3 ms·
I would expect; 1) Because the pay is low and they want to either i) show the employer they can bring possible candidates (if recruiter) or ii) try and talk yo
by Gustomaximus 4y ago
I would expect;
1) Because the pay is low and they want to either i) show the employer they can bring possible candidates (if recruiter) or ii) try and talk you in via other benefits.
2) They dont want to publicise the pay to other staff especially if staff are under market rate.
3) They have a big range and they dont want to show their hand if they bring someone in more aligned to the bottom end.
Generally I think its number one and wasting peoples time not saying.
- HWR_14 4y agoI thought recruiters weee judged (and compensated) based solely on if they filled the position, not the number of candidates? But it seems companies would also want recruiters to test the acceptability of the position to the candidate (to avoid wasting their time).
- Gustomaximus 4y ago> I thought recruiters weee judged (and compensated) based solely on if they filled the position I believe compensated. For judged, if pickings are slim (or bad offer) they still want to send people to show they can, even if it doesnt work out. If they are sending no-one to to client they will look at other recruiters. This way they show 'competence' and buy time to find someone who would accept or the client says good enough.
- mcv 4y agoI think the big one is: they're looking for an opportunity to lowball you. You're not going to hear an offer until they know how much they can lowball you.