3 ms·
>>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
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoI 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.