4 ms·

Two important points of context for my comment: I am talking about software jobs for a skill set below 'mastery'. Recruiters are a waste of time because: 1.

Two important points of context for my comment: I am talking about software jobs for a skill set below 'mastery'. Recruiters are a waste of time because: 1. They do not know anything relevant about the technologies you are skilled in or the technologies required by the employer. 2. Part of the 'value' they add for employers is to vet candidates before they are interviewed by the employer. This consists of doing a web page background search, calling your references, and giving you a pee test. Also see #1 for why this is a waste of time. 3. You will be legally bound to a three way relationship between the recruiter co. and your new employer. There are no benefits to you in this binding agreement. 4. You may actually be paid by the recruiting agency's payroll department (contracting). Faxing time sheets to a fax machine no one bothers to fill with paper at the agency office is a waste of time and energy. To put it another way, you won't be able to talk to the payroll department directly if you have any issues. 5. You add another layer of useless management and bureaucratic complexity via the recruiting agency. Rarely do recruiters stay up to date on a project/position's projected end date. Once this resulted in a key card being disabled because the original end date had been reached -- but the project was still active. I have seen that the recruiters for staff positions are a little better and you get paid direct. I have also known gifted programmers who just hate to deal with people and negotiate, so recruiters are useful there. But to advance in your career, you are going to need people skills so you might as well start developing them now. To sum up, there are a lot of bad recruiters who ruin it for everyone.

lsc 14y ago
>1. They do not know anything relevant about the technologies you are skilled in or the technologies required by the employer. This... this shocks me, every time. I mean, in my experience, it's usually true, but damn. What, then, is the value the recruiter brings the client? I mean, sometimes they function as body shops, where the company pays them and they pay you, and the company then doesn't have to worry about labor laws and stuff, that becomes the body shop's problems, but I fail to see how that would justify the huge markup (and, generally speaking, but not always, lower quality) - Labor laws really aren't that bad. Do the standard things you do when dealing with programmers that get paid $90K+ per year, and you are in compliance with most of it. I mean, besides that, they are keyword matchers; personally, I don't think keyword matchers are particularly useful, and in any case, they are not particularly difficult to implement. But then, in defense of the recruiters (or, at least a reason for a developer to use recruiters): >3. You will be legally bound to a three way relationship between the recruiter co. and your new employer. There are no benefits to you in this binding agreement. Generally speaking, recruiters bring in a bunch of sub-par recruits. Way worse than if you had asked the people around the office to bring in friends (and worse than having someone in the office go over the resume slush pile.) What does this mean? this means that if you are a sub-par programmer, and you failed that google interview your buddy got you, or if you are a good programmer who, for whatever reason, looks like a sub-par programmer (say, for instance, that you had a [mental] health issue impacting your performance for the previous year, or just had a run of bad luck and have been unemployed for a while and don't know anyone to get you interviews) then recruiters can be a godsend. Recruiters are a fairly sure sign that the standards for the job will be low. The competition will be weak. And sometimes? well, comeon, most of us have needed to hit the bunny slope at least once in our career.
- lifeguard 14y ago
  >>1. They do not know anything relevant about the technologies you are skilled in or the technologies required by the employer. >>This... this shocks me, every time. To be fair, few people are expert on all technologies and few recruiting firms can afford a diverse, expert staff.
  - lsc 14y ago
    Sure, but my theory is that the legal cover they provide is also not worth as much as what they charge; so if the legal cover isn't good, and they aren't any good at picking people, then nobody would use them. But many companies use them, which means one (or both) of my assumptions are wrong. One theory is that at some companies, the hiring managers/screening process they have is even worse than what most recruiters use. That would be consistent with my observation that standards seem to be lower when I get a job through a recruiter than through a contact. But yeah, uh, I guess my continued shock is more a product of incorrect assumptions, then. But man.
    - lifeguard 14y ago
      I think contracting is driving it by virtue of the corp. tax loophole for 1099 workers. By definition a 3rd party must handle the "temporary" 1099 workers.
- lifeguard 14y ago
  >>Recruiters are a fairly sure sign that the standards for the job will be low. Some companies cover all their bases with inside and outside HR recruiting. I often see the same jobs on craigslist offered by the employer and recruiters. indeed.com too.

lsc 14y ago

>1. They do not know anything relevant about the technologies you are skilled in or the technologies required by the employer. This... this shocks me, every time. I mean, in my experience, it's usually true, but damn. What, then, is the value the recruiter brings the client? I mean, sometimes they function as body shops, where the company pays them and they pay you, and the company then doesn't have to worry about labor laws and stuff, that becomes the body shop's problems, but I fail to see how that would justify the huge markup (and, generally speaking, but not always, lower quality) - Labor laws really aren't that bad. Do the standard things you do when dealing with programmers that get paid $90K+ per year, and you are in compliance with most of it. I mean, besides that, they are keyword matchers; personally, I don't think keyword matchers are particularly useful, and in any case, they are not particularly difficult to implement. But then, in defense of the recruiters (or, at least a reason for a developer to use recruiters): >3. You will be legally bound to a three way relationship between the recruiter co. and your new employer. There are no benefits to you in this binding agreement. Generally speaking, recruiters bring in a bunch of sub-par recruits. Way worse than if you had asked the people around the office to bring in friends (and worse than having someone in the office go over the resume slush pile.) What does this mean? this means that if you are a sub-par programmer, and you failed that google interview your buddy got you, or if you are a good programmer who, for whatever reason, looks like a sub-par programmer (say, for instance, that you had a [mental] health issue impacting your performance for the previous year, or just had a run of bad luck and have been unemployed for a while and don't know anyone to get you interviews) then recruiters can be a godsend. Recruiters are a fairly sure sign that the standards for the job will be low. The competition will be weak. And sometimes? well, comeon, most of us have needed to hit the bunny slope at least once in our career.

lifeguard 14y ago
>>1. They do not know anything relevant about the technologies you are skilled in or the technologies required by the employer. >>This... this shocks me, every time. To be fair, few people are expert on all technologies and few recruiting firms can afford a diverse, expert staff.
- lsc 14y ago
  Sure, but my theory is that the legal cover they provide is also not worth as much as what they charge; so if the legal cover isn't good, and they aren't any good at picking people, then nobody would use them. But many companies use them, which means one (or both) of my assumptions are wrong. One theory is that at some companies, the hiring managers/screening process they have is even worse than what most recruiters use. That would be consistent with my observation that standards seem to be lower when I get a job through a recruiter than through a contact. But yeah, uh, I guess my continued shock is more a product of incorrect assumptions, then. But man.
  - lifeguard 14y ago
    I think contracting is driving it by virtue of the corp. tax loophole for 1099 workers. By definition a 3rd party must handle the "temporary" 1099 workers.
lifeguard 14y ago
>>Recruiters are a fairly sure sign that the standards for the job will be low. Some companies cover all their bases with inside and outside HR recruiting. I often see the same jobs on craigslist offered by the employer and recruiters. indeed.com too.