3 ms·

This seems strange to me… every recruiter I’ve worked with had a guarantee period, and if the employee didn’t work out, the fee was not owed. There’s also the o

by lukevp 3y ago

This seems strange to me… every recruiter I’ve worked with had a guarantee period, and if the employee didn’t work out, the fee was not owed. There’s also the option to do contract to hire. If the fee to hire someone is a deterrent, it doesn’t feel like a great sign of the company’s financial situation or how they view money. $10k extra for someone who may work out is not gonna break the bank when hiring employees that are paid well north of 100k. That’s actually an incredibly small fee compared to what I’ve seen. Employees typically cost the company around 1.5-2x the salary for all other overhead, so 10k is a drop in the bucket.

sandreas 3y ago
> every recruiter I’ve worked with had a guarantee period Maybe I was not told about it, I was not the person who denied the application - but at most it was a "6 months at work" guarantee, where the fee has to be paid as soon as the person has been 6 months employed at the company. > There’s also the option to do contract to hire. If the fee to hire someone is a deterrent, it doesn’t feel like a great sign of the company’s financial situation or how they view money. $10k extra for someone who may work out is not gonna break the bank when hiring employees that are paid well north of 100k. I agree (I'm no longer working for the company), but I made this experience more than once. In edge cases or cases where the application is about < 60k, > 10k (!) can be pretty much for a smaller company / startup, when the person is a "job hopper" that is only looking for a time filler job and leaves after a year. > Employees typically cost the company around 1.5-2x the salary for all other overhead, so 10k is a drop in the bucket. The fee was actually higher than 10k (I wrote >10k), but 10k was the fee, that would have been acceptable for the new applicant, that was denied. All in all I think recruiters are maybe an option for jobs >60k, but in most cases it is better to look for a job yourself. In my experience Recruiters are intrusive (I got nonsense emails all the time), don't provide jobs that aren't already there, don't do much research about the company, they have no "early access", they don't do much "work" you couldn't do yourself besides souping up your curriculum vitae. They are PAID for pleasing the companies, so they mostly don't care about your needs or if you fit the company. Pretty often they call you after a year in the new job they offered and tell you about this new absolutely unique application they now have for you... So NO, I don't like recruiters :-)

by lukevp 3y ago

sandreas 3y ago

> every recruiter I’ve worked with had a guarantee period Maybe I was not told about it, I was not the person who denied the application - but at most it was a "6 months at work" guarantee, where the fee has to be paid as soon as the person has been 6 months employed at the company. > There’s also the option to do contract to hire. If the fee to hire someone is a deterrent, it doesn’t feel like a great sign of the company’s financial situation or how they view money. $10k extra for someone who may work out is not gonna break the bank when hiring employees that are paid well north of 100k. I agree (I'm no longer working for the company), but I made this experience more than once. In edge cases or cases where the application is about < 60k, > 10k (!) can be pretty much for a smaller company / startup, when the person is a "job hopper" that is only looking for a time filler job and leaves after a year. > Employees typically cost the company around 1.5-2x the salary for all other overhead, so 10k is a drop in the bucket. The fee was actually higher than 10k (I wrote >10k), but 10k was the fee, that would have been acceptable for the new applicant, that was denied. All in all I think recruiters are maybe an option for jobs >60k, but in most cases it is better to look for a job yourself. In my experience Recruiters are intrusive (I got nonsense emails all the time), don't provide jobs that aren't already there, don't do much research about the company, they have no "early access", they don't do much "work" you couldn't do yourself besides souping up your curriculum vitae. They are PAID for pleasing the companies, so they mostly don't care about your needs or if you fit the company. Pretty often they call you after a year in the new job they offered and tell you about this new absolutely unique application they now have for you... So NO, I don't like recruiters :-)