7 ms·

Personal contacts. With this, I mostly mean LinkedIn. Found my last two gigs there. Once because an old colleague was reaching out and the other time when I mad

Personal contacts. With this, I mostly mean LinkedIn. Found my last two gigs there. Once because an old colleague was reaching out and the other time when I made a post, that I am up for work. There are also tons of recruiters there looking for freelancers, at least for platform engineering I am getting weekly at least 1 or 2 offers.

poisonborz 2y ago
Those are not offers but asking your permission that they can pitch you on a job ad they think somewhat fits. It's like automated job ad submission except you start with a disadvantage as they get up to 10% of your yearly salary.
- benjaminwootton 2y ago
  I would encourage you to look at recruiters more as partners or as an unpaid sales team. They are out there speculatively busting their ass and building relationships with buyers. I run my own business and would pay 10% commission in exchange for qualified opportunities all day long.
  - sirsinsalot 2y ago
    Except most recruiters are not working in your interest. Only their own. They'll push down your pay to increase their margin. This is particularly true in contracting. Not all work on transparent commissions, at least here in the UK that's rare. They are, by and large, talentless liars and cheats with a false narrative and harmful practice. Seeing them as anything other than hostile to your interests is a quick way to get ripped off by these hacks. Source: I consult for them on technical screening processes.
    - ivandenysov 2y ago
      What an unexpected ending.
      - sirsinsalot 2y ago
        I'm not above taking their money
    - em-bee 2y ago
      as long as my pay is according to my needs and expectations, i don't care how much of a cut the recruiter makes. the company i work for is getting ripped off just as much as i am. otherwise if the pay is not enough, don't take the job. the worst that can happen is that the recruiter misrepresents your skills and experience. that can easily be solved by sharing your CV directly with the hiring company. if the recruiter doesn't allow you to do that, then it's a red flag.
      - sirsinsalot 2y ago
        Believe me that's not the worst that can happen. Ive seen people work for a year at a lowish rate, then be denied a rate increase. Only to find out later the increase was authorised but the recruiter took it and lied to the worker about it be accepted. This, sadly, isn't at all uncommon. I see it constantly. They'll risk your security, reputation and income for quick results to hit their quotas for bonuses.
        em-bee 2y ago
        ok, but why are they still involved at that point? shouldn't a recruiter get out of the picture once the connection is made? if they are still involved after that then they are an employment agency. you get good and bad ones there too. but my contract should make it clear which one it is.
        sirsinsalot 2y ago
        Yes but when contracting, that's how it is structured much of the time.
        em-bee 2y ago
        yes, that makes sense. however i call that staffing, not recruiting. recruiting should always lead to a direct hire by the client company. i guess the important part for any job seeker is to know the distinction and be aware of the benefits and downsides of each. and when talking to a recruiter to make clear which one this is. staffing agencies have their place and can be an advantage in some situations. depending on what you are looking for. in the US in particular they may be able to provide continuous insurance (just a guess, i don't actually know). another advantage may be permanent employment with the agency. (again, i don't know how this is in the US, but due to stronger labor protection it is more likely in germany.) when you are employed with a staffing agency, it is clear that they are responsible for your salary, and whatever they may be able to negotiate with the client is only incidentally related. you have to consider that they take a risk. if the client defaults or they don't have work for you they may still pay you (again at least in germany they have to). when i hire that is the way i'd like to operate, but mainly because i want to build my own team and only offer staffing services only as an alternative to doing projects as an agency. i like to give them a fixed monthly salary, and when i have no client work for them i have internal projects they can work on. (which is the point, to earn enough money so that we can spend part of the time on our own products). but that requires that i take a large cut on what i get from the employees work. and any raise they get is based on their overall performance and not on what i can negotiate with a particular client. the above example seems to be the result of a misunderstanding of what the role of the recruiter here is. (and it may well be the recruiters fault for misrepresenting that) so again, when talking to a recruiter, make that relationship clear up front and get it in writing if need be, or bail out if the contract is not with who you expect it to be.
  - poisonborz 2y ago
    I am speaking out of longtime experience and can confirm what the other replier here said. Rent-seeking without end, catering to companies that are too busy/lazy/incapable of attracting quality talent themselves. They just look for some keywords and have very superficial knowledge of the industry. (disclaimer, even if obvious: sure, there are some honest good independent recruiters there, I met them as well)
  - bitwize 2y ago
    "If you're not paying you're not the customer, you're the product" is as true of crooters as it is of Google and Meta.
    - codingdave 2y ago
      Yeah, but in this case that is deliberate. You are absolutely the product. Recruiters are selling you to the buyer. That is exactly the point.
- Silhouette 2y ago
  In my experience the biggest problem with recruiters in contracting was always the gatekeeping and control. Normally once they provided an introduction the client could only engage you via the recruiter - even if the role was also available through other recruiters or advertised directly by the client and you could have found it elsewhere as well. That meant you could find a great client and have a deal lined up with all the key terms agreed and everyone ready to go and then at the last minute the recruitment agency could send you a terrible contract and refuse to negotiate. Then you'd not only have wasted your time going through possibly quite a long process with the recruiter but you'd also be blocked from working with a client who also wanted to work with you for a long time, which makes no business or economic sense at all. This had been less of a problem a few years earlier when more contracts were direct with clients but the whole software contracting industry was becoming increasingly toxic here in the UK thanks to IR35 and the like. As a result many contracts - particularly with the larger clients who tend to be slightly more reliable about actually starting the work and having the budget for it - have only been available through the client's preferred suppler/recruiter list for some time. I think if the whole contract recruitment industry got regulated almost out of existence it would probably be a huge boon to the sector. Or just declare that if intermediaries offer contracts in bad faith and won't negotiate - maybe with a list of specific hostile practices that are automatically considered bad faith - then any non-compete terms with either the worker or the client become unenforceable. In fact it might be better just to make the intermediaries generally liable if they act in bad faith because then the ones who waste your time with roles that are never really there and do shady things just to harvest CVs for their database could also be sued for the wasted time at the contractor's normal rate.

poisonborz 2y ago

Those are not offers but asking your permission that they can pitch you on a job ad they think somewhat fits. It's like automated job ad submission except you start with a disadvantage as they get up to 10% of your yearly salary.

benjaminwootton 2y ago
I would encourage you to look at recruiters more as partners or as an unpaid sales team. They are out there speculatively busting their ass and building relationships with buyers. I run my own business and would pay 10% commission in exchange for qualified opportunities all day long.
- sirsinsalot 2y ago
  Except most recruiters are not working in your interest. Only their own. They'll push down your pay to increase their margin. This is particularly true in contracting. Not all work on transparent commissions, at least here in the UK that's rare. They are, by and large, talentless liars and cheats with a false narrative and harmful practice. Seeing them as anything other than hostile to your interests is a quick way to get ripped off by these hacks. Source: I consult for them on technical screening processes.
  - ivandenysov 2y ago
    What an unexpected ending.
    - sirsinsalot 2y ago
      I'm not above taking their money
  - em-bee 2y ago
    as long as my pay is according to my needs and expectations, i don't care how much of a cut the recruiter makes. the company i work for is getting ripped off just as much as i am. otherwise if the pay is not enough, don't take the job. the worst that can happen is that the recruiter misrepresents your skills and experience. that can easily be solved by sharing your CV directly with the hiring company. if the recruiter doesn't allow you to do that, then it's a red flag.
    - sirsinsalot 2y ago
      Believe me that's not the worst that can happen. Ive seen people work for a year at a lowish rate, then be denied a rate increase. Only to find out later the increase was authorised but the recruiter took it and lied to the worker about it be accepted. This, sadly, isn't at all uncommon. I see it constantly. They'll risk your security, reputation and income for quick results to hit their quotas for bonuses.
      - em-bee 2y ago
        ok, but why are they still involved at that point? shouldn't a recruiter get out of the picture once the connection is made? if they are still involved after that then they are an employment agency. you get good and bad ones there too. but my contract should make it clear which one it is.
        sirsinsalot 2y ago
        Yes but when contracting, that's how it is structured much of the time.
        em-bee 2y ago
        yes, that makes sense. however i call that staffing, not recruiting. recruiting should always lead to a direct hire by the client company. i guess the important part for any job seeker is to know the distinction and be aware of the benefits and downsides of each. and when talking to a recruiter to make clear which one this is. staffing agencies have their place and can be an advantage in some situations. depending on what you are looking for. in the US in particular they may be able to provide continuous insurance (just a guess, i don't actually know). another advantage may be permanent employment with the agency. (again, i don't know how this is in the US, but due to stronger labor protection it is more likely in germany.) when you are employed with a staffing agency, it is clear that they are responsible for your salary, and whatever they may be able to negotiate with the client is only incidentally related. you have to consider that they take a risk. if the client defaults or they don't have work for you they may still pay you (again at least in germany they have to). when i hire that is the way i'd like to operate, but mainly because i want to build my own team and only offer staffing services only as an alternative to doing projects as an agency. i like to give them a fixed monthly salary, and when i have no client work for them i have internal projects they can work on. (which is the point, to earn enough money so that we can spend part of the time on our own products). but that requires that i take a large cut on what i get from the employees work. and any raise they get is based on their overall performance and not on what i can negotiate with a particular client. the above example seems to be the result of a misunderstanding of what the role of the recruiter here is. (and it may well be the recruiters fault for misrepresenting that) so again, when talking to a recruiter, make that relationship clear up front and get it in writing if need be, or bail out if the contract is not with who you expect it to be.
- poisonborz 2y ago
  I am speaking out of longtime experience and can confirm what the other replier here said. Rent-seeking without end, catering to companies that are too busy/lazy/incapable of attracting quality talent themselves. They just look for some keywords and have very superficial knowledge of the industry. (disclaimer, even if obvious: sure, there are some honest good independent recruiters there, I met them as well)
- bitwize 2y ago
  "If you're not paying you're not the customer, you're the product" is as true of crooters as it is of Google and Meta.
  - codingdave 2y ago
    Yeah, but in this case that is deliberate. You are absolutely the product. Recruiters are selling you to the buyer. That is exactly the point.
Silhouette 2y ago
In my experience the biggest problem with recruiters in contracting was always the gatekeeping and control. Normally once they provided an introduction the client could only engage you via the recruiter - even if the role was also available through other recruiters or advertised directly by the client and you could have found it elsewhere as well. That meant you could find a great client and have a deal lined up with all the key terms agreed and everyone ready to go and then at the last minute the recruitment agency could send you a terrible contract and refuse to negotiate. Then you'd not only have wasted your time going through possibly quite a long process with the recruiter but you'd also be blocked from working with a client who also wanted to work with you for a long time, which makes no business or economic sense at all. This had been less of a problem a few years earlier when more contracts were direct with clients but the whole software contracting industry was becoming increasingly toxic here in the UK thanks to IR35 and the like. As a result many contracts - particularly with the larger clients who tend to be slightly more reliable about actually starting the work and having the budget for it - have only been available through the client's preferred suppler/recruiter list for some time. I think if the whole contract recruitment industry got regulated almost out of existence it would probably be a huge boon to the sector. Or just declare that if intermediaries offer contracts in bad faith and won't negotiate - maybe with a list of specific hostile practices that are automatically considered bad faith - then any non-compete terms with either the worker or the client become unenforceable. In fact it might be better just to make the intermediaries generally liable if they act in bad faith because then the ones who waste your time with roles that are never really there and do shady things just to harvest CVs for their database could also be sued for the wasted time at the contractor's normal rate.