4 ms·

I feel like this notice is out of touch with reality. First of all-- what hustling recruiter is going to take their time to read this notice, and remember that

I feel like this notice is out of touch with reality. First of all-- what hustling recruiter is going to take their time to read this notice, and remember that X company has those conditions? I'm a software developer, and I agree that recruiters don't add nearly as much value as they claim to. But I did a college summer internship at a recruiting firm and I understand their angle. Not all hiring managers are honest enough not to just contact a candidate directly. The anonymous resume is not meant to be a formal application, it's meant to be a teaser to enter into a recruiting agreement and it's a way of protecting themselves. 15% is pretty low for the industry. You're just encouraging even lower quality candidate-finding with that method. You specified how to contact them (on a job-per-job basis) but recruiters can work at a higher level than that. Sometimes a candid call about their general talent needs helps a ton. Like: You're advertising for a mid-level employee, but you'd be okay with a senior-level. As a hiring manager, part of your job is to recruiter-wrangle. A stubborn and neckbeary document like this does not make you inviting to work with.

PeterisP 13y ago
The whole article reads that they're getting more recruiters than they want/need - so, it's a buyers market, and they believe that they can be picky about recruiters, and if some of the most hustling recruiters will think that they're not inviting to work with - excellent, mission accomplished.
- taude 13y ago
  But it's not a buyers market, right now. That would imply that there's a ton more technical talent than there are jobs. It's the reverse. It's a sellers market, whether your a candidate, represented by an agency, or whatever....(at least here in U.S., maybe the U.K. is different?)
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    There's a lack of technical talent, but there's an overabundance of eager middlemen/recruiters - and even if you desperately want talent, you really don't need (or want) all the world's recruiters shoveling shit towards your HR, it won't help you in getting more (or better) talent. Recruiters aren't 'exclusive agents' like for, maybe, star athletes. Blacklisting a specific aggressive recruiter doesn't mean that you're blacklisting a part of your target employees - actually the good employees also want to avoid the same scummy recruiters, so it even helps.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - sklivvz1971 13y ago
    I agree that it's the reverse if you look at candidates as the "seller". If you look at the recruiters as "sellers", then there are way too many useless recruiters out there. I think they look at the second.
ddebernardy 13y ago
> Not all hiring managers are honest enough not to just contact a candidate directly. The anonymous resume is not meant to be a formal application, it's meant to be a teaser to enter into a recruiting agreement and it's a way of protecting themselves. I'd be curious to know what kind of candidate actually goes through an HR agent nowadays. If you visit the LinkedIn profiles of the agents, you'll frequently find a large list of companies to check out, and a name for each one. Plus, depending on their commission, you're 10-30% more expensive than the direct candidate who asks for the same salary as you do.
- RougeFemme 13y ago
  Some people are fairly content in their jobs, but would like to just test the waters - they may contact a recruiter do their legwork. And some companies like to go the contract-to-perm route, rather than do a direct hire; they can't/don't want to do the screening themselves or the hiring company is willing to pay a premium to let the recruiter assume the risk during the "probationary period" or. . .

PeterisP 13y ago

The whole article reads that they're getting more recruiters than they want/need - so, it's a buyers market, and they believe that they can be picky about recruiters, and if some of the most hustling recruiters will think that they're not inviting to work with - excellent, mission accomplished.

taude 13y ago
But it's not a buyers market, right now. That would imply that there's a ton more technical talent than there are jobs. It's the reverse. It's a sellers market, whether your a candidate, represented by an agency, or whatever....(at least here in U.S., maybe the U.K. is different?)
- PeterisP 13y ago
  There's a lack of technical talent, but there's an overabundance of eager middlemen/recruiters - and even if you desperately want talent, you really don't need (or want) all the world's recruiters shoveling shit towards your HR, it won't help you in getting more (or better) talent. Recruiters aren't 'exclusive agents' like for, maybe, star athletes. Blacklisting a specific aggressive recruiter doesn't mean that you're blacklisting a part of your target employees - actually the good employees also want to avoid the same scummy recruiters, so it even helps.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sklivvz1971 13y ago
  I agree that it's the reverse if you look at candidates as the "seller". If you look at the recruiters as "sellers", then there are way too many useless recruiters out there. I think they look at the second.

ddebernardy 13y ago

> Not all hiring managers are honest enough not to just contact a candidate directly. The anonymous resume is not meant to be a formal application, it's meant to be a teaser to enter into a recruiting agreement and it's a way of protecting themselves. I'd be curious to know what kind of candidate actually goes through an HR agent nowadays. If you visit the LinkedIn profiles of the agents, you'll frequently find a large list of companies to check out, and a name for each one. Plus, depending on their commission, you're 10-30% more expensive than the direct candidate who asks for the same salary as you do.

RougeFemme 13y ago
Some people are fairly content in their jobs, but would like to just test the waters - they may contact a recruiter do their legwork. And some companies like to go the contract-to-perm route, rather than do a direct hire; they can't/don't want to do the screening themselves or the hiring company is willing to pay a premium to let the recruiter assume the risk during the "probationary period" or. . .