3 ms·
Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. It's in the recruiter's best interest to maximize the salary they get the candidate, so that they can maximize the %
by taude 13y ago
Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. It's in the recruiter's best interest to maximize the salary they get the candidate, so that they can maximize the %-amount of the fill. They want to get the candidate 150K so that the recruiter's 30% cut is 45K. If they only get the candidate $125K, then there fee would only be 37.5K.
Are you confusing recruiting for a job with someone that does body-shop contracting?
- greenyoda 13y ago"It's in the recruiter's best interest to maximize the salary they get the candidate" Actually, it's in the recruiter's best interest to maximize the return he gets over all his candidates. If he can place candidates three times as fast by offering them at 50% off their market rate, he makes a bigger total commission.
- taude 13y agoI'd buy that argument in a buyer's market. But I'm not aware of too many recruiters with a surplus of sourced tech talent right now. And they have to go through a lot of effort to source someone...so I'm going to still stand by my comment that a good recruiter is going to maximize the candidates value. Edit: I'd also add what tech talent is going to be so unaware of their market value that they'd take 50% of it?