Live data from Hacker News

In Defense of Recruiters

blog.42floors.com

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#61
post #52

A lot of the comments here are from the employee "I hate being bothered by recruiters" side, which I totally get. But as a (newly promoted) Director of Engineering in SF I'm struggling to make any headway building my team without using contingency recruiters. I'm new to being on the hiring side and my manager is frustrated that my only resource for candidates is to use recruiters (primarily because of the cost). What…

I can't imagine anyone not liking your short pitch at a relevant meetup. The ability to chat with you afterwards, on a level playing field is a huge boon to making a good connection. It does take time though.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#62
post #32

Is it not possible to do some sort of "phased" payment to recruiters? So instead of giving 10% of the employees salary if actually employed (or employed for at least 3 months or other variations), how about giving increased percentages depending on actual time employed. So maybe 1% of salary if employed, then 5% is the employee stays for more than 3 months, then 1% every 3 months thereafter until it reaches 10-15% or…

In Australia, it is not uncommon that the employee has to stay with the company for 3 months, for a reward to be given to the recruiter.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#63
post #52

A lot of the comments here are from the employee "I hate being bothered by recruiters" side, which I totally get. But as a (newly promoted) Director of Engineering in SF I'm struggling to make any headway building my team without using contingency recruiters. I'm new to being on the hiring side and my manager is frustrated that my only resource for candidates is to use recruiters (primarily because of the cost). What…

You need to start considering your company's reputation as an employer of technologists. If there is no reputation, you need to start building it. Perhaps sponsoring a meetup for a few hundred dollars is a good investment, as it shows your company supports the community. Perhaps one of your engineers could speak at a meetup, to show off some of your talent or give a sniff of your interesting products and projects.

Once you've built a bit of a hiring brand, you'll start to see incoming traffic coming in organically instead of having to go and do outreach all the time.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#64
post #47
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 LinkedI…

It's actually true that an agency recruiter will likely share your salary info with the company - in fact, the company may require the recruiter to provide at least some context (current salary, expectations, or both) when submitting a candidate.

There is a ton of 'fear' or at least awareness about being at some disadvantage if a company knows your current salary. I personally think the only number that matters is your salary expectations.

If you are truly underpaid and you are aware of this, then your expectations might seem a bit high relative to where you are now, but not high if you consider the market. As an example, when candidates move to the US from foreign countries, they can see themselves earning double or even ten times what they made at home. If you make $10K US in India and tell the recruiter that, and the recruiter shares that info with the hiring company, do you really think the company is using that number as some baseline? Of course not. Expectation is the key number here.

If you are overpaid for a certain market (which can be dangerous from a career mobility perspective) and aware of it, usually due to some externality, your current salary makes little difference. When someone changes geographic markets, such as moving into or out of SF, their current compensation is basically thrown out the window. Should you have fear telling a recruiter that you were making 100K in Philadelphia when you are moving to SF? Your market value in SF may be closer to 150K, so current salary means little.

If you know your market value - and a good recruiter who knows a specific market should be able to price you out - discussing current salary doesn't matter much. When I'm working with underpaid candidates, I'll always mention to my client company that my candidate is underpaid and we expect that will be remedied during this job search.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#65
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's "attention" I guess, but is it the right kind? A better analogy might the pretty girl walking home from high school, of the rather hick-ish / paleosuburban sort -- when the older dropout pulls up in his muscle car and asks "Hey babe, wanna party?" I get about the same feeling when talking to recruiters, most of the time.

People call you to offer you a well paying job. You probably get these once a week or 2. Most people (as in humans) would kill for that attention. But us developers complain that each well paying opportunity isn't the exact one that we're looking for.

They aren't offering me a job. It's a complete mismatch with my skill set, and the company would flush me in 5 seconds if I actually tried to get the job.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#66

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.

I also would prefer an email as long as it's is not some form letter (which is all I get from external recruiters and is nothing like what I received from the internal recruiter). I'd also like them to take a look at my github, google me, know more about me than "joshstrange.isProgrammer == true".

The internal recruiter talked only over email with me and setup a call with the cofounder in her second email to me. (Note: we traded a few more emails to figure out a time that worked for both of us). I just looked at the first email she sent and it isn't very personalized but it is informal and not a wall of text filled with BS buzzwords.

-------------------------------------- Hi Josh,

I work for [removed]. We're kind of like a [removed] for [removed]. We’re [removed], whether they work in factories, wait tables, or drive firetrucks, with each other and the companies they work for. We recently raised our Series B round and we’re looking for great engineers to help us reach an even bigger audience.

We are passionate about including all employees at the workplace in the conversation. Potentially you could be a great fit for our engineering team here at [removed]. Would you be open to chat either today or tomorrow?

Look forward to connecting with you.

Best, [removed] --------------------------------------

As you can see they didn't mention anything specific to me but I am much more open to responding to than what I get from most recruiters.

I may be an edge case in the phone call department but I always answer my phone if I am awake and not in the middle of something with friends. If I am at home at 8pm messing around online or watching TV I will answer. I find it extremely uncomfortable to talk with a recruiter while at work. It was even worse at my last job where I sat within 5 feet from my boss with no divider between us at all. I feel like I have to speak in code and watch out from saying certain words that might tip off my current employer that I am talking to a recruiter. Now a days if I hear the words "Hi I'm XXX XXX with YYYYY" I hangup if "YYYYY" is a recruiting firm. If you google my name you can find my email address in seconds so there is no reason anyone should have to call me and I refuse to deal with external recruiting companies after multiple bad experiences and overall dislike of their business model.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#67
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is partially true, although you have to keep in mind that agency recruiters never have the incentive to minimize your compensation. They do have an incentive to get you more money, and their biggest incentive is for any offer (high or low) to be accepted - but their incentive is never to get you a lower salary.

It isn't that simple. Like real estate agents, they only get paid for a placement. Numbers wise, they are motivated to place you any way they can. They don't have much more to gain from getting you another $10K. They risk not placing you if you are too expensive. I don't have anything against recruiters but one should be realistic as to how things actually work.

They do get paid for a placement - this is true - but there is certainly motivation in getting someone another 10K. For someone like me that owns their own small company, an extra 10K for my candidate could mean $2,500 in my pocket.

I'll always advise candidates on the risk of asking too much or the potential for an offer to be retracted if we don't negotiate in good faith and reasonability, but it isn't accurate to think that the incentive to raise a candidate's salary isn't there for many recruiters. For your example of 10K that may result in $2,500 to the recruiter, that isn't an insignificant amount. That's a mortgage payment for some.

I do agree that the risk of someone being too expensive is real, but the recruiter doesn't decide on what is too expensive - that is a decision made by the market and participants in the market.

Re: In Defense of Recruiters

#68
post #52

A lot of the comments here are from the employee "I hate being bothered by recruiters" side, which I totally get. But as a (newly promoted) Director of Engineering in SF I'm struggling to make any headway building my team without using contingency recruiters. I'm new to being on the hiring side and my manager is frustrated that my only resource for candidates is to use recruiters (primarily because of the cost). What…

I've not been to tons of meetups, but. Ime, half-way through there's five or so minutes for a few people to pitch their company. They keep it short, and stick around after to talk to anyone who is actually interested. To me, it feels more like supporting programmers rather than hunting them. I may be naive ;). But especially for me as a relatively new programmer, without a huge professional network, I appreciate it.
Post reply on HN