5 ms·

One of the most common reasons is simply that they don't want you to go direct to the company in question and bypass their commission. If they give you too much

One of the most common reasons is simply that they don't want you to go direct to the company in question and bypass their commission. If they give you too much, it is very easy to do and many companies will recruit directly and the recruiter would have no legal basis to do anything about that. On the other hand, because of commission, it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them than you would if you went direct.

joezydeco 5y ago
9 times out of 10 the job description you get from the recruiter is a lazy cut-and-paste from the actual company's input. It's never anonymized and simply pasting it into Google will almost always get you a lead on the hiring company. Another lead is if they give you the company location. There is only one company on the planet, for example, that has R&D offices in both Mossvile and Aurora, Illinois.
- bengy5959 5y ago
  Also 9 times out of 10 its a bait and switch for a different company. Whenever I've worked with these recruiters they always "see whats a good fit" with my resume and its never the company that was in the job description.
Kalium 5y ago
I understand their fear of being cut out. I want them to understand that I need to know up-front if the position is interesting enough to be worth investing my time in at all. I could sacrifice my time and energy to assuage their fears, but every time I've done that in the past ten years there has been zero return on investment. A reader might, at this point, optimistically point out that the next recruiter could be different. This reader would be correct. That could indeed be the case! Yet every time I wind up deciding to try the optimistic approach I wind up on a phonecall in which I learn that the company isn't someone I want to work for, the JD isn't one I actually want to work on, the comp isn't nearly enough, or some combination thereof. Generally the comp is so far off it has no change to even be negotiated to something I would consider. Often they try to sell me on a 40%-60% pay cut, because a slice of that is worth a lot to them (it's happened twice this month). At this point I'm quite tired of paying optimism's price to assuage the fears of recruiters. The kindness is not returned. I understand others might choose differently.
- tempestn 5y ago
  But isn't that the advantage of the approach in the OP? It shows some more effort and good faith to the recruiter, without actually requiring any additional effort or time on your end.
seneca 5y ago
> On the other hand, because of commission, it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them than you would if you went direct. This isn't my experience at all, having worked with recruiters both as a hirer and hiree. Recruiters typically are looking to close as many positions as possible, making money on volume. Their incentives are to spend as little time as they can getting candidates just enough so they say yes. They typically are paid a percentage of a candidates first year salary. At first glance this might seem to mean they're motivated to get you as much as possible. In reality it means that the effort to get an extra $20k, which might make a big difference for the candidate, only results in an extra e.g. $2000 for them. They're not going to spend time on that that could be spent on closing another candidate, and getting another full commission, if they think the candidate will accept either way. The money a recruiter is paid also often comes from the same budget a potential signing bonus would. The fact that they take 10% of the first year salary makes companies less forthcoming with extra money for the candidate.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  A lot of the recruiters have different businesses. Some may be recruiting for direct hire but alot of them retain them as employees as they contract for six months or however long...sometimes years..for an hourly rate. They pocket the difference over what is paid to the engineer.
ornornor 5y ago
> it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them Up to a point. They get a fraction of the marginal increase in salary, and they’d much sooner “close the sale” than risking having someone else fill the job to try and get an extra 500$ commission. It’s the same story with real estate agents: selling your house for an extra 20k might be a lot to you but to the agent it’s an extra 400$ in commission (exact percentage varies). In other words, it’s hardly worth risking the seller losing interest or working an extra 2–3 weeks for so little.
- pishpash 5y ago
  You can split the extra margin 50/50 so your motivations are exactly equal.
  - ornornor 5y ago
    I’ve never encountered a recruiter who would even entertain that idea. They loved “cookie cutter” deals and hated this kind of unusual arrangements for the same reason that they can’t understand anything else than keywords.
- dev_tty01 5y ago
  Assuming it is an active real estate with lots of transactions, yes, the agent is absolutely more motivated to close the deal and move on to another deal than to get the highest commission possible on a particular deal. The situation is similar with recruiters. It is important to understand these motivations to correctly interpret what you are hearing from the agents/realtors.
  - catillac 5y ago
    I used to work as a waiter when I was in my first summer out of high school. The calculus was similar there. When it was busy the tables turned as soon as the person got up, so I would often not emphasize dessert. The added $15 on the check from dessert increased my tip a couple dollars, but regular desserts could cause me to lose 1-2 full turns of my section over the course of the evening, so with a four table section of everyone for dessert, I might lose 8 tables total, and if the average tip was $20, I’d lose $160 minus the extra $16 in tip gained from everyone having dessert. Point is, I much preferred quick turns over small per capita increases in per table tips. In non rush times though where tables didn’t get filled when people left, it made a lot more sense to play up dessert.
mcrider 5y ago
I think the one time I responded to a recruiter and went through the process was because they told me the company up front. Unless its an internal recruiter, I never get that info. I was interested in the company and I figured they could help speed me through the process (which I believe was true). I didn't take the job but I appreciated this person not BSing me.
wnevets 5y ago
> it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them than you would if you went direct. Unlikely. Its way better for the recruiter to focus on the quantity of hires rather than trying to increase the salaries of a smaller number of them. It takes way more work and makes them less money to help increase your salary by 20% than just finding another role and hire.
throwaway6532 5y ago
>On the other hand, because of commission, it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them than you would if you went direct. It's in the recruiters best interest to maximize their throughput in placing candidates, and they're commission is skimming money off the top of the salary you could have collected if you'd gone direct.
- cercatrova 5y ago
  > they're commission is skimming money off the top of the salary you could have collected if you'd gone direct. No, the company would pay you your salary and keep the commission itself, it would not have given you that commission simply because you went directly with them.
scarface74 5y ago
This isn’t true for commission sales. There was a famous study cited in Freakonomics. https://freakonomics.com/2008/02/real-estate-agents-revisited/ https://freakonomics.com/2008/02/real-estate-agents-revisite...
thrownaway561 5y ago
that all depends on the contract setup with the company and recruiter. i've worked at places that had exclusivity contracts with recruiters where we wouldn't even post the positions in hr until the contract expired.
horsawlarway 5y ago
> On the other hand, because of commission, it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them than you would if you went direct. It's in their interest, yes - but it's not worth more than closing a deal quickly. They generally make more money by seating 3 hires at new companies for 100k than they do seating 1 hire for 300k. Because of the downside risk of possibly losing a deal, and further - because they're paid over time as an employee remains with a company, it's much more beneficial to place many people quickly than it is to place a few people for more money.

joezydeco 5y ago

9 times out of 10 the job description you get from the recruiter is a lazy cut-and-paste from the actual company's input. It's never anonymized and simply pasting it into Google will almost always get you a lead on the hiring company. Another lead is if they give you the company location. There is only one company on the planet, for example, that has R&D offices in both Mossvile and Aurora, Illinois.

bengy5959 5y ago
Also 9 times out of 10 its a bait and switch for a different company. Whenever I've worked with these recruiters they always "see whats a good fit" with my resume and its never the company that was in the job description.

Kalium 5y ago

I understand their fear of being cut out. I want them to understand that I need to know up-front if the position is interesting enough to be worth investing my time in at all. I could sacrifice my time and energy to assuage their fears, but every time I've done that in the past ten years there has been zero return on investment. A reader might, at this point, optimistically point out that the next recruiter could be different. This reader would be correct. That could indeed be the case! Yet every time I wind up deciding to try the optimistic approach I wind up on a phonecall in which I learn that the company isn't someone I want to work for, the JD isn't one I actually want to work on, the comp isn't nearly enough, or some combination thereof. Generally the comp is so far off it has no change to even be negotiated to something I would consider. Often they try to sell me on a 40%-60% pay cut, because a slice of that is worth a lot to them (it's happened twice this month). At this point I'm quite tired of paying optimism's price to assuage the fears of recruiters. The kindness is not returned. I understand others might choose differently.

tempestn 5y ago
But isn't that the advantage of the approach in the OP? It shows some more effort and good faith to the recruiter, without actually requiring any additional effort or time on your end.

seneca 5y ago

> On the other hand, because of commission, it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them than you would if you went direct. This isn't my experience at all, having worked with recruiters both as a hirer and hiree. Recruiters typically are looking to close as many positions as possible, making money on volume. Their incentives are to spend as little time as they can getting candidates just enough so they say yes. They typically are paid a percentage of a candidates first year salary. At first glance this might seem to mean they're motivated to get you as much as possible. In reality it means that the effort to get an extra $20k, which might make a big difference for the candidate, only results in an extra e.g. $2000 for them. They're not going to spend time on that that could be spent on closing another candidate, and getting another full commission, if they think the candidate will accept either way. The money a recruiter is paid also often comes from the same budget a potential signing bonus would. The fact that they take 10% of the first year salary makes companies less forthcoming with extra money for the candidate.

datavirtue 5y ago
A lot of the recruiters have different businesses. Some may be recruiting for direct hire but alot of them retain them as employees as they contract for six months or however long...sometimes years..for an hourly rate. They pocket the difference over what is paid to the engineer.

ornornor 5y ago

> it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them Up to a point. They get a fraction of the marginal increase in salary, and they’d much sooner “close the sale” than risking having someone else fill the job to try and get an extra 500$ commission. It’s the same story with real estate agents: selling your house for an extra 20k might be a lot to you but to the agent it’s an extra 400$ in commission (exact percentage varies). In other words, it’s hardly worth risking the seller losing interest or working an extra 2–3 weeks for so little.

pishpash 5y ago
You can split the extra margin 50/50 so your motivations are exactly equal.
- ornornor 5y ago
  I’ve never encountered a recruiter who would even entertain that idea. They loved “cookie cutter” deals and hated this kind of unusual arrangements for the same reason that they can’t understand anything else than keywords.
dev_tty01 5y ago
Assuming it is an active real estate with lots of transactions, yes, the agent is absolutely more motivated to close the deal and move on to another deal than to get the highest commission possible on a particular deal. The situation is similar with recruiters. It is important to understand these motivations to correctly interpret what you are hearing from the agents/realtors.
- catillac 5y ago
  I used to work as a waiter when I was in my first summer out of high school. The calculus was similar there. When it was busy the tables turned as soon as the person got up, so I would often not emphasize dessert. The added $15 on the check from dessert increased my tip a couple dollars, but regular desserts could cause me to lose 1-2 full turns of my section over the course of the evening, so with a four table section of everyone for dessert, I might lose 8 tables total, and if the average tip was $20, I’d lose $160 minus the extra $16 in tip gained from everyone having dessert. Point is, I much preferred quick turns over small per capita increases in per table tips. In non rush times though where tables didn’t get filled when people left, it made a lot more sense to play up dessert.

mcrider 5y ago

I think the one time I responded to a recruiter and went through the process was because they told me the company up front. Unless its an internal recruiter, I never get that info. I was interested in the company and I figured they could help speed me through the process (which I believe was true). I didn't take the job but I appreciated this person not BSing me.

wnevets 5y ago

> it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them than you would if you went direct. Unlikely. Its way better for the recruiter to focus on the quantity of hires rather than trying to increase the salaries of a smaller number of them. It takes way more work and makes them less money to help increase your salary by 20% than just finding another role and hire.

throwaway6532 5y ago

>On the other hand, because of commission, it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them than you would if you went direct. It's in the recruiters best interest to maximize their throughput in placing candidates, and they're commission is skimming money off the top of the salary you could have collected if you'd gone direct.

cercatrova 5y ago
> they're commission is skimming money off the top of the salary you could have collected if you'd gone direct. No, the company would pay you your salary and keep the commission itself, it would not have given you that commission simply because you went directly with them.

scarface74 5y ago

This isn’t true for commission sales. There was a famous study cited in Freakonomics. https://freakonomics.com/2008/02/real-estate-agents-revisited/ https://freakonomics.com/2008/02/real-estate-agents-revisite...

thrownaway561 5y ago

that all depends on the contract setup with the company and recruiter. i've worked at places that had exclusivity contracts with recruiters where we wouldn't even post the positions in hr until the contract expired.

horsawlarway 5y ago

> On the other hand, because of commission, it is in the recruiter's interest to get you as much money as possible so you might get a better offer via them than you would if you went direct. It's in their interest, yes - but it's not worth more than closing a deal quickly. They generally make more money by seating 3 hires at new companies for 100k than they do seating 1 hire for 300k. Because of the downside risk of possibly losing a deal, and further - because they're paid over time as an employee remains with a company, it's much more beneficial to place many people quickly than it is to place a few people for more money.