Careers

Recruiters - Professional Jobs

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 1st, 2017 3:53 pm
[OP]
Newbie
Jan 22, 2016
37 posts
1 upvote
Burlington, ON

Recruiters - Professional Jobs

Hello Everyone

I am hoping you guys can give me some feedback or advice relating to recruiters.

Do you give your references to recruiter after you have interviewed with perspective employers? or directly to employers.
How often recruiters share information to others (people you may have worked before)? The industry I work in is small.
Do they get paid by setting up interviews?
Lastly do they contact your references without your consent?

Thank you
5 replies
Penalty Box
Aug 26, 2017
494 posts
115 upvotes
Generally, recruiters get only paid if you stay with the company for x number of months. As far as references, ask the recruiter, don't be afraid.
Deal Addict
Jul 13, 2009
4736 posts
2858 upvotes
glotiusone wrote: Hello Everyone

I am hoping you guys can give me some feedback or advice relating to recruiters.

Do you give your references to recruiter after you have interviewed with perspective employers? or directly to employers.
How often recruiters share information to others (people you may have worked before)? The industry I work in is small.
Do they get paid by setting up interviews?
Lastly do they contact your references without your consent?

Thank you
1. Depends on the employers/client. Some may say "Hey bhrm, you do the references". Some say "nah don't worry about it, we'll take care of it". Full time positions 90% of the time they will do their own references. Contract roles, 95% recruiter
2. If I was paid for setting up interviews, I would be so rich.
3. Make sure you're clear with them, when and who to contact.
Member
Jan 10, 2017
235 posts
112 upvotes
Here's the thing with recruitment agencies - this is a business defined by reputation.

You, a job seeker, are only as good as your track-record with a recruiter. If you have a track-record of stable employment and look good on paper - you are an easy sell for any recruiter, regardless of the job market. This is because you are less likely to screw with their business (which is based on repeat business). If a recruiter has a screw-up hired from their recommendation, they risk ruining all future business with that particular company. If an employee involved in the back-end of that hire's mess leaves to another company, your reputation as a recruiting firm expands like a virus and more businesses will not rely on said recruitment firm.

In respect to the arguments about recruitment agencies making money by finding you as being a % of your salary, it's actually really screwed up. The thing is, employers are highly elastic with regards to the cost of finding employment - but are inelastic with the amount they will pay for good talent. This means, a lot of 70K-90K jobs where an employer may sound like they drive a hard bargain on wage negotiation, are paying upwards of 10-25% on your salary as commission. That $5,000 increase you were hoping to get that is eventually turned-down meant nothing to the employer, but they still paid the recruiter $10,000 - $20,000 for finding you. This is totally screwed - but it's how it works.

So, you want to use a recruitment agency - go for it. But if you have an irregular track-record (i.e <2y at a job for, say, the last 5 jobs) then you are less attractive and will probably get screwed around by recruiters because they don't want to risk their reputation with someone they do not know. This is also why recruiters string people along - it's a way for them to learn more about you over your career; so, when you find stability (most of the time forced), you will be attractive to a recruiter and have earned their trust. Getting strung along is actually a strategic method and not a screwy thing they just do.

In my opinion, there needs to be more opportunities for people to mingle/meet employers than 'job fairs', or 'female-orientated conferences'.

My $0.02.
Deal Addict
Oct 16, 2013
2355 posts
717 upvotes
New Brunswick
Sociology1 wrote: Here's the thing with recruitment agencies - this is a business defined by reputation.

You, a job seeker, are only as good as your track-record with a recruiter. If you have a track-record of stable employment and look good on paper - you are an easy sell for any recruiter, regardless of the job market. This is because you are less likely to screw with their business (which is based on repeat business). If a recruiter has a screw-up hired from their recommendation, they risk ruining all future business with that particular company. If an employee involved in the back-end of that hire's mess leaves to another company, your reputation as a recruiting firm expands like a virus and more businesses will not rely on said recruitment firm.

In respect to the arguments about recruitment agencies making money by finding you as being a % of your salary, it's actually really screwed up. The thing is, employers are highly elastic with regards to the cost of finding employment - but are inelastic with the amount they will pay for good talent. This means, a lot of 70K-90K jobs where an employer may sound like they drive a hard bargain on wage negotiation, are paying upwards of 10-25% on your salary as commission. That $5,000 increase you were hoping to get that is eventually turned-down meant nothing to the employer, but they still paid the recruiter $10,000 - $20,000 for finding you. This is totally screwed - but it's how it works.

So, you want to use a recruitment agency - go for it. But if you have an irregular track-record (i.e <2y at a job for, say, the last 5 jobs) then you are less attractive and will probably get screwed around by recruiters because they don't want to risk their reputation with someone they do not know. This is also why recruiters string people along - it's a way for them to learn more about you over your career; so, when you find stability (most of the time forced), you will be attractive to a recruiter and have earned their trust. Getting strung along is actually a strategic method and not a screwy thing they just do.

In my opinion, there needs to be more opportunities for people to mingle/meet employers than 'job fairs', or 'female-orientated conferences'.

My $0.02.
HR firms get more than 10%. I worked in departments that deal with payments to these firms. If you are perminate hire than they get 3 months to 6 month of your year salary paid to them. For a staffing firm I have seen commissions from 30% to 60% of your hourly wages.

Also, some fields don't like to mingles like accountants. Been to accounting networking/ mingle groups with barely anyone there.
Member
Jan 10, 2017
235 posts
112 upvotes
raichu1 wrote: HR firms get more than 10%. I worked in departments that deal with payments to these firms. If you are perminate hire than they get 3 months to 6 month of your year salary paid to them. For a staffing firm I have seen commissions from 30% to 60% of your hourly wages.

Also, some fields don't like to mingles like accountants. Been to accounting networking/ mingle groups with barely anyone there.
Recruitment firms rape government positions - this is almost unethical.

In my past, I was getting paid $20 at a government organization; our bill-out rates were slipped by mistake and that forever changed my perspective of recruitment agencies. On the $20 I was making, this particular agency was billing the provincial government $55/h. Let's look at this, me, a student with no degree and hired to do basically data-entry was costing the government $115k/y - and this was damn near 10 years ago. Now, I had a team - all doing basically the same stuff with variant experience - so it was not like this situation can be seen as a "one-off".

Meanwhile fill-time employees at the government find salary to be incredibly difficult to negotiate because everyone is on a "budget"; yet, this budget seems to be unlimited with respect to project-orientated work. This is abuse of taxpayer money and there is only one real winner - the recruitment agency. The people working on these contracts are not happily/gainfully employed; all they talk about is the next opportunity they are looking for to leave.

Outside of taxpayer abuse and using my current employer as an example, we have a few temps and the total bill-out for one doing payroll is $75K (~35/h) - meanwhile, every other person on the payroll team is making between $20-$25/h; even the leads are less than $30 - yet, this one person (paid between $20-$25h) is costing the company 75K/y or roughly $35/h. We are basically pissing away +20K a year on this one person to do "payroll". You offer $30/h on the open market for payroll-orientated roles and I guarantee you find top-quality employees that can do the job without error.

Instead, we get bottom-feeders that are costing the company as much as what top-dollar payroll people are paid.

This shit irritates me and all I can do is point out how illogical it is.

Top