4 ms·

Speaking in absolutes about recruiters is never useful (see what I did there?). Recruiter here with 15 years in the biz, and I've written lots on my jobtipsfor

by fecak 14y ago

Speaking in absolutes about recruiters is never useful (see what I did there?). Recruiter here with 15 years in the biz, and I've written lots on my jobtipsforgeeks.com blog about the perils of working with recruiters. I'm also working on a book with a similar theme that will expose some of what recruiters do, in order to help tech pros to at least be aware of things recruiting concepts such as 'candidate control' or why recruiters ask certain questions certain ways, or the differences between retained and pure contingency recruiters. Knowing a recruiter's motivations is key, and there is not enough transparency in the market today. I personally don't use references as a source of candidates and only call a reference when clients request them (most of my candidate pool comes through past candidates that I trust). Regarding compensation, what the comments here seem to be forgetting is that you as a candidate have every right to turn down a job, and in almost all cases the recruiter makes more money by getting you a higher salary. In contract situations this is usually reversed, where every dollar they can negotiate you down is another in the recruiter's pocket. Some posting of fake job ads certainly happens by lower end firms, just as hiring companies keep ads up all the time to grow their network of candidates. It's somewhat dishonest, but not sure how it hurts job seekers (not advocating it, but seems a somewhat victimless crime). Recruiters are trained to ask everyone for referrals, and early in my career I probably did. Now I realize that if you treat candidates well, with honesty and respect, and if you provide candidates with something for free, they will refer their friends (with the friend's permission) without me aging to ask. The free service I choose is information - my blog, a monthly newsletter of tech articles, discounts to conferences and events that I negotiate for my network, inside information on companies, etc. Many recruiters are simply not good at their job, but every industry has some of that. Find a good one that doesn't ask you for things, and that actually provides you with good information and service, and avoid the bad ones. It really is that simple. Use recruiters that your friends recommend and set parameters and boundaries (don't send my résumé anywhere without permission, only contact me in this way, don't call references until x, etc). If they don't respect your wishes, drop them and don't recommend them to your friends.

bearmf 14y ago
Correction: most recruiters are terrible at their job. It is much worse than any other industry except maybe real estate brokers in New York :) In finance, it seems fake jobs are posted by every recruiting firm. And no, this is not the same as a company advertising positions all the time at their website. In the latter case the probability of hiring someone for the position is at least greater than zero.
missedpoint 14y ago
> It's somewhat dishonest, but not sure how it hurts job seekers (not advocating it, but seems a somewhat victimless crime). You see an advert for tasty doughnuts. Oh boy! You jump in your car / catch the bus etc, and head over to the purveyors of tasty doughnuts to find that instead there are no doughnuts, but you're assured that if you're interested in tasty doughnuts you must have friends that are too, so take some flyers and spread the word. You've wasted your time, effort and money to become an uncompensated advertising agent for purveyors of mythical doughnuts, and you might reasonably reserve a new circle of hell for these people before shredding their flyers with particular zeal. Similarly, to have answered an advert for a job that doesn't exist, spent time considering what compromises in your life might be necessary to take the position, followed sound advice to tailor your CV to the position, crafted a covering letter, and then found that your time and effort is used to stripmine you of your contacts with no compensation for any time and effort put in on your part before moving onto the next mark, once again you might reserve a new circle of hell for these people. It's clearly fraud and exploitation, hand in hand.
- fecak 14y ago
  Good points. I was under the impression that this was referring to a scenario where you send a résumé to a recruiter ad, and you either get a reply that the job was filled (a lie here) or no reply at all (impolite if you were qualified). No time wasted with dialogue or advertising. This may be a uk thing, as I don't think firms here in the US tell you that you need to bring your friends if you want to deal. Never heard of that.
  - ZachPruckowski 14y ago
    The friends thing he's talking about is taking your reference contacts and then using them as future leads. And there is a fixed cost to sending a resume and cover letter. Sure, the first one isn't such a pain, but if you're unemployed and sending out 30 resumes, it's sort of a pain if 10 of them are fake, and another 5-10 are duplicates of different recruiters trying to fill the same position. It increases the work I have to do, and provides an awful lot of false hope. Again - one recruiter doing that amid a sea of legit openings isn't all that bad, but in larger markets it's not just one recruiter misbehaving.
mason55 14y ago
> in almost all cases the recruiter makes more money by getting you a higher salary Where you get screwed is negotiating non-monetary compensation because it doesn't benefit the recruiter. More vacation days, more stock options, that kind of thing. Additionally, it's a lot like the chapter in Freakonomics about realtors. It's in the recruiters best interest to get you to accept and so, while they will get a little more money if they can get a higher salary for you, the most important thing is to close the deal. A recruiter has little incentive to play hardball for you. Another $1000 in salary for you might only translate to $50 or less for them. I don't begrudge them because I understand the incentives they're working for but people should be aware of it and think about it before they start working with a recruiter. If you have a salary in mind tell them its firm. Don't believe that they are your best friend and that what they say is max salary truly is.
- fecak 14y ago
  Agreed on the realtor analogy, and for contingency recruiters closing the deal is a must. Again though, if you use a recruiter and don't get enough stock/vacation/etc, don't take the job. Max salary - tell a candidate a salary range, and the only number they remember is the ceiling. That is true every time.
lifeguard 14y ago
My first job as an "Internet software engineer" I was billed out to IBM for approx $50 an hour and I was paid $25 an hour with no benefits. Late in the death march my salaried manager told me I was paid more than he was. I replied 'It isn't going to me!' But that was early 90s. I don't worry about being cheated by recruiters any more. Thank you for posting your insights.

by fecak 14y ago

bearmf 14y ago

Correction: most recruiters are terrible at their job. It is much worse than any other industry except maybe real estate brokers in New York :) In finance, it seems fake jobs are posted by every recruiting firm. And no, this is not the same as a company advertising positions all the time at their website. In the latter case the probability of hiring someone for the position is at least greater than zero.

missedpoint 14y ago

> It's somewhat dishonest, but not sure how it hurts job seekers (not advocating it, but seems a somewhat victimless crime). You see an advert for tasty doughnuts. Oh boy! You jump in your car / catch the bus etc, and head over to the purveyors of tasty doughnuts to find that instead there are no doughnuts, but you're assured that if you're interested in tasty doughnuts you must have friends that are too, so take some flyers and spread the word. You've wasted your time, effort and money to become an uncompensated advertising agent for purveyors of mythical doughnuts, and you might reasonably reserve a new circle of hell for these people before shredding their flyers with particular zeal. Similarly, to have answered an advert for a job that doesn't exist, spent time considering what compromises in your life might be necessary to take the position, followed sound advice to tailor your CV to the position, crafted a covering letter, and then found that your time and effort is used to stripmine you of your contacts with no compensation for any time and effort put in on your part before moving onto the next mark, once again you might reserve a new circle of hell for these people. It's clearly fraud and exploitation, hand in hand.

fecak 14y ago
Good points. I was under the impression that this was referring to a scenario where you send a résumé to a recruiter ad, and you either get a reply that the job was filled (a lie here) or no reply at all (impolite if you were qualified). No time wasted with dialogue or advertising. This may be a uk thing, as I don't think firms here in the US tell you that you need to bring your friends if you want to deal. Never heard of that.
- ZachPruckowski 14y ago
  The friends thing he's talking about is taking your reference contacts and then using them as future leads. And there is a fixed cost to sending a resume and cover letter. Sure, the first one isn't such a pain, but if you're unemployed and sending out 30 resumes, it's sort of a pain if 10 of them are fake, and another 5-10 are duplicates of different recruiters trying to fill the same position. It increases the work I have to do, and provides an awful lot of false hope. Again - one recruiter doing that amid a sea of legit openings isn't all that bad, but in larger markets it's not just one recruiter misbehaving.

mason55 14y ago

> in almost all cases the recruiter makes more money by getting you a higher salary Where you get screwed is negotiating non-monetary compensation because it doesn't benefit the recruiter. More vacation days, more stock options, that kind of thing. Additionally, it's a lot like the chapter in Freakonomics about realtors. It's in the recruiters best interest to get you to accept and so, while they will get a little more money if they can get a higher salary for you, the most important thing is to close the deal. A recruiter has little incentive to play hardball for you. Another $1000 in salary for you might only translate to $50 or less for them. I don't begrudge them because I understand the incentives they're working for but people should be aware of it and think about it before they start working with a recruiter. If you have a salary in mind tell them its firm. Don't believe that they are your best friend and that what they say is max salary truly is.

fecak 14y ago
Agreed on the realtor analogy, and for contingency recruiters closing the deal is a must. Again though, if you use a recruiter and don't get enough stock/vacation/etc, don't take the job. Max salary - tell a candidate a salary range, and the only number they remember is the ceiling. That is true every time.

lifeguard 14y ago

My first job as an "Internet software engineer" I was billed out to IBM for approx $50 an hour and I was paid $25 an hour with no benefits. Late in the death march my salaried manager told me I was paid more than he was. I replied 'It isn't going to me!' But that was early 90s. I don't worry about being cheated by recruiters any more. Thank you for posting your insights.