3 ms·
It's at their clients insistence. Most recruiters would be absolutely happy to reveal the name of the company, however if they did, those companies would not do
by zavulon 16y ago
It's at their clients insistence. Most recruiters would be absolutely happy to reveal the name of the company, however if they did, those companies would not do business with them anymore.
The reason the companies don't want to do that is because they don't necessarily want it known internally that they're hiring. What if a guy who's being replaced sees the ad for his job?
I'm not defending that logic, but just explaining how it works (couple of friends of mine are recruiters)
- ig1 16y agoThat's simply not true. Most companies post job listings on their own websites. Even intelligence agencies post job listings publicly these days. There are some companies that prefer to remain secret, but they're really in a minority (this is the case for some hedgefunds, stealth startups, etc.).
- zavulon 16y agoYou are misinformed. > Most companies post job listings on their own websites. Yes, but this doesn't mean they publish ALL their job listings on their website. This is simply how the industry works.. ask any recruiter.
- ig1 16y agoAh I just realized we might be talking cross-wires here. In the software developer market, most jobs advertised by recruiters aren't "secret". However in other markets such as executive level roles it is the norm. There are two type of recruiter generally distinguishable by their relationship with the employer (exclusive versus non-exclusive). Exclusive recruiters tend to be used in the executive market when employers want to be discrete about a job, non-exclusive (which is the norm in tech) tend to be used primarily as a way to source candidates.
- semanticist 16y agoSo how do you explain recruiters who strip candidate contact details from all CVs? I work in this industry, and it is absolutely all about preventing employers and candidates from contacting each other without giving the recruiter their cut.
- joe_the_user 16y agoStandard operating procedure. As soon as a company operates where some amount of secrecy is considered necessary, the easiest thing is to maximize that secrecy. The alternative is to have to think each whether X information should be given out. Some candidates might actually not want identifying information "out there" so it's strip everyone's information than figure out who. Naturally, this makes things a bit absurd and inefficient but it is simply the natural logic of secrecy. And hey, secrecy appears whenever you have an adversarial market relation. So we may as well relax and enjoy it.
- semanticist 16y agoSo how do you explain recruiters who strip candidate contact details from all CVs? I work in this industry, and it is absolutely all about preventing employers and candidates from contacting each other without giving the recruiter their cut.
- quicksilver03 16y agoA couple of weeks ago I was approached by a recruiter on LinkedIn, I simply told her that in order to proceed she had to tell me the name of the company, and that I will treat this information with the highest confidentiality. I also told her that I don't accept any perm positions coming from my current and former consulting clients. In the end, I got the name of the company and I decided not to go any further. The advantage for me is that I spent no more than 15 minutes reading and composing emails with the recruiter, no pointless editing of CVs, no useless phone interviews or suits to wear.