Item — HN Reader

My problem with recruiters isn't the recruiter. My problems with them are:

- the types of jobs they are trying to fill

- the types of companies they are working with

- knowing that I will get paid less vs. working directly with the company

I would agree, that most recruiters are pleasant, approachable people -- they need to be, they're salespeople. But I don't necessarily get annoyed with them. I feel fortunate that my skills and experience are wanted, and having recruiters contacting me frequently is a good problem to have.

But in the end, I just feel that I have very little to gain in speaking with a recruiter.

2 comments

I'm on the hiring manager side (full time roles, no contracts). I can assure you that you won't make any more coming directly to us for a full-time role than working through a recruiter.

We fill most (90+%) roles using our internal recruiters (so you still get an advantage coming direct through our internal team and by all means I encourage that), but for the subset of roles that we open to external recruiters, I'm going to make you the same offer [or think about the negotiations the same] either way.

The referral fee we pay the external recruiter is a one-time fee and literally comes from another bucket of money. Yes, I also have to budget for and fund that bucket, but since it's non-recurring, it's treated as a recruiting expense, not a compensation expense.

For a contract role, there are probably good reasons to go direct, as the markup is an on-going compensation expense in many case, but for full-time, I suspect most companies work like mine does.

This is how we operate as well. There's no penalty for someone coming in via an external recruiter in terms of their salary.

I don't necessarily believe this but the other argument about making less money is that recruiters are incentivized for you to take the job and not to push the envelope on your behalf knowing that the company might balk and back out.

This is interesting. I've found that a (good) recruiter will work hard to drive up your salary because it benefits them in the end usually. I believe most make a commission based on your salary in the contract. This only applies to external recruiters--I doubt it works the same for internal recruiters for obvious reasons, but I may be wrong. I dunno.

Although not in tech, my partner was contacted by an external recruiter looking to fill a position at an architecture firm. She was reluctant to leave her current job working with the best (IMHO) living architect today, but the recruiter did the leg work and came back with an offer that was something few of us could negotiate on our own. All she had to do was respond to the recruiter's occasional emails. This is the ideal scenario, and as I mentioned in a previous comment, I don't know the ins and outs of recruiting, so it might be more cutthroat than I realize, and they probably don't have the resources to give you that kind of a la carte service, but I think the OP's approach can open the potential for that.

> I've found that a (good) recruiter will work hard to drive up your salary

That hasn't been my experience at all. I've been contacted by several recruiters and nearly all of them asked me to lower my rate for them.

On one occasion I was asked in depth about what rates I would find acceptable under which conditions and then after they established contact between me and their client I would find out that they had already offered my absolute minimum rate (which I had previously qualified with "if it's a perfect match, a nice environment, and the office is practically next door, I may be willing to go that low") without asking me.

But I guess recruiters for consultants are a different matter from recruiters for permanent employees. There's probably a higher incentive to negotiate a high wage for a permanent employee because in most cases you'll only sign them up once. With consultants you just want them signed as frequently as possible.

>I've found that a (good) recruiter will work hard to drive up your salary because it benefits them in the end usually. I believe most make a commission based on your salary in the contract.

How did you find this out if you don't mind my asking? From my experience and common sense it would be pretty reckless for a recruiter to try and get few %% more in commission at the risk of loosing the entire deal.

When I discussed salary with a recruiter it was never in the direction "Let's try and get you even more money!" it was more in the direction: "If you don't take the <ridiculously low salary> now you might spend months looking for anything higher and in the meanwhile somebody not as entitled as you will take this job and will be making money hand over fist!".

I've had the same experience as jkochis. It happens rarely, but it does happen. The recruiter can (and should) see it as win-win.

Plus, there are ways of negotiating where you can ask for a larger number and not blow the whole deal.

Sure, you can almost always ask (everywhere you read they will tell you it's completely safe though it depends on industry, I guess, I have seen offers rescinded over mere asking) however if you are not prepared to walk away there is little incentive to offer what you are asking.

An agent who maintains long relationship with you might actually be ready to negotiate on your behalf since it will both strengthen your relationship and bring quite a lot of money in the future as it increases your base price in all the future negotiations. Third party recruiter placing FTEs, on the other hand, has much to lose by walking away and very little to gain.