5 ms·

Almost all (inhouse/exclusive excluded) recruiters that claim to be "working on filling a position" don't have a specific position at all. They are simply findi

by lugg 12y ago

Almost all (inhouse/exclusive excluded) recruiters that claim to be "working on filling a position" don't have a specific position at all. They are simply finding candidates. Once they have a candidate they will ring around their client base and see if they can find a place for you to go. They will chase any potential candidate they can see getting a 20-40k payout (20%~ first year salaray) This gives senior devs with solid linked in profiles quite a warped view about the state of things. When companies go out actively looking they don't get exposed to these types of candidates because most of these possible candidates are not actively looking. Hence the "shortage of talent". In other words, there is a talent shortage, but most talented people (i.e. anyone reading this) won't see it because they're all too busy being traded around the block.

Cymen 12y ago
This is why Hired.com is interesting. I tried it after a couple rounds of interviewing where it either seemed like salary was a sticking point or the interviewees were unprepared. With Hired.com, I was able to explain my value in a context that those who I would like to work for would understand. I received a number of solid offers, interviewed with a handful and accepted one. Every person that contacted me was direct from the company that I would work for and these were real positions.
- ende 12y ago
  Agreed, solid product.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ditonal 12y ago
  Its a good idea but its a huge time waster if they don't ban the multiple companies that ran bait-and-switch games on me. Also their fee is very high, which employers claim not to care about but definitely do.
  - Cymen 12y ago
    Is your experience based on being a potential employee or a potential employer? I spoke with them about fees and learned that their fees are lower than the average outside recruiter. Nobody likes to pay to hire but everyone does -- you either pay an outside recruiter or an inside (employee) recruiter. Now you have the option of paying Hired.com instead and the terms aren't bad -- you can spread the repayment over time.

by lugg 12y ago

Cymen 12y ago

This is why Hired.com is interesting. I tried it after a couple rounds of interviewing where it either seemed like salary was a sticking point or the interviewees were unprepared. With Hired.com, I was able to explain my value in a context that those who I would like to work for would understand. I received a number of solid offers, interviewed with a handful and accepted one. Every person that contacted me was direct from the company that I would work for and these were real positions.

ende 12y ago
Agreed, solid product.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ditonal 12y ago
Its a good idea but its a huge time waster if they don't ban the multiple companies that ran bait-and-switch games on me. Also their fee is very high, which employers claim not to care about but definitely do.
- Cymen 12y ago
  Is your experience based on being a potential employee or a potential employer? I spoke with them about fees and learned that their fees are lower than the average outside recruiter. Nobody likes to pay to hire but everyone does -- you either pay an outside recruiter or an inside (employee) recruiter. Now you have the option of paying Hired.com instead and the terms aren't bad -- you can spread the repayment over time.