5 ms·

I don't think your hypothesis is correct. There are sites out there that already aggregate the permanent and contract markets. (i.e. itjobswatch.co.uk) - I'm su

by majc2 12y ago

I don't think your hypothesis is correct. There are sites out there that already aggregate the permanent and contract markets. (i.e. itjobswatch.co.uk) - I'm sure others exist for other territories. I know its fashionable to bash recruiters - and man do a bunch of them deserve it. But for contractors/freelancers - if you don't like selling then service companies/recruiters are your friend. Quit thinking of them as useless and start thinking about them as a sales channel who do something for you that you don't like. The key is to find the smart operators - who want to build a long term relationship (want to meet face to face etc etc) and don't talk crap. But thats about you taking the time to vet. Although I seldom need to employ because I'm doing a lot of my own sales, its a good backup and this works well in my market place (and I know of others in other markets who follow similar strategies), your mileage may vary.

peteretep 12y ago
Generally in the UK a recruiter's fee comes from the candidate if it's a contract role, and from the employer if it's a permanent role. That's not precisely how it works, but companies accept there's a recruiter fee in the cost of a permanent hire, but will have a salary range they can offer, usually set as a policy by HR to stop wage inflation. Also the recruiter fee then is seen as a one-off cost. For contract wages, companies tend to have an all-in price they're willing to pay, which they'd happily pay the contractor directly. At that point, the recruiter is usually taking the difference between that and what they pay the contractor. In most contract positions (in the UK) via recruiters, invoicing is done via the recruiter.
xpto123 12y ago
For me charging 25% to the contractor for the live of the contract is completely unjustifiable just for posting a job in some site and some emails and phone calls.
- HeyLaughingBoy 12y ago
  You may not like it, but there's no justification needed other than both parties to the agreement being happy with it.
  - xpto123 12y ago
    I dont think anyone would be happy with such a lopsided agreement. Its borderline extorsion, it does not happen at this scale in many more professions. Developers are really taken advantage of by these intermediary companies that add no value after the initial contact. Their margins are growing thinner and maybe in a few years many of these companies are out of business.
- majc2 12y ago
  The contractor is not really being charged 25%. Sure the agency, might end up with 25% (but I suspect its less). The recruitment agency gets money, because they've taken the time to build a relationship/do sales stuff/navigate a procurement department/convincing someone they can solve the clients problem (I need more resource!).
  - xpto123 12y ago
    Navigating procurement departments does not add any value to anything. In the age of the internet, if a company needs some resources then the hiring manager could place the job description directly in some website instead of asking a recruiter to do it for him. He can filter out CVs much more effectively by keywords using some GUI rather asking a recruiter to ask for the keywords on the phone. He sends a mail/phones the candidate for an interview, how hard could it be? He needs to interview the candidate anyway. I don't see how a few hours of administrative work for a hiring manager could justify the fortune that the procurement department will spend with the margin payed to the intermediary.

by majc2 12y ago

peteretep 12y ago

Generally in the UK a recruiter's fee comes from the candidate if it's a contract role, and from the employer if it's a permanent role. That's not precisely how it works, but companies accept there's a recruiter fee in the cost of a permanent hire, but will have a salary range they can offer, usually set as a policy by HR to stop wage inflation. Also the recruiter fee then is seen as a one-off cost. For contract wages, companies tend to have an all-in price they're willing to pay, which they'd happily pay the contractor directly. At that point, the recruiter is usually taking the difference between that and what they pay the contractor. In most contract positions (in the UK) via recruiters, invoicing is done via the recruiter.

xpto123 12y ago

For me charging 25% to the contractor for the live of the contract is completely unjustifiable just for posting a job in some site and some emails and phone calls.

HeyLaughingBoy 12y ago
You may not like it, but there's no justification needed other than both parties to the agreement being happy with it.
- xpto123 12y ago
  I dont think anyone would be happy with such a lopsided agreement. Its borderline extorsion, it does not happen at this scale in many more professions. Developers are really taken advantage of by these intermediary companies that add no value after the initial contact. Their margins are growing thinner and maybe in a few years many of these companies are out of business.
majc2 12y ago
The contractor is not really being charged 25%. Sure the agency, might end up with 25% (but I suspect its less). The recruitment agency gets money, because they've taken the time to build a relationship/do sales stuff/navigate a procurement department/convincing someone they can solve the clients problem (I need more resource!).
- xpto123 12y ago
  Navigating procurement departments does not add any value to anything. In the age of the internet, if a company needs some resources then the hiring manager could place the job description directly in some website instead of asking a recruiter to do it for him. He can filter out CVs much more effectively by keywords using some GUI rather asking a recruiter to ask for the keywords on the phone. He sends a mail/phones the candidate for an interview, how hard could it be? He needs to interview the candidate anyway. I don't see how a few hours of administrative work for a hiring manager could justify the fortune that the procurement department will spend with the margin payed to the intermediary.