5 ms·

Recruitment agents work particularly well for contract developers, the ethics notwithstanding. Permanent is a whole different ball game that I'm not going to to

by drsim 14y ago

Recruitment agents work particularly well for contract developers, the ethics notwithstanding. Permanent is a whole different ball game that I'm not going to touch on. TLDR: The model isn't broken, it could use some optimization. Everyone likes to bash a recruiter. And, some guy who takes 80 quid a day out of your pocket for months should be an object of derision, no? Look at the flip side: agents act as stimulus for the market, pushing through deals quickly and raising the ceiling on rates. Sales is dirty and hard work (I've done it). Agents need to be like bulldogs as roles go fast, within days or hours. Without an agent in the mix contracts take longer to get signed. They are far from the best judges of quality candidates. The closest they get is keyword matching and telephone screening if you're able to string a sentence together. But often this is a good 'low bar'. Agent fees are expensive. As a contractor it's never good to find out what the client is actually paying for you vs. what you get. That said, the rates here in London are good compared to what I found in Vancouver and elsewhere in the UK. The difference I observed was the aggressive and competitive agencies here, where if they can squeeze more money out of a client they'll pocket a good chunk of it. London's well-established and healthy contracting market is due in part to the agencies that have grown up around the candidates and companies here.

rmc 14y ago
Everyone likes to bash a recruiter. And, some guy who takes 80 quid a day out of your pocket for months should be an object of derision, no? People don't hate recruiters because they take money, but because they are rubbish at their job.
- drsim 14y ago
  Their job is to place a candidate with a client. They're good at it otherwise they would have died out long ago. The gripe I hear from colleagues is X, Y, Z always ending in 'and they take £££ from me a day!' My post notes the problems with the model, but it isn't broken.
  - yashchandra 14y ago
    "They're good at it otherwise they would have died out long ago." Not necessarily. They have not died out only because of lazy employers. Employers do not mind paying extra cash since they are too busy to even take an extra 10 mins out to quickly screen candidates. Having said that, I have come across some good recruiters who actually know the employers well, understand the industry and are not complete jerks. But that is like a needle in a haystack.
    - drsim 14y ago
      Exactly. There will always be lazy employers, and agents are good at giving them a kick up the ass to make sure the process gets completed in as little time as possible. (Self interest of course, as this corresponds to when they'll get their commission) Good at recruiting is not equal to "know their employers well, understand the industry and are not complete jerks". Good is getting a candidate placed as smoothly and swiftly as possible. "taking an unfair share for which they will lowball the candidates". Better become a better negotiator then. If you know your market value, this is what the client is willing to pay for you. They don't even factor in the agent fee as they are paying £xxx for a developer.
  - yashchandra 14y ago
    "'and they take £££ from me a day" People do not gripe about recruiters taking money. People gripe about recruiter taking an unfair share for which they will lowball the candidates. If you are a good developer and have a decent idea of your market value, then it hurts to find out that you had to take a cut just because the recruiter wanted to keep extra even though the employer paid market value.
  - rmc 14y ago
    They're good at it otherwise they would have died out long ago. That is only a true conclusion if the hiring market is a Perfect Market.
alexro 14y ago
Isn't it like the recruiters are just bloody businessmen? They will snatch your (contractors) portion too if they can, and they can. So they suck money from both parties. It's a shame really that the employer and contractor don't negotiate directly.
- drsim 14y ago
  Agreed, if the client is wise then they'll have a fixed fee or fixed percentage agreement in place. Most agents will accept this. The contractor and client negotiating the day rate directly is the best way to make sure the agent doesn't exploit the contractor.

by drsim 14y ago

rmc 14y ago

Everyone likes to bash a recruiter. And, some guy who takes 80 quid a day out of your pocket for months should be an object of derision, no? People don't hate recruiters because they take money, but because they are rubbish at their job.

drsim 14y ago
Their job is to place a candidate with a client. They're good at it otherwise they would have died out long ago. The gripe I hear from colleagues is X, Y, Z always ending in 'and they take £££ from me a day!' My post notes the problems with the model, but it isn't broken.
- yashchandra 14y ago
  "They're good at it otherwise they would have died out long ago." Not necessarily. They have not died out only because of lazy employers. Employers do not mind paying extra cash since they are too busy to even take an extra 10 mins out to quickly screen candidates. Having said that, I have come across some good recruiters who actually know the employers well, understand the industry and are not complete jerks. But that is like a needle in a haystack.
  - drsim 14y ago
    Exactly. There will always be lazy employers, and agents are good at giving them a kick up the ass to make sure the process gets completed in as little time as possible. (Self interest of course, as this corresponds to when they'll get their commission) Good at recruiting is not equal to "know their employers well, understand the industry and are not complete jerks". Good is getting a candidate placed as smoothly and swiftly as possible. "taking an unfair share for which they will lowball the candidates". Better become a better negotiator then. If you know your market value, this is what the client is willing to pay for you. They don't even factor in the agent fee as they are paying £xxx for a developer.
- yashchandra 14y ago
  "'and they take £££ from me a day" People do not gripe about recruiters taking money. People gripe about recruiter taking an unfair share for which they will lowball the candidates. If you are a good developer and have a decent idea of your market value, then it hurts to find out that you had to take a cut just because the recruiter wanted to keep extra even though the employer paid market value.
- rmc 14y ago
  They're good at it otherwise they would have died out long ago. That is only a true conclusion if the hiring market is a Perfect Market.

alexro 14y ago

Isn't it like the recruiters are just bloody businessmen? They will snatch your (contractors) portion too if they can, and they can. So they suck money from both parties. It's a shame really that the employer and contractor don't negotiate directly.

drsim 14y ago
Agreed, if the client is wise then they'll have a fixed fee or fixed percentage agreement in place. Most agents will accept this. The contractor and client negotiating the day rate directly is the best way to make sure the agent doesn't exploit the contractor.