5 ms·

Interesting timing because I am working on a service that does exactly this. Essentially I will be your agent. Tell me the job you want and your salary and I

Interesting timing because I am working on a service that does exactly this. Essentially I will be your agent. Tell me the job you want and your salary and I still get it for you. Help you schedule, cleanup your resume etc... in return I get 10% of your paycheck for a year. I am currently beta testing it with a handful of people but if interested email me at eibrahim@gmail.com

ufmace 10y ago
Do people actually want to do this? 10% of your pay for a year is a hell of a lot of money for some glorified secretarial work. The market is saturated with experienced, well-connected recruiters who can do all of that and get paid by the employer outside of the candidate's income. What do you offer over all of the other recruiters out there who, from the candidate's perspective, are $10,000+ cheaper to work with, and why is it worth that much money to me?
- bbcbasic 10y ago
  Yes recruiters can help you do this for free. 10% is a big hit.
  - einarvollset 10y ago
    Except: Recruiters usually take 17% (2 months) of your first year salary as a fee, you just don't see it. Better to have the recruiter not do that and take 10% and have that higher salary be your starting point for salary increases etc.
    - bbcbasic 10y ago
      No they take a percentage from the company. Generally a tech company won't offer a 17% signing bonus for coming direct. On the other hand, a company not using recruiters wont pay 17% more just because they are saving money. PS: I wonder why my GP comment is heavily downvoted? Maybe it sounds to pro-recruiter.
      - einarvollset 10y ago
        Pay attention: "you just don't see it" == "they take it from the company" Your assertion that a company wouldn't pay more without a recruiter makes no sense. Particularly if they're sourcing candidates off a trusted source Ps. I suspect your comments get downvotes because they come across as rash and not very well thought through.
        bbcbasic 10y ago
        It makes sense from a simple supply/demand point of view. You only pay what you have to. Why pay the candidate more just because you saved some money elsewhere. That could be just added to the bottom line, used for growth etc. Now if the candidate is strong, a good negotiator, and all their competing candidates went through a recruiter then they may be able to claw back some of that as a pay rise. But I guess in most cases, not.
      - nicholas73 10y ago
        FWIW, I think you are correct. Companies are interested in keeping people in the same paygrade at similar pay. People talk, after all. They cannot pay someone more or less based on whether there is an initial upfront recruiter fee, as the employees will find out soon enough and threaten to walk.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- eibrahim 10y ago
  Here is the thing, let's say you want to get a 100k job at google. It's a lot of work to get in the door. What if write/cleanup your resume so it stands out? What if I help you setup your online presence (website, github, linked in, etc...)? What if I pitch you to the employer better than you can? And at the end, you end up getting your job and you make 110k (because I did all the negotiations for you and got you a better starting salary). Sure you will give up 10k for a year but then you have a higher salary. You save time and you make more money. Does it sound too expensive now? I am a developer myself and it's a pain job hunting but I realized over the year that I always did a great job negotiating my benefits and on several occasions I was making more than other more qualified co-workers (I know it sucks). I also found that I am good at placing other people and helping them get jobs - I did it for free most of the time to help out but eventually saw the business opportunity. I appreciate all the feedback though and I did get several emails of interested people, so I setup this form if anyone is interested: https://goo.gl/forms/tYVvDddqWdJrn2fi2 https://goo.gl/forms/tYVvDddqWdJrn2fi2 NOTE: Again, I am not a sleazy recruiter/sales guy. I am a developer like you and understand where you come from - you can learn more about me at about.me/eibrahim Thanks.
jwatte 10y ago
For that to work, you have to arbitrage the fee the business would pay to a recruiter against the lost income for the employee you place. Maybe you have secret sauce that makes it possible? Tell us more?
- bbcbasic 10y ago
  Not possible. To provide a good service then jobs found via recruiters must be included, the recruiter must be paid. Instead, the best they can do for you as a candidate is negotiate hard on your behalf. This might be a good service for someone who is currently underpaid and is happy to give up 10% to have a negotiator get them up by 30% from their current role. The help with CV etc. stuff can be got a lot more cheaply and is not an exact science anyway.
  - eibrahim 10y ago
    I am with you. It really is not rocket science but let's admit it, many developers suck at negotiating and will get distracted by the free macbook and $5000 bonus and ignore the fact that they could have have gotten a much higher salary :). It comes down to simple math, why not pay 10% to get 30% - it's that simple. But just like any service, of course you can do it on your own and save the 10% :).
nicholas73 10y ago
The primary value I derive from recruiters is them being a trusted source with direct contacts to hiring managers, so that I can get interviews quickly. I do not need scheduling or resume advice. Moreover, 10% from me is quite different than a fee paid by the employer. The employer fee does not necessarily have to come from my pocket, as payscales could be standardized or deduced and negotiated. But the 10% definitely would cost me. I'm not trying to be rude or decline your help. Just giving feedback on your business model.

ufmace 10y ago

Do people actually want to do this? 10% of your pay for a year is a hell of a lot of money for some glorified secretarial work. The market is saturated with experienced, well-connected recruiters who can do all of that and get paid by the employer outside of the candidate's income. What do you offer over all of the other recruiters out there who, from the candidate's perspective, are $10,000+ cheaper to work with, and why is it worth that much money to me?

bbcbasic 10y ago
Yes recruiters can help you do this for free. 10% is a big hit.
- einarvollset 10y ago
  Except: Recruiters usually take 17% (2 months) of your first year salary as a fee, you just don't see it. Better to have the recruiter not do that and take 10% and have that higher salary be your starting point for salary increases etc.
  - bbcbasic 10y ago
    No they take a percentage from the company. Generally a tech company won't offer a 17% signing bonus for coming direct. On the other hand, a company not using recruiters wont pay 17% more just because they are saving money. PS: I wonder why my GP comment is heavily downvoted? Maybe it sounds to pro-recruiter.
    - einarvollset 10y ago
      Pay attention: "you just don't see it" == "they take it from the company" Your assertion that a company wouldn't pay more without a recruiter makes no sense. Particularly if they're sourcing candidates off a trusted source Ps. I suspect your comments get downvotes because they come across as rash and not very well thought through.
      - bbcbasic 10y ago
        It makes sense from a simple supply/demand point of view. You only pay what you have to. Why pay the candidate more just because you saved some money elsewhere. That could be just added to the bottom line, used for growth etc. Now if the candidate is strong, a good negotiator, and all their competing candidates went through a recruiter then they may be able to claw back some of that as a pay rise. But I guess in most cases, not.
    - nicholas73 10y ago
      FWIW, I think you are correct. Companies are interested in keeping people in the same paygrade at similar pay. People talk, after all. They cannot pay someone more or less based on whether there is an initial upfront recruiter fee, as the employees will find out soon enough and threaten to walk.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
eibrahim 10y ago
Here is the thing, let's say you want to get a 100k job at google. It's a lot of work to get in the door. What if write/cleanup your resume so it stands out? What if I help you setup your online presence (website, github, linked in, etc...)? What if I pitch you to the employer better than you can? And at the end, you end up getting your job and you make 110k (because I did all the negotiations for you and got you a better starting salary). Sure you will give up 10k for a year but then you have a higher salary. You save time and you make more money. Does it sound too expensive now? I am a developer myself and it's a pain job hunting but I realized over the year that I always did a great job negotiating my benefits and on several occasions I was making more than other more qualified co-workers (I know it sucks). I also found that I am good at placing other people and helping them get jobs - I did it for free most of the time to help out but eventually saw the business opportunity. I appreciate all the feedback though and I did get several emails of interested people, so I setup this form if anyone is interested: https://goo.gl/forms/tYVvDddqWdJrn2fi2 https://goo.gl/forms/tYVvDddqWdJrn2fi2 NOTE: Again, I am not a sleazy recruiter/sales guy. I am a developer like you and understand where you come from - you can learn more about me at about.me/eibrahim Thanks.

jwatte 10y ago

For that to work, you have to arbitrage the fee the business would pay to a recruiter against the lost income for the employee you place. Maybe you have secret sauce that makes it possible? Tell us more?

bbcbasic 10y ago
Not possible. To provide a good service then jobs found via recruiters must be included, the recruiter must be paid. Instead, the best they can do for you as a candidate is negotiate hard on your behalf. This might be a good service for someone who is currently underpaid and is happy to give up 10% to have a negotiator get them up by 30% from their current role. The help with CV etc. stuff can be got a lot more cheaply and is not an exact science anyway.
- eibrahim 10y ago
  I am with you. It really is not rocket science but let's admit it, many developers suck at negotiating and will get distracted by the free macbook and $5000 bonus and ignore the fact that they could have have gotten a much higher salary :). It comes down to simple math, why not pay 10% to get 30% - it's that simple. But just like any service, of course you can do it on your own and save the 10% :).

nicholas73 10y ago

The primary value I derive from recruiters is them being a trusted source with direct contacts to hiring managers, so that I can get interviews quickly. I do not need scheduling or resume advice. Moreover, 10% from me is quite different than a fee paid by the employer. The employer fee does not necessarily have to come from my pocket, as payscales could be standardized or deduced and negotiated. But the 10% definitely would cost me. I'm not trying to be rude or decline your help. Just giving feedback on your business model.