time and skill/knowledge with you instead of spending that value some other way. That doesn't make them your slave . You don't get any special…

And your creative interpretation of my post is 100% wrong. This isn't about an unhappy employee leaving because the job is crappy. Of course not. If the job or the environment is crap I'd be the first one to say that they probably ought to leave. I am also deeply offended by your use of the term "slave". Nobody has used this term. Not one person has even implied it. I certainly have not. It is a despicable and desper…

Well, I'm glad you're at least reasonable about the employees rights (many people aren't!) but the issue is (as I referred to in another post): the agency you hire to help you find talent is in a field that can only make money with high volumes. What you and the article author are taking personal isn't. The agencies aren't going "muhahahaha! Now that we've placed Rockstar 275 at robomartin's company let's poach them!". They simply have the person they found for you in a database and when ever they get a new job or haven't filled an existing one within a certain amount of time they're going to connect with everyone that their DB report says matches the profile.

They don't know and they don't care who they've placed where (at least the part of the company that sends out these "poach" emails doesn't). A new employee isn't going to jump ship within a month of getting a new job unless a) they really hate the new job or b) the new offer blows them away to the point of being willing to burn bridges.

I suppose agencies could put some kind of filter in their DB to not let people under no-poaches show up in the results, but why bother? Every company probably has a different no-poach period and all kinds of bothersome clauses they want and it nearly never comes up anyway so it's not worth the effort to deal with the issue. It easier to worry about these things on an exception basis, e.g. employee answers back with interest. At this point we can check if there is any reason we shouldn't go forward. But they will be sending out so many emails, most of which will be ignored, there's just no point thinking about it until someone actually answers.

This is simply a classic case of assuming there is malice where in truth there is just laziness.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#156

Post by flyinRyan »

lsc wrote: post #144
flyinRyan wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good post. Loyalty in the workplace is also nonsense. We're (mostly) all capitalists here we should act like it. Never ever stay at a company because you "love it" or some childish notion of "loyalty". You should be there because it's the best allocation of your resource of time/knowledge. I don't care about the company I work for and I feel no more loyalty to them then I do an online electronics store. Having said t…

>Good post. Loyalty in the workplace is also nonsense. We're (mostly) all capitalists here we should act like it. Never ever stay at a company because you "love it" or some childish notion of "loyalty". You should be there because it's the best allocation of your resource of time/knowledge. This is how I feel... and probably how most entrepreneurs feel. That's why we are striking out on our own. This is not how many…

I think just letting your employees know that you go to these lengths to help them if you wind up with no other choice but to let them go will be at least as valuable as "job stability" (what ever that means these days).

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#157

Post by robomartin »

flyinRyan wrote: post #155
robomartin wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your creative interpretation of my post is 100% wrong. This isn't about an unhappy employee leaving because the job is crappy. Of course not. If the job or the environment is crap I'd be the first one to say that they probably ought to leave. I am also deeply offended by your use of the term "slave". Nobody has used this term. Not one person has even implied it. I certainly have not. It is a despicable and desper…

Well, I'm glad you're at least reasonable about the employees rights (many people aren't!) but the issue is (as I referred to in another post): the agency you hire to help you find talent is in a field that can only make money with high volumes. What you and the article author are taking personal isn't. The agencies aren't going "muhahahaha! Now that we've placed Rockstar 275 at robomartin's company let's poach them!…

There are so many ways to look at this. Here's a dumb and imperfect example: You hire me to help you find a really good CFO. I charge you $40,000 to get that job done. After several weeks and two dozen interviews we find a candidate that is a great fit. You agree to pay her a very competitive salary, one that is certainly within the top level of what CFO's are getting paid in your industry. Everyone is happy. You pay me my $40K and she comes onboard.

Six month later I get pinged by a large corporation looking for a CFO. I remember the candidate I placed with you. She is definitely qualified. I email her directly and get her to jump ship. She didn't get paid any more. I simply convinced her that the large corporation was a better bet than your startup. I, of course, get to collect a fee from the large corp as well.

This is wrong. You hired me to help you build your team and paid me handsomely to do my job. If I then turn around and actually become your enemy, why am I serving? An even such as the one I just described is incredibly disruptive and costly beyond the obvious (I covered some of the costs in my prior post).

That why I will not work with any head-hunter who will not guarantee that they will not approach new hires with new opportunities for a reasonable period of time. As a business you don't derive a financial benefit out of hiring a new employee for months but there's a ton of upfront and ongoing investment.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#158

Post by lsc »

flyinRyan wrote: post #156
lsc wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Good post. Loyalty in the workplace is also nonsense. We're (mostly) all capitalists here we should act like it. Never ever stay at a company because you "love it" or some childish notion of "loyalty". You should be there because it's the best allocation of your resource of time/knowledge. This is how I feel... and probably how most entrepreneurs feel. That's why we are striking out on our own. This is not how many…

I think just letting your employees know that you go to these lengths to help them if you wind up with no other choice but to let them go will be at least as valuable as "job stability" (what ever that means these days).

Every boss talks like he's going to take care of you, and (I hope) it sounds like the bullshit it is to most people. (when I hear a boss saying he's going to take care of me, I hear "I want you to do more work for me for no additional compensation") But, if when you do fire someone you do get them a better job? that person will talk, and it won't be regarded as bullshit... and you can do a lot worse than hiring people recommended or evaluated by someone that you /know/ is good.

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#159

Post by lsc »

vineet wrote: post #127

Great article. I was however confused by "I also needed a recruiter who was smart enough not to poach a founder". Was he saying this just because founders in SV are not a good fit to Meebo? Or are they bad employees? Or that it is considered bad to poach to hire a founder?

dono what she was trying to say, but eh, a google recruiter emailed me tonight, and I was thinking of what a horrible employee I'd be for them. good founders generally make bad employees, unless by employee you really mean contractor; we make fine contractors. (not to say I'm a good founder... that, well, it has yet to be seen. But I'm certainly the type that would prefer to work for himself.)

Re: The Recruiter Honeypot

#160

Post by wilmoore »

flyinRyan wrote: post #139
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poaching is a myth. You assume the only reason your folks are working for you, is they don't know about a better deal elsewhere? Every sensible employee should regard every paycheck as a renewed offer of employment. If a better deal exists, its their choice, not yours, whether they stay or not. Your only real option is to treat employees well, make sure they know you appreciate their talents, and try to generate some…

Good post. Loyalty in the workplace is also nonsense. We're (mostly) all capitalists here we should act like it. Never ever stay at a company because you "love it" or some childish notion of "loyalty". You should be there because it's the best allocation of your resource of time/knowledge. I don't care about the company I work for and I feel no more loyalty to them then I do an online electronics store. Having said t…

It is times like this that I wish for multi-upvotes.
Post reply on HN