In Defense of Recruiters
blog.42floors.com
In Defense of Recruiters
1–10 of 68 posts
Re: In Defense of Recruiters
#2Nothing wrong with recruiters, but never make the mistake of thinking they are your friend no matter how 'nice' they appear. They follow the money. It's their job to do that.
I can remember being on contract and wrangling a bottle of Whiskey out of the agent. I had to go into the car park and collect it quietly there as he didn't want the other people he was managing on site to get wind he'd given me it. Funny in an odd way.
Remember that an agent is just following the money. A lot are on basic + bonuses. One reason I used to keep the company and address of my current role off my CV is that their focus is so much on locating new roles.
Of note if you hate an ex-boss, just casually mention that you worked for X :D
Re: In Defense of Recruiters
#3The main difference we've seen is between retained vs. contingency recruiters. Contingency recruiters don't get paid unless they find you a hire, which sounds great in theory but turns it into a lottery for them: spam as many developers and companies as you can, hoping for a big jackpot. It also leads to some of the scummier practices of hiding names and contact information (wouldn't want to lose that commission!), and paying for referrals (after all, if I'm getting $20k for a hire, I can afford to pay out $2k to the person who did the work). They don't really care if you fire the person after 6 months because they'll be on to the next thing (or, even better, they can make another commission off of you!).
Retained recruiters, whether they're contract or full-time, are ones you pay to represent your company. They work off a salary or an hourly rate, like normal employees. They expect to be there in a year or two, so if the hire doesn't work out they'll hear about it. They represent you as a company and don't have any incentive to hide who they're working for or who they're talking to. You can still get clueless recruiters here, but at least the relationship is much better.
Re: In Defense of Recruiters
#4A recruiter setup an interview for me about an hour or so south of where I live. He talked up how great of a person the C is. I show up early and wait for the recruiter. He showed 10 minutes AFTER the interview was suppose to start and only then actually met the C person.
I started talking to the interviewer and found out that one of the main things on his list for a candidate was to be local. Within 5 minutes we both knew this wasn't going anywhere and wrapped it up.
Re: In Defense of Recruiters
#5Nothing wrong with recruiters, but never make the mistake of thinking they are your friend no matter how 'nice' they appear. They follow the money. It's their job to do that. I can remember being on contract and wrangling a bottle of Whiskey out of the agent. I had to go into the car park and collect it quietly there as he didn't want the other people he was managing on site to get wind he'd given me it. Funny in an…
Agreed, most people follow the money. To me it's just a matter of understanding that their interests are not necessarily aligned with yours. Recruiters want to fill the position quickly. Those smart enough to want your repeat business will want to make sure you're happy with the hire, but their interest isn't an ideal candidate who excels in the job. That's not their concern, and I don't blame them. We just have to set ground rules.
For an employer, that means making sure they're not coaching candidates too much. I once learned a recruiter had coached a candidate so much that their resume was highlighting skills that were actually very weak. They even noted words we'd used a lot in explaining the position, and coached the candidate to use these words in stories. No one outright lied, as far as I could tell, but the recruiter was going a little too far in forcing the fit.
Potential employees need to watch out, too, because the recruiter doesn't really care if you're going to be happy or fulfilled in the position. I've also used recruiters to find jobs, and they helped me find a really great position once early in my career. The recruiter kept trying to get me in to interview for positions I didn't want. He'd say, "just check it out and see." Sorry, no. Make it clear you're not going to waste your time if it doesn't move you in the direction you want or offer the pay you demand.
Recruiters are often maligned on HN because of Linkedin spammers, but I think that's a minority of bad recruiters making more noise than everyone else. My view is that they can be a useful channel as long as you do your homework and know what the recruiter is doing.
Re: In Defense of Recruiters
#6Nothing wrong with recruiters, but never make the mistake of thinking they are your friend no matter how 'nice' they appear. They follow the money. It's their job to do that. I can remember being on contract and wrangling a bottle of Whiskey out of the agent. I had to go into the car park and collect it quietly there as he didn't want the other people he was managing on site to get wind he'd given me it. Funny in an…
Usually the 20K payout is staged and contingent on the employee working through a target date, say 1 year.
This has made me want to call them up at 50 weeks and ask for that bottle of whiskey or brown paper bag of cash, otherwise I walk. Oddly enough, I've had plenty of recruiters that placed me call me up on that 53rd week and try to place me somewhere else.
Too bad the employees are not getting in on this racket?
Re: In Defense of Recruiters
#7Hired is basically a team of recruiters (well, at least there are a good 10 of us coming from various flavors of recruiting) and even we have a need for external recruiters and internal interview coordinator.
The external recruiters we use are in markets we don't know a lot about (like Marketing - which we are hiring for big time right now). The internal coordinator helps keep onsites organized and managing the huge amount of interview flow through the organization so that key stakeholders still have some time to do their jobs.
The low-end contingency recruiting agencies have given the whole profession in San Francisco a bad name, when in reality there are great people (like Oliver, from the post) who do great work and are incredibly valuable to a fast growing organization.
Re: In Defense of Recruiters
#8The main difference we've seen is between retained vs. contingency recruiters. Contingency recruiters don't get paid unless they find you a hire, which sounds great in theory but turns it into a lottery for them: spam as many developers and companies as you can, hoping for a big jackpot. It also leads to some of the scummier practices of hiding names and contact information (wouldn't want to lose that commission!), a…
The problem in most recruiting, as I've said here before, is that the big fees in contingency recruiting models give recruiters incentives to cheat/lie/etc. Fees of 30 - 50K might get people to do things they wouldn't do for 10 - 20K.
You also need to look at risk. In contingency recruiting, 100% of the risk is on the recruiter. Company pays nothing until a hire is made, so companies can engage all the contingency firms they want and most will be doing free labor - spreading the word about the company, drumming up interest - it's free PR for the company. I could find 10 perfect candidates and spend many hours, but not make a dime if none get hired or if the company changes direction.
In fully retained recruiting, all the risk is on the company. The company will pay money out and may get mixed results. My model tries to split the risk a bit, with small upfront fees and small back-end fees (all flat fee and unrelated to salary).
Negotiating with a couple recruiters to pay them some money up front with additional back-end payout for performance may yield better results for companies that complain about contingency firms. Recruiters will appreciate you reducing their risk, and by removing the risk a company should be able to negotiate a lower fee.
Re: In Defense of Recruiters
#9Nothing wrong with recruiters, but never make the mistake of thinking they are your friend no matter how 'nice' they appear. They follow the money. It's their job to do that. I can remember being on contract and wrangling a bottle of Whiskey out of the agent. I had to go into the car park and collect it quietly there as he didn't want the other people he was managing on site to get wind he'd given me it. Funny in an…
Usually the 20K payout is staged and contingent on the employee working through a target date, say 1 year. This has made me want to call them up at 50 weeks and ask for that bottle of whiskey or brown paper bag of cash, otherwise I walk. Oddly enough, I've had plenty of recruiters that placed me call me up on that 53rd week and try to place me somewhere else. Too bad the employees are not getting in on this racket?
In the US the guarantee period is usually much less, and fees are paid relatively quickly. 90 day guarantee (sometimes prorated) and 90 day net is pretty normal, and you might even see 30 day net.
Re: In Defense of Recruiters
#10If 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 expensive employee if you go through a recruiter and that's a bad thing. If you're half-way good at what you do, reach out to the company you like directly.