3 ms·

This is a tricky situation, and I'm sure the finders fee probably shocks you ($20k + is not uncommon for tech hires in the Bay Area). And the recruiter screwed

This is a tricky situation, and I'm sure the finders fee probably shocks you ($20k + is not uncommon for tech hires in the Bay Area). And the recruiter screwed up by not having a contract between themselves and the client. But this is "random advice from the internet" is bad advice. Do you really want to deal with a company that won't honor their word? This is absolutely a moral and ethical issue. It is about the money. Recruiters aren't free. Developers aren't either. Companies are aware of both of these facts. Disclosure: I am a sales recruiter.

brudgers 9y ago
As a rule of thumb there are three quality levels of recruiters. Retained recruiters who get paid whether anyone gets hired or not. They don't waste anyone's time. Everyone's interests are aligned. Next down are contingent recruiters who have established working relationships with businesses. Because they have contracts in place that pay them only when someone is placed they balance throwing candidates at the wall and seeing what sticks with the limit to which companies will allow their time to be wasted. The last class of recruiter has a phone and an internet connection. They scan websites looking for job listings. They scan public resumes looking for candidates. It's a high volume low success business. The recruiter will invest as little time as possible in each candidate and job listing. That's what this smells like...a recruiter whose business model cannot afford to negotiate contracts before sending a candidate out. The recruiter cold called the candidate and sent them out on an interview without having a working relationship with the company. There's no other way to put it but that the recruiter was using the candidate's time and energy as the sole basis for establishing a business relationship with the employer. The finder's fee doesn't shock me at all. I would not be surprised if what the recruiter was seeking was significantly higher and that is the reason for the current situation. The class of recruiter who cold calls candidates about jobs with companies that have never heard of the recruiter have to make all their income from a tiny sliver of luck. They have to press every payday with rates high enough to cover companies that won't sign their deal. This whole thing is about money. It's about money with the recruiter. If you want to go into morals and ethics, the recruiter is willing to keep the candidate from a job unless they get paid. They are willing to keep the employer from an employee unless they get paid. They have been willing to waste everyone's time and then set their rate. It's a matter of money and contracts. When someone says "It's not the money it's the principle", it's the money.
- seem_2211 9y ago
  Fair point - my firm tends to work contingent / contained (similar to retained, but for less senior candidates), and we always get our clients on a contract first. All the t's crossed and i's dotted. I've never done the whole cold call -> submit public resumes (and never will).
  - brudgers 9y ago
    There are better and worse recruiters. The classic model is two tier: retained and contingent. That's how the recruiting industry likes to think of itself. The reality of working with recruiters as a candidate is how I recognized the third tier. It's most of the interactions that most candidates have for reasons implied by Spolsky's description of the job market [1]. The low end recruiters are recognizable with simple questions. "What is the name of the company?" is a good first question. "Are you retained or contingent?" is a good follow up. A person with a professionalist attitude will have no trouble answering either. In part because they are in the business of providing information to candidates. In part because they have a contract in place. In part because they have done their homework and are contacting the candidate because the probability of fit is higher than average. I once had a job where I was unhappy and so I put myself through the pain of answering calls from recruiters. One of them seemed reasonable enough and we had a couple of conversations. It was a Wednesday afternoon and I was sitting in my office and got a call on my cell. I stepped outside to hear about the job the recruiter had found. The recruiter built it up and then said "The firm is X, have you heard of them?" I'd worked at X for a few years a few years earlier. X was listed on my resume. My resume was one page. [1]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/09/06/finding-great-developers-2/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/09/06/finding-great-deve...

brudgers 9y ago

As a rule of thumb there are three quality levels of recruiters. Retained recruiters who get paid whether anyone gets hired or not. They don't waste anyone's time. Everyone's interests are aligned. Next down are contingent recruiters who have established working relationships with businesses. Because they have contracts in place that pay them only when someone is placed they balance throwing candidates at the wall and seeing what sticks with the limit to which companies will allow their time to be wasted. The last class of recruiter has a phone and an internet connection. They scan websites looking for job listings. They scan public resumes looking for candidates. It's a high volume low success business. The recruiter will invest as little time as possible in each candidate and job listing. That's what this smells like...a recruiter whose business model cannot afford to negotiate contracts before sending a candidate out. The recruiter cold called the candidate and sent them out on an interview without having a working relationship with the company. There's no other way to put it but that the recruiter was using the candidate's time and energy as the sole basis for establishing a business relationship with the employer. The finder's fee doesn't shock me at all. I would not be surprised if what the recruiter was seeking was significantly higher and that is the reason for the current situation. The class of recruiter who cold calls candidates about jobs with companies that have never heard of the recruiter have to make all their income from a tiny sliver of luck. They have to press every payday with rates high enough to cover companies that won't sign their deal. This whole thing is about money. It's about money with the recruiter. If you want to go into morals and ethics, the recruiter is willing to keep the candidate from a job unless they get paid. They are willing to keep the employer from an employee unless they get paid. They have been willing to waste everyone's time and then set their rate. It's a matter of money and contracts. When someone says "It's not the money it's the principle", it's the money.

seem_2211 9y ago
Fair point - my firm tends to work contingent / contained (similar to retained, but for less senior candidates), and we always get our clients on a contract first. All the t's crossed and i's dotted. I've never done the whole cold call -> submit public resumes (and never will).
- brudgers 9y ago
  There are better and worse recruiters. The classic model is two tier: retained and contingent. That's how the recruiting industry likes to think of itself. The reality of working with recruiters as a candidate is how I recognized the third tier. It's most of the interactions that most candidates have for reasons implied by Spolsky's description of the job market [1]. The low end recruiters are recognizable with simple questions. "What is the name of the company?" is a good first question. "Are you retained or contingent?" is a good follow up. A person with a professionalist attitude will have no trouble answering either. In part because they are in the business of providing information to candidates. In part because they have a contract in place. In part because they have done their homework and are contacting the candidate because the probability of fit is higher than average. I once had a job where I was unhappy and so I put myself through the pain of answering calls from recruiters. One of them seemed reasonable enough and we had a couple of conversations. It was a Wednesday afternoon and I was sitting in my office and got a call on my cell. I stepped outside to hear about the job the recruiter had found. The recruiter built it up and then said "The firm is X, have you heard of them?" I'd worked at X for a few years a few years earlier. X was listed on my resume. My resume was one page. [1]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/09/06/finding-great-developers-2/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/09/06/finding-great-deve...