5 ms·

This is an interesting approach that I might adopt, if only because my ordinary interactions with recruiters have been so wretched. It can hardly be worse than

by zedpm 12y ago

This is an interesting approach that I might adopt, if only because my ordinary interactions with recruiters have been so wretched. It can hardly be worse than my results thus far. The behavior of recruiters is puzzling to me. I've repeatedly been contacted by recruiters who want to talk to me about opportunities at X (where X has been Amazon, Google, and a few others). I've responded to these and then received no further contact from the recruiter. They go to the trouble of making a pitch to me and then disappear when their pitch is well-received. My only guess is that they're operating like a telemarketer, spamming the message out to some large number of people to ensure they get a few responses and ignoring any extras. Just last week a Google recruiter contacted me and gave me a link to his calendar to schedule an appointment. I made the appointment and he no-showed. He later contacted me and said he'd spent the day at a conference he received a last-minute invite to attend. I'm just astounded that these folks treat people with such contempt, given that it reflects poorly on them and the business they're associated with.

jkochis 12y ago
Some are worse than others, but that guy sounds particularly bad.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- walshemj 12y ago
  seems to be the spec recruiters that the big SV players use. I have only had 2 bad experiences with recruiters one was just a dick about salary disclosure (whom I fired and put his agency on my personal black list) and one totally misrepresented me to the client. Having your recruiters behave badly doesn't really help the company brand.
  - kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
    I really hate the guys that insist on "getting a number" right off the bat before they'll even consider opening the door for you. Then there's the ones who offer "benefits" so you should be perfectly happy with $40/hr. Most of them don't even have a direct line to the hiring manager and are slaves to the fickle ATSs. There's no point in talking money if there is no chance of ever having a technical discussion with a human being in the company. When I point this out I often get the apologetic spiel about how they understand but that's the way this company works. It just tells me that this company is only willing to offer 50th percentile pay for 50th percentile workers while demanding a 90th percentile skillset. A bullet I'm happy to dodge.
markhenderson 12y ago
I'm glad to see some people having the same experience. It's really hard to explain to people as a problem. "You mean you're mad because people are trying to get you a job?" "Yeah, but..." I really appreciated the people who did listen and sign up though - it feels really good when they do listen to you when you state the best way to contact you. Recruiters take note!
- organsnyder 12y ago
  The best way I've found to explain this is to emphasize that to a recruiter, I am the product. The recruiter is trying to get me a job, just like a car salesman is trying to get a car a driver. Of course, there are good recruiters (and good car salesmen) that are truly interested in finding the best match for both parties, but at the core of the relationship the employer is the one paying the finder's fee. That being said, the best recruiters take the long view, and realize that their career depends on maintaining relationships and growing their reputation. If they become known as someone who simply puts butts in chairs, they won't get very far. However, if they develop a reputation as someone who really is looking out for everyone's interests, their words will carry more weight with their customers, and they'll have the best product to sell.
  - jkochis 12y ago
    So do you think this approach would make good recruiter better? It seems like it would. You would encourage the recruiter to maintain a long term relationship with you, and hopefully they'd respect your boundaries and only reach out when they have a prospect that is too good to pass up.
jghn 12y ago
I interviewed with Twitter a while back. One phone screener never called and then there was a remote coding test where my contact never contacted me, not once but twice. That was enough of that.
- daphneokeefe 12y ago
  I did a whole demo app in Backbone for Twitter, burned a lot of overtime hours for a couple of weeks. On the way to my interview, they said nevermind, they'd hired someone else. They did go ahead and interview me, for another position I wasn't interested in, and those guys had no interest in my demo app.
qeorge 12y ago
As I understand it, the problem is this: Joe Random Recruiter can decide one day that he is a recruiter for Google/Twitter/FB/anyone else. He doesn't need or obtain their permission - he just starts firing out emails to everyone he can find on i.e., LinkedIn. The email says something like: "My client, {Google, Facebook, etc}, is looking for someone with {one of your skills}. Are you interested?" If you reply yes, he then sends an email to {Google, Facebook, etc} and says: "I'm representing an engineer with {your skills} at {outrageous price including fat commission}. Are you interested?" Assuming they are in fact interested in you (which they likely are), Google/Facebook/etc is now in a tough position. - Google/FB/etc can say YES, pay the fat commission to the recruiter, and give you the job. You think the recruiter is a gift from heaven. - Google/FB/etc can say NO, and the recruiter will just tell you they flaked, the opportunity disappeared, or just never contact you again. The twist is that if Google/FB/etc says NO, the you will end up with a bad impression of THEM, not Joe Random Recruiter. They don't even know your name, with which they could reach out and explain. Google/FB/etc know this, and as an engineer you are (currently) so valuable that they are (currently) forced to play ball. And unfortunately, since this method actually works, we see more "recruiters" popping up every day. Even worse, the bad ones are the most aggresive, and they drown out the honest players. My advice to the Googles/FBs/Twitters of the world: make a page listing the firms you DO work with, just as you list the IP ranges of your crawlers. Not a great idea, but its all I've come up with. My advice to the job seekers of this world: cut them some slack - you probably didn't ever actually talk to Google/Facebook/etc, or at least they were misinformed about you.
- zedpm 12y ago
  This is definitely a problem, and in the case of Amazon that's likely what happened, as the individual I dealt with is part of a third-party recruiting firm. In the case of Google, however, the recruiter has an @google.com email, so I'd say he's actually employed by them and it really does reflect poorly on them.
- sanderjd 12y ago
  You seem to have a good grasp on this, so I'll ask you: why are things set up such that recruiters are "Joe Random Recruiter" to me, rather than "Joe, who I have met, worked with across multiple job switches, and who relies on my trust"?
gaius 12y ago
I'm just astounded that these folks treat people with such contempt, given that it reflects poorly on them and the business they're associated with They'll stop doing it, when candidates stop beating down their door to get in. That I suspect if what's really behind self-driving cars and the like. No-one would put up with being dicked around by their recruiters if they knew that 99% of Google staff working on displaying, billing for, and reporting on ads.
- eru 12y ago
  Actually, most Googlers work on creating ad-inventory, ie gmail, blogger, G+ etc. Only a small fraction work on the ads technology itself. I see what you are saying though, most of that isn't shiny.
raincom 12y ago
Sounds like you are new to the scene. Recruiting has changed so much from 2000. In 2000's, many companies valued recruiters: they had recruiters working for the company on 1099. They used to hire best candidates as recruiters too. Caspean networks paid like $200K on 1099 to my buddy, who worked as their recruiter; they even paid for his hotel, cars, etc when he travelled to best college/technology towns: like NC, Toronto, etc. See how linkedin has changed the recruitment and the role of headhunters: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242445 http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242445 I have been doing contracting for last 7 years or so. The way I look at recruites now has changed: nowadays, recruiters need to get paid their commission or fill their quota; so, they need to find at least 4 prospects for the hiring manager. So, they don't care as long as one of them gets hired. Since they don't maintain long term relatoinship with candidates, they don't know where the prospect stands. So, just treat them recruiters like car salesman: you don't need to be disrespectful of their profession. They need to make a living like we do. Recruiters (car salesman) are not the problem; but the industry (recruiting or selling cars) is the problem. I worked as a salesman for two years; I know how difficult it is: commission, base pay, selling warranties, targets, etc. I was lucky to get out of that shitty sales job; many don't have that option any more. After all, becoming an internal recruiter is better for many new graduates than working for Enterprise car rental at their counters.

by zedpm 12y ago

jkochis 12y ago

Some are worse than others, but that guy sounds particularly bad.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
walshemj 12y ago
seems to be the spec recruiters that the big SV players use. I have only had 2 bad experiences with recruiters one was just a dick about salary disclosure (whom I fired and put his agency on my personal black list) and one totally misrepresented me to the client. Having your recruiters behave badly doesn't really help the company brand.
- kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
  I really hate the guys that insist on "getting a number" right off the bat before they'll even consider opening the door for you. Then there's the ones who offer "benefits" so you should be perfectly happy with $40/hr. Most of them don't even have a direct line to the hiring manager and are slaves to the fickle ATSs. There's no point in talking money if there is no chance of ever having a technical discussion with a human being in the company. When I point this out I often get the apologetic spiel about how they understand but that's the way this company works. It just tells me that this company is only willing to offer 50th percentile pay for 50th percentile workers while demanding a 90th percentile skillset. A bullet I'm happy to dodge.

markhenderson 12y ago

I'm glad to see some people having the same experience. It's really hard to explain to people as a problem. "You mean you're mad because people are trying to get you a job?" "Yeah, but..." I really appreciated the people who did listen and sign up though - it feels really good when they do listen to you when you state the best way to contact you. Recruiters take note!

organsnyder 12y ago
The best way I've found to explain this is to emphasize that to a recruiter, I am the product. The recruiter is trying to get me a job, just like a car salesman is trying to get a car a driver. Of course, there are good recruiters (and good car salesmen) that are truly interested in finding the best match for both parties, but at the core of the relationship the employer is the one paying the finder's fee. That being said, the best recruiters take the long view, and realize that their career depends on maintaining relationships and growing their reputation. If they become known as someone who simply puts butts in chairs, they won't get very far. However, if they develop a reputation as someone who really is looking out for everyone's interests, their words will carry more weight with their customers, and they'll have the best product to sell.
- jkochis 12y ago
  So do you think this approach would make good recruiter better? It seems like it would. You would encourage the recruiter to maintain a long term relationship with you, and hopefully they'd respect your boundaries and only reach out when they have a prospect that is too good to pass up.

jghn 12y ago

I interviewed with Twitter a while back. One phone screener never called and then there was a remote coding test where my contact never contacted me, not once but twice. That was enough of that.

daphneokeefe 12y ago
I did a whole demo app in Backbone for Twitter, burned a lot of overtime hours for a couple of weeks. On the way to my interview, they said nevermind, they'd hired someone else. They did go ahead and interview me, for another position I wasn't interested in, and those guys had no interest in my demo app.

qeorge 12y ago

As I understand it, the problem is this: Joe Random Recruiter can decide one day that he is a recruiter for Google/Twitter/FB/anyone else. He doesn't need or obtain their permission - he just starts firing out emails to everyone he can find on i.e., LinkedIn. The email says something like: "My client, {Google, Facebook, etc}, is looking for someone with {one of your skills}. Are you interested?" If you reply yes, he then sends an email to {Google, Facebook, etc} and says: "I'm representing an engineer with {your skills} at {outrageous price including fat commission}. Are you interested?" Assuming they are in fact interested in you (which they likely are), Google/Facebook/etc is now in a tough position. - Google/FB/etc can say YES, pay the fat commission to the recruiter, and give you the job. You think the recruiter is a gift from heaven. - Google/FB/etc can say NO, and the recruiter will just tell you they flaked, the opportunity disappeared, or just never contact you again. The twist is that if Google/FB/etc says NO, the you will end up with a bad impression of THEM, not Joe Random Recruiter. They don't even know your name, with which they could reach out and explain. Google/FB/etc know this, and as an engineer you are (currently) so valuable that they are (currently) forced to play ball. And unfortunately, since this method actually works, we see more "recruiters" popping up every day. Even worse, the bad ones are the most aggresive, and they drown out the honest players. My advice to the Googles/FBs/Twitters of the world: make a page listing the firms you DO work with, just as you list the IP ranges of your crawlers. Not a great idea, but its all I've come up with. My advice to the job seekers of this world: cut them some slack - you probably didn't ever actually talk to Google/Facebook/etc, or at least they were misinformed about you.

zedpm 12y ago
This is definitely a problem, and in the case of Amazon that's likely what happened, as the individual I dealt with is part of a third-party recruiting firm. In the case of Google, however, the recruiter has an @google.com email, so I'd say he's actually employed by them and it really does reflect poorly on them.
sanderjd 12y ago
You seem to have a good grasp on this, so I'll ask you: why are things set up such that recruiters are "Joe Random Recruiter" to me, rather than "Joe, who I have met, worked with across multiple job switches, and who relies on my trust"?

gaius 12y ago

I'm just astounded that these folks treat people with such contempt, given that it reflects poorly on them and the business they're associated with They'll stop doing it, when candidates stop beating down their door to get in. That I suspect if what's really behind self-driving cars and the like. No-one would put up with being dicked around by their recruiters if they knew that 99% of Google staff working on displaying, billing for, and reporting on ads.

eru 12y ago
Actually, most Googlers work on creating ad-inventory, ie gmail, blogger, G+ etc. Only a small fraction work on the ads technology itself. I see what you are saying though, most of that isn't shiny.

raincom 12y ago

Sounds like you are new to the scene. Recruiting has changed so much from 2000. In 2000's, many companies valued recruiters: they had recruiters working for the company on 1099. They used to hire best candidates as recruiters too. Caspean networks paid like $200K on 1099 to my buddy, who worked as their recruiter; they even paid for his hotel, cars, etc when he travelled to best college/technology towns: like NC, Toronto, etc. See how linkedin has changed the recruitment and the role of headhunters: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242445 http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242445 I have been doing contracting for last 7 years or so. The way I look at recruites now has changed: nowadays, recruiters need to get paid their commission or fill their quota; so, they need to find at least 4 prospects for the hiring manager. So, they don't care as long as one of them gets hired. Since they don't maintain long term relatoinship with candidates, they don't know where the prospect stands. So, just treat them recruiters like car salesman: you don't need to be disrespectful of their profession. They need to make a living like we do. Recruiters (car salesman) are not the problem; but the industry (recruiting or selling cars) is the problem. I worked as a salesman for two years; I know how difficult it is: commission, base pay, selling warranties, targets, etc. I was lucky to get out of that shitty sales job; many don't have that option any more. After all, becoming an internal recruiter is better for many new graduates than working for Enterprise car rental at their counters.