3 ms·

Yes, unfortunately in London either: 1) recruiter effectively steals a percent of your starting salary; 2) company is so cheap they cannot afford a recruiter;

Yes, unfortunately in London either: 1) recruiter effectively steals a percent of your starting salary; 2) company is so cheap they cannot afford a recruiter; 3) big tech companies are paying extremely low in comparison to the primary sector - finance (and the most interesting stuff will still be developed in USA).

walshemj 12y ago
re 1 Its illegal for recruiters to charge the employee in the UK re 3 is mainly related to the poor social standing of STEM employees in the UK
- ropiku 12y ago
  I think by "effectively" he means the company will pay the employee less to compensate for the recruitment fee, not that the employee is directly charged.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    Recruiters only make sense in an environment where labor supply is short. Potential employees are not going to accept lower salaries simply because the recruiter's client has a recruitment fee to pay on top of it. So the client ends up paying both.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    If you get employed directly you don't get paid any more do you - sounds like the OP is young and doesn't understand how the world works - or more negatively is not suited for a professional role ie what can I scam out of my employer no mater what
peteretep 12y ago
> 1) recruiter effectively steals a percent of your > starting salary This is absolutely true for contractors, and absolutely not true for permanent staff. I have only lengthy experience to back this up, rather than anything I can link you to, but: * For a contractor, companies budget a maximum amount to spend per day. How that gets cut between the recruiter and the contractor, they don't care about. If you're going through a recruiter, you could be charging the employing company exactly what they're being charged by the recruiter, and pocketing £70-£120/day difference. * For permanent staff, it's accounted very differently. Companies large enough to have people employed in an HR capacity will treat recruiter fees and salary very differently. Salaries will normally have an upper-band, the salaries of other employees and future employees will need to be taken in to account, the precedent set will need to be taken in to account, generally payroll and hiring costs are accounted for differently, and so on. A three-person company will see it all as cost, but a larger company will treat the recruiter fee and the salary as completely different. Additionally, it's in the recruiter's interest to get you the best salary they can, as they take a percentage from the employer. They will know the limit the employer will pay, and will try and get you the best salary they think the employer will go for; generally they are far better negotiators than developers!
- _random_ 12y ago
  "better negotiators than developers" - well in my experience they are always trying to "tempt" with a mere £5k boost and never going for the top bracket offered. It is in their interest to play it safe.

walshemj 12y ago

re 1 Its illegal for recruiters to charge the employee in the UK re 3 is mainly related to the poor social standing of STEM employees in the UK

ropiku 12y ago
I think by "effectively" he means the company will pay the employee less to compensate for the recruitment fee, not that the employee is directly charged.
- vinceguidry 12y ago
  Recruiters only make sense in an environment where labor supply is short. Potential employees are not going to accept lower salaries simply because the recruiter's client has a recruitment fee to pay on top of it. So the client ends up paying both.
- walshemj 12y ago
  If you get employed directly you don't get paid any more do you - sounds like the OP is young and doesn't understand how the world works - or more negatively is not suited for a professional role ie what can I scam out of my employer no mater what

peteretep 12y ago

> 1) recruiter effectively steals a percent of your > starting salary This is absolutely true for contractors, and absolutely not true for permanent staff. I have only lengthy experience to back this up, rather than anything I can link you to, but: * For a contractor, companies budget a maximum amount to spend per day. How that gets cut between the recruiter and the contractor, they don't care about. If you're going through a recruiter, you could be charging the employing company exactly what they're being charged by the recruiter, and pocketing £70-£120/day difference. * For permanent staff, it's accounted very differently. Companies large enough to have people employed in an HR capacity will treat recruiter fees and salary very differently. Salaries will normally have an upper-band, the salaries of other employees and future employees will need to be taken in to account, the precedent set will need to be taken in to account, generally payroll and hiring costs are accounted for differently, and so on. A three-person company will see it all as cost, but a larger company will treat the recruiter fee and the salary as completely different. Additionally, it's in the recruiter's interest to get you the best salary they can, as they take a percentage from the employer. They will know the limit the employer will pay, and will try and get you the best salary they think the employer will go for; generally they are far better negotiators than developers!

_random_ 12y ago
"better negotiators than developers" - well in my experience they are always trying to "tempt" with a mere £5k boost and never going for the top bracket offered. It is in their interest to play it safe.