4 ms·

They are also called recruiters. Nothing new here.

by atomical 14y ago

chadgeidel 14y ago
I've never met a recruiter that works in my interest. Maybe I haven't met enough recruiters?
- altay 14y ago
  Well, you haven't met us yet. ;)
- gm 14y ago
  The recruiter does not work for the talent, the recruiter works for the company.
  - stmfreak 14y ago
    No, recruiters work for the commission. Talent dislikes them, and Hiring managers dislike them. Except the good ones. But those are rare.
malandrew 14y ago
There is a big difference between a talent agent and a recruiter. A recruiter ultimately works for the company needing talent and has the needs of their client companies. An agent works for the talent and will scout out the most promising opportunities (pay well, interesting work, work that leads to greater opportunity).
jdoliner 14y ago
I wouldn't say it's new persay but I don't think they're quite recruiters. I generally think of recruiters as being paid by a company to find employees rather than the payed by an employee to find companies. Both agents and employees act as the middle man for the same transaction but they represent different people's interests. It's new in that this it's just now becoming the case that programming talent is valuable enough that 15% of it can actually buy a full time employee to represent the employees interests.
- greenyoda 14y ago
  "... programming talent is valuable enough that 15% of it can actually buy a full time employee to represent the employees interests." I doubt that finding jobs for a developer requires anything close to a full time employee. If it were, freelancing and consulting (without an agent) would not be viable ways of making a living (you'd spend 100% of your time finding work and 0% working). I'd guess that each agent represents several developers and a large fraction of that 15% fee is pocketed by the agency as profit.
- pacaro 14y ago
  The danger here is that their role can become muddled, this is a concern in every industry that has an agent model, in whose interest is the agent working? Good agents work for the talent, bad agents just try and get as much out of each deal as possible, word gets around... In other news, I think that you mean per se
suyash 14y ago
Recruiters trying to hide behind the name 'Agents'. They don't add any value instead headache for developers. I would recommend staying away as far as possible from these so called 'agents' who just want your 15%.
- ericb 14y ago
  If they can provide steady dealflow, 15% is fine by me...
- gm 14y ago
  I see it this way: The agent's more than earned his 15% if he gets me a higher paying gig than I could get myself (higher than 15% increase, that is). The benefit I get from not dealing with the stuff they claim to take care of is more than worth it. Unless you love doing your own billing. I'd go for it if I was a freelancer.

They are also called recruiters. Nothing new here.

chadgeidel 14y ago

I've never met a recruiter that works in my interest. Maybe I haven't met enough recruiters?

altay 14y ago
Well, you haven't met us yet. ;)
gm 14y ago
The recruiter does not work for the talent, the recruiter works for the company.
- stmfreak 14y ago
  No, recruiters work for the commission. Talent dislikes them, and Hiring managers dislike them. Except the good ones. But those are rare.

malandrew 14y ago

There is a big difference between a talent agent and a recruiter. A recruiter ultimately works for the company needing talent and has the needs of their client companies. An agent works for the talent and will scout out the most promising opportunities (pay well, interesting work, work that leads to greater opportunity).

jdoliner 14y ago

I wouldn't say it's new persay but I don't think they're quite recruiters. I generally think of recruiters as being paid by a company to find employees rather than the payed by an employee to find companies. Both agents and employees act as the middle man for the same transaction but they represent different people's interests. It's new in that this it's just now becoming the case that programming talent is valuable enough that 15% of it can actually buy a full time employee to represent the employees interests.

greenyoda 14y ago
"... programming talent is valuable enough that 15% of it can actually buy a full time employee to represent the employees interests." I doubt that finding jobs for a developer requires anything close to a full time employee. If it were, freelancing and consulting (without an agent) would not be viable ways of making a living (you'd spend 100% of your time finding work and 0% working). I'd guess that each agent represents several developers and a large fraction of that 15% fee is pocketed by the agency as profit.
pacaro 14y ago
The danger here is that their role can become muddled, this is a concern in every industry that has an agent model, in whose interest is the agent working? Good agents work for the talent, bad agents just try and get as much out of each deal as possible, word gets around... In other news, I think that you mean per se

suyash 14y ago

Recruiters trying to hide behind the name 'Agents'. They don't add any value instead headache for developers. I would recommend staying away as far as possible from these so called 'agents' who just want your 15%.

ericb 14y ago
If they can provide steady dealflow, 15% is fine by me...
gm 14y ago
I see it this way: The agent's more than earned his 15% if he gets me a higher paying gig than I could get myself (higher than 15% increase, that is). The benefit I get from not dealing with the stuff they claim to take care of is more than worth it. Unless you love doing your own billing. I'd go for it if I was a freelancer.