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

In Defense of Recruiters

blog.42floors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#41

Post by fecak »

saganus wrote: post #40
fecak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds a bit like contract to hire, but it's an interesting idea. It's the counterpoint to how recruiters debate the issue of guarantees. Companies want long guarantee periods, meaning if they use a recruiter and pay 25% of salary, they want a refund if the candidate leaves quickly. Most guarantees I see are 90 days. When a company wants asks for a six month or one year guarantee, recruiters may use the rebuttal…

having a vested interest in their hires staying at a job for as long as possible Exactly what I was thinking, but of course as I'm not experienced with this I thought there could be some glaring issues with it. I would love to see some data (even if anecdotal) from someone that tried something similar. Imagine that you can even treat some of your older, most successful employees as "passive income"; as a recruiter yo…

You're looking for an agent essentially who will be getting a portion of your earnings, though you won't be truly paying for the service the agent provided (the company will). I've written about this twice (1,2), inspired by a piece here on HN, as a potential solution for the problems in contingency recruiting, but with fees being paid by candidates. That is the key differentiator to that agent model - the job seeker, not the company, foots the bill.

Would you pay say 2-5% of your annual salary to a recruiter/agent every year? Even in years that you aren't actively looking for a job?

These are interesting questions if you think the recruiter can find you good jobs that you might not find on your own, can provide solid career advice, and negotiate salaries that are higher than what you might receive otherwise. If I can negotiate a 5% higher salary than you every time, paying me 2% every year is a pretty easy decision. Most technologists probably trust that they are as good at (or even better) negotiators than most recruiters, and in many cases they may be correct.

(1) http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/09/17/disrupt/ (2) http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/09/26/disruptii/

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#42

Post by jpsim »

Like the talent you're trying to hire, recruiters span the spectrum from horrible to not-so-horrible... with the occasional gem. Now if only there were recruiters to help find good recruiters.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#43

Post by itafroma »

fecak wrote: post #33
itafroma wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure this isn't universal (though I don't think I'm the only one), but my experience with recruiters has been a series of cold emails for jobs that aren't even close to my areas of expertise in areas nowhere near where I'm located. They usually incorporate some form of "if this isn't a good opportunity for you, can you please forward it to someone else" with no attempt to actually get to know me or what I'm looki…

The forward it to someone else is probably what comes off as most offensive if you haven't developed any rapport with the recruiter. I get tons of referrals now from past candidates, but I almost never ask for referrals. I'd rather be the one not asking for them, which differentiates me from most other firms out there. If they didn't ask you to forward, would you freely respond with what you in fact are looking for,…

When I get a cold email, especially if the email doesn't show any particular knowledge about who I am or what I do, I almost always want to know how the person emailing me came across my email and decided to email me. It's fine if I get an email about an opportunity isn't a fit for me, but I would like to know who or what gave the impression that it was so I can correct it.

The forward request is a little grating, but I used to reply to recruiters asking how they came across me, regardless of whether they included that line. Virtually none of them replied back. Lately, I've just been junking any recruiter email without replying back if it's clear they don't know anything, or they know the bare minimum, about me.

If a recruiter emailed me, opened the email up with an explanation of how they came across me and why they thought I'd be interested, I'd be much more inclined to respond with more information about what I'm looking for even if the offer in their initial email is not even close or if they asked me to forward the email to someone else.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#44

Post by fecak »

itafroma wrote: post #43
fecak wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The forward it to someone else is probably what comes off as most offensive if you haven't developed any rapport with the recruiter. I get tons of referrals now from past candidates, but I almost never ask for referrals. I'd rather be the one not asking for them, which differentiates me from most other firms out there. If they didn't ask you to forward, would you freely respond with what you in fact are looking for,…

When I get a cold email, especially if the email doesn't show any particular knowledge about who I am or what I do, I almost always want to know how the person emailing me came across my email and decided to email me. It's fine if I get an email about an opportunity isn't a fit for me, but I would like to know who or what gave the impression that it was so I can correct it. The forward request is a little grating, bu…

This is good to hear. I usually provide some context, like if you have experience with a certain framework or in a specific niche perhaps - whatever caught my eye. Sounds like that info is useful in cases where it was a false positive. Thanks for the insight, and glad it validates my thought process.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#45

Post by bcbrown »

joshstrange wrote: post #16

I have almost no problem with internal recruiters, it's the external/contingency recruiters that I hate with a fiery passion. They call during work hours, email constantly, and provide VERY little value in my experience. As others have mentioned, due to the high payouts to these recruiters they are willing to lie their pants off to get you to accept the job. The last recruiter I worked with tried to hide the name of…

>Every call with the recruiter was more painful than the last

Why did you continue to work with that recruiter after the first call?

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#46

Post by bane »

You know, I was just called by a recruiter from a great company about a great job. I talked to him for a bit, the job sounded great, the commute sounded great, etc. I asked him if I needed to do anything and he said "no, I'll put you against the job req internally, you don't even have to go on-line".

"When should I hear anything?"

"I have a meeting with the hiring manager in 2 days, I'll call you back right after."

A week passes. I call him back, it's 2pm on Tuesday.

"oh yes. Well this job is about..."

"okay, so I know this, and last time we talked you said you had a meeting with the hiring manager and would get back to me, a week ago."

"so...I'm not at my computer, but I have some feedback on my computer, I'll call you back this afternoon?"

"Well was it good or bad feedback?"

"I...I...have it on my computer. Can I call you back this afternoon?"

"Sure"

No call, nothing. It's 3 days later now. At this point I've hit so many red flags I'm not even interested in checking them out anymore. But it is a great company. One of those Top-20 best places to work kind of places. I called a friend of mine who works there and they checked with the hiring manager, but got a non-reply. I'm apparently being put against the position, so that much is true.

It's not the first time I've dealt with this kind of shenanigans. My favorite is the "why do you want to work here?" question which pops up somewhere in the process. And I respond with "I don't you asked me to come, why do you want me to work here?"

Recruiters really are a waste of time and if I had spent more than 20 minutes on the phone with this guy I would feel kind of burned right now. But instead I've just added it to the pile of bizarre recruiter interactions I've had over the years.

On the flip-side, a company my wife used to work for had great success with a professional retained recruiting agency. It took a few months to finally nail down what they were looking for in a candidate, but before long they had a steady stream of qualified resumes coming in. So there's that.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#47

Post by bcbrown »

fecak wrote: post #15
aantix wrote: post #10

If you care about maximizing your take home pay, you will not use a recruiter. Regardless of what they tell you, their fee will factor into your salary negotiations and give you less leverage to the upside. While the potential employer won't tell you the recruiters fee, behind closed doors the conversation goes "Well, he wants 125K and the recruiter has a 10% fee on top of that, so..." You're automatically a more exp…

I'm a recruiter, and I often see the opposite effect. There are quite a few candidates that are underpaid and don't realize it until they start talking to a recruiter. If they'd gone directly to the company they may have received that 30% bump to bring them to market rate, but perhaps not. One benefit a recruiter provides to job seekers is the info on the market - of course this only applies to recruiters that know t…

I feel like I have a disincentive to share salary info with recruiters - they'll just give that to the company for whom they are soliciting me. I know that's less true in the agency model you've talked about before. What's your advice on when it is and isn't appropriate to discuss current salary and salary expectations with a recruiter?

Edit: a specific scenario from earlier this year. I was cold-contacted on LinkedIn, the job sounded interesting, so I talked with the recruiter, ended up applying, interviewing, and declined an offer. I told them the range I wanted, they asked what I was making. I dodged the question, so they asked if it was more-or-less X, and I confirmed. Turns out that when they talked to the company, they said I had wanted about 10k less than I had actually said I wanted. The number they said I wanted was a 10% bump on my current salary, and it seemed to me that they were trying to find out the lowest number they could give that would still be a 10% raise. It seemed pretty scummy to me, and I'm not going to work with him again.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#48

Post by saganus »

fecak wrote: post #41
saganus wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

having a vested interest in their hires staying at a job for as long as possible Exactly what I was thinking, but of course as I'm not experienced with this I thought there could be some glaring issues with it. I would love to see some data (even if anecdotal) from someone that tried something similar. Imagine that you can even treat some of your older, most successful employees as "passive income"; as a recruiter yo…

You're looking for an agent essentially who will be getting a portion of your earnings, though you won't be truly paying for the service the agent provided (the company will). I've written about this twice (1,2), inspired by a piece here on HN, as a potential solution for the problems in contingency recruiting, but with fees being paid by candidates. That is the key differentiator to that agent model - the job seeker…

Awesome! thanks for sharing. I'll be sure to read those articles.

Great to see I'm not alone with this crazy idea. When writing the previous comment I actually started thinking if I would pay someone to actively look for the best job I can get at any given moment, and that I would probably pay for that happily. Of course, you make a serious point about considering that same payment after X years in a stable job (e.g. I've been with Google for the past 3 years... I'm not planning on changing jobs.. why should I pay this guy every year?) very interesting things to ponder over.

Again, thanks for sharing!

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#49

Post by drdeadringer »

joshstrange wrote: post #16

I have almost no problem with internal recruiters, it's the external/contingency recruiters that I hate with a fiery passion. They call during work hours, email constantly, and provide VERY little value in my experience. As others have mentioned, due to the high payouts to these recruiters they are willing to lie their pants off to get you to accept the job. The last recruiter I worked with tried to hide the name of…

> They call during work hours

Honest question: Should recruiters call during non-work hours when -- presumably -- no one would answer?

Side note: I prefer email, and it is mysterious to me why a significant portion of recruiters simply must insist on a telephone conversation when an email would suffice.

Post reply on HN