43 ms·
Why not just give the recruiter the commission if they can prove they contacted the prospect before the prospect contacted the company (i.e. that they were circ
by dbbolton 12y ago
Why not just give the recruiter the commission if they can prove they contacted the prospect before the prospect contacted the company (i.e. that they were circumvented), or at least redirect the prospect back to the recruiter for any negotiations?
- seanflyon 12y agoIt can't be a simple as "contacted" because a recruiter could then contact every dev they can find and claim a fee whenever one of them gets a job.
- redmattred 12y agoWhat @seanflyon said. Plus part of the perceived value of working with a 3rd party recruiter as a company is that they are actively sourcing and screening candidates to make sure they are a good fit. Just simply contacting them doesn't mean you screened them up front. There are situations where a candidate learns about the job through a recruiter, speaks with them, and then applies to the job on their own. In those cases a recruiter have a more legitimate claim, depending on the contract they've negotiated with the company. For the company, there is a strong incentive not to pay a 20-25% finders fee if they don't have to so recruiters have to be their own advocates in these situations.
- dbbolton 12y agoI agree 20% is excessive if the recruiter just told someone about the job, but it seems like they should still get something for finding the future employee in the first place.