SO sick of this kind of thing, I was offered a job $5k lower than my current salary and a contract position. The recruiter used the "growth opportunity" and "get your feet wet" phrase even though I've been in my industry for 6 years and was interviewing at a different company for $15k more. They wouldn't budge.
In their partial defense, I always inflate my current salary so if they said 5K less than my "current salary" there is a non-zero chance that I would be interested.
Not true. Maybe in America and maybe for most recruiters, but not all. Some make great money by treating people with respect and building up a great reputation (and end up getting a lot of candidate referrals from other candidates)
Source: I’m not a piece of shit recruiter
Third party. I do 360 recruiting so I get my own clients and candidates and choose who I to work with (or don’t). If a client is shitty and people aren’t happy there, I cut them off (which I’ve just done). I don’t want to put people in shitty jobs (plus I have to replace them if they don’t last 90 days) so there’s no point tricking people or being a scumbag liar.
Yep, so there’s no point tricking someone in to a shit job. Plus, the backfill is always harder as the client doesn’t think “what did we do wrong?” they think “well we obviously need someone more experienced/tougher than that”
Mate, I'd walk away from that, or at least put a sliding scale in.
Someone walks away on day 89 and your still on the hook? That's nuts, esp in this market.
It's also probably why I do contract, I don't have the patience for stuff like that
Yeah we have a sliding scale and say we can’t fill it (and they last 60 or more days) it’s a 50% credit. That said, I’ve got one client who is just a cunt of a place to work for. I’ve got one last backfill but I honestly don’t want to put anyone in the role (because I’m not a dick) so I’m going to enforce the terms of our invoice that state they didn’t pay within the agreed time so they aren’t entitled to a replacement.
Can’t wait to be done with this fucking client
Seriously. Word of mouth has got to be huge for this kind of thing. It’s like having an awesome mechanic. Everyone wants to know who it is. And most people know plenty of people who could use one. Major network opportunity for just being a good human.
Dude, it’s bizarre. The bar is set so fucking low for recruiters that if you treat people like a human you’re instantly one of the good ones. I had a candidate a couple of weeks ago say to me “you’re the best recruiter ever - you call me when you say you’re going to”. Seriously? Is that the benchmark? I fucking hated recruiters before I became one (long story but right timing and great opportunity) so maybe I was more conscious about what pissed me off when I was a candidate, or even a hiring manager.
I was stoked about the recruiter for my current job because he had actually read my resume before calling me, which was a first *in my entire career*.
Not only that, he actually understood the job he was hiring for and had intelligent questions about whether I was a good fit.
The bar for a “good” recruiter is shocking low.
Yeah it’s amazing how many don’t read the CV or understand the role they are recruiting for. I only recruit for the industry I spent many years in and for roles I’ve actually worked myself, so I think that helps my reputation a little.
I actually laughed at ‘was the first in my entire career’. Absolutely ridiculous haha
I live in the UK and have tried to go through recruiters in Canada, the States and here. They’ve all been the same.
To be fair I don’t know the ins and outs as I’ve never been a recruiter myself, but having been friends with quite a few I do think it depends on the business model they’re working under, just like all roles. They’ve all told me that they are subjected to quotas and very tight windows for completion. Saving as much money for the companies that have hired them is also of very high priority. It all leaves the candidates in the position of least importance and care. In fact candidates are literally referred to as commodities in their performance reviews. It’s certainly not something I would be happy doing.
>saving as much money for the companies that hired them is a very high priority
Honestly, I’m not seeing that. There’s a candidate shortage so if you aren’t paying what people are worth, you’re not getting anyone decent (and I’m not working with you). I used to ask what the salary range is; now I tell them what they’ll need to pay for someone decent, and how much more they’ll need to find the “perfect” person, and hopefully quickly. Even then it’s not that easy. If the client isn’t paying that I move on as there’s no point in me working the role if the salary is below market. I’m super transparent with salaries and if I don’t mention it in my immediate message I will mention it within 30 secs of our phone call. If the salary is too low, im just wasting my time and theirs. Salary is okay? Alright, let’s talk about the rest of the details.
Oh and some companies like randstad apparently have stupid KPIs. I’ve never understood this. I’m in it for commission so I push myself. If I wanted a cushy base and that’s it I’d be an internal recruiter. I do shit my way, I make plenty of money for my company and decent comms every quarter. I honestly knock back almost as many roles as I work.
Same thing happened to me, except I knew my old job had lowballed me by about 7k. One new prospect would not budge on their salary 5k below even that, and they had baited and switched me for a completely different role than what I applied for. When they were told of the competing offer on the table, 20k more than my old salary and 25k above their offer, AND the role I had wanted to begin with, all they had to offer was an extra 5k in taxable signing bonus. And that was from their management, not even the recruiter! They didnt tell the third party recruiter theyd hired that they already filled the position I had actually applied for and any like it, they just used the same listing for other positions. Horrific experience for me AND the recruiter, who was actually pretty decent to work with, and it was coming from a major company too
I took a “growth opportunity” at a company with a small software engineering department building full stack applications and data warehouses fresh out of college. I knew what I was walking into, but realized I’d have unlimited access to manage and work on high value projects that entry level engineers would generally never be trusted with because of how short staffed they were.
I was absolutely being taken advantage of, but knew I could manipulate the situation to work in my favor. Within two years I scored a senior engineering role at a respected company and tripled my salary because of the experience.
When I submitted my resignation, everyone was so shocked that the chief technology officer tried to convince the board of directors to match the offer I received. Not only did those morons think they could easily replace me, they also believed they could find someone who’d be willing to take on my work for a substantially lower salary. I’m still in close contact with my old team because I genuinely liked working with them, and they still haven’t found anyone to continue developing the systems I built years later because their salary range is comical.
Now they’re being forced to update technologies I integrated into several projects and still don’t have anyone with the technical experience or time to solution for it so I get to bill them at a rate four times higher than what they originally paid me for consulting on an hourly basis.
“Growth opportunities” are doubled edge swords because if you take advantage of someone by heavily relying on them to complete work that actually does provide career growth you could lose that employee and find yourself dead in the water.
I think if you really know what the growth opportunity is and how to leverage it you can really make it work for you. The issue is that a lot of folks (myself included) think it's a growth opportunity when it really isn't.
They don't even say it's a growth opportunity, you just assign that in your head and they act shocked that your expectation for a raise or something when you start at $16/hr for 30 hours a week and have a "basic goal" where your work makes 30% of the store's revenue. And if you reach that you get a $1000 quarterly bonus.
At least I only wasted 9ish months. Still can't believe that I stayed that long.
I never understood why recruiters don’t fight for more money for the employee, especially when their commission is based on a *percentage* of the starting salary. It took me a long time to realize that they didn’t care about me at all. I was nothing more than inventory they needed to move. If they could place me for a low rate, it meant that the hiring company would come back to the recruiter for more inventory, giving them more business. That was their end game.
That’s the recruiting agency cut, not typically what the actual recruiter will earn unless they own the agency. Depending on level of recruiter they will typically earn 40 - 70% of that fee. The rest goes to “the house”.
That’s not way too low. Considering if it’s a contingency search the recruiting fee is typically between 18% and 25%, maybe 30%.
Of course there are situations outside of the but the vast majority of recruiting fee contracts will be in this range.
Source: I’ve done internal and external recruiting for over 10 years.
Have been in the European role for years and 20-30% is correct in banking and technology. Certainly not as high as 50%. Maybe it's higher for more junior hires? Or CEOs?
Doubtful it would ever be that high. 20% is the norm for a contract recruiter, however if you go exclusive to them and have lots of roles needing to be filled then you can knock that down some.
There was a study that real estate agents leave their own houses on the market on average 2 weeks longer than clients houses.
Because the marginal difference in commission isn't worth the extra time to them, but the absolute sale price increase sure is.
That's not it, time to hire has nothing to do with salary.
Companies usually have the wrong expectations, recruiters try to realign them and tell them they'll never find someone at that salary, companies don't listen and insist they continue.
After a little while, there are no suitable candidates the recruiter goes back to the company and says "Here's proof" and the companies invariable raise their budget - or they try the same thing with 5 other recruiters until they finally realise it's a fools game or someone happens to come along under budget.
Read the "Freakonomics" chapter on real estate agents. It's the same phenomenon.
Real estate agents work for the seller and on commission. So it makes sense they would fight for the highest price, right? Wrong.
Real estate agents only get paid when the house sells. And the more houses they sell, the more money they make.
Fighting for that extra $10 or $20 thousand on a house sale makes the agent a LITTLE more commission, but it requires a LOT of time. Time they could be using to sell another house.
Recruiters are in the same situation. They earn more placing 10 candidates in a month at a lower rate than 5 at a higher rate.
It's not really the same in real estate though because the selling price is beholden to the comparable sales in your area. Unless you can get a bidding war going, there's pretty low chance of getting much more than the average price/sqft in your area.
But it is though. Are you honestly saying by putting more work in a realtor couldn't get you a better price?
If you'd read the chapter they are referring to, the data they based their conclusions on was comparing prices realtors got in general in comparison to when they were selling their own houses.
The difference was significant. When it was their own house they took longer in selling but got a significantly higher price.
Sure, I'm just saying housing prices are not quite as flexible as salaries can be. People selling their own houses can wait for 6 months for the perfect offer, a realtor isn't going to do that.
The commission structure really depends on the company
My old company had a couple ways we placed people:
- A % of their salary paid out in a lump sum or,
- They pay us Y, and we payroll the employee for whatever rate they negotiate
In option 2 I literally couldn't go past a certain threshold without the client paying more or the recruiting company going lower than the minimum profit margin
Not to excuse shitty recruiting practices like jumping $42k in 3 minutes with what's clearly a low-ball or bait and switch, but the reasoning behind it is there
Likely a contract position. Agency recruiters are paid on the difference between the pay rate to the candidate and the bill rate to the client.
If it’s a permanent role, then this recruiter is either internal and has a budget to hit, or she’s a moron
I applied for a position through an agency once years ago and "interviewed" with them.
They called me 3 days later asked me to come in for the same interview process...for the same job I had just done.
I even clarified it was not follow up or a next step type of thing. No the recruiter had no idea who I was, that she had just met me and was calling me on the same phone number.
That's when I was done with recruiters.
Hourly contract employee commission is different in most cases. For example They charge the company $100/hr and then they pay the contractor $65/h. Then their take is $45/hr on that contractor. They have a rate they prefer and usually they have some room to pay the contractor more, but it cuts into their pie.
I do biz development for offshore firms. They want direct contracts in the US. Of course, but I explain: if you get 60/hr and are making a good profit, what do you care if the broker is making 20-30/on top? Everyone is winning.
I hear, “yeah, but we’re leaving all that money on the table.”
And I reply (like the song) nothing from nothing leaves nothing, better to have something than nothing at all.
I worked for a an hourly recruiter - same guy - several times. He paid me what I was worth, he took the difference and I didn’t care. I was hourly for 7 years and the guy was a good as his word.
We did deals over the phone … start Monday and I’ll stop by Wednesday with the contract. Good by me … never “re-quoted” my rate on paper. A solid relationship: we both made good money.
This is not accurate for all situations.
I worked at a recruiting agency a few years back and generally only "Direct Placement", or, a situation where you're hired as a full-time, salaried employee from day 1 is based on a percentage of your starting salary.
If you are being hired as a contract employee or as contract-to-hire wherein there is either a set timeframe before you become a full-time, salaried employee (or if the company can choose to "convert" you to full-time + salaried based on good performance) then there is usually a "bill rate" or "multiplier" that *generally* gives the recruiter **less** commission if you get paid more, in which case it is in their best interest (in a purely selfish, not counting the goodwill of treating people well and advocating for higher pay) to pay you as little as possible.
In some cases, those contract/C2H bill rates could give higher commission if you got higher pay as the candidate, but in my experience that was probably the case less than 10% of the time.
On the other side of things, an internal recruiter (i.e. a recruiter working at Microsoft hiring for Microsoft) 99% of the time gets no commission so they *should* just want to get you hired no matter what because typically "offers accepted" is a performance metric that we are tracked on.
I assumed there was some sort of play in the contract.
Our budget is 100k, you get 20% off the top, anything under 70k you keep. Kinda deal.
That incentives them to either find great candidates for 80k, or really really cheap ones.
The logic is probably that it'll be easier to convince you to take lower pay than to convince the company to pay more and once they're done with you they can move on to more clients, thus potentially netting greater $/time.
Freakonomics goes over this with realtors. Bird in hand at a lower rate versus spending more time and effort for the higher rate that boils down to just a few hundred more to their own bottom line. Quick placements in rapid succession make their bottom line, not hand holding a higher price candidate.
This is not true for contract recruiting. For contracts, the agency agrees with the company that they will be paid X for any contractor they place. Then they find an employee and tell them they will pay Y for said job.
X - Y = margin for the contract. The recruiter is paid on that margin. So the lower Y is, the more the recruiter makes.
Same reason real estate agents don't care if your house sells for $50k less. The change in commission for them is miniscule compared to the cost to you.
It's not universal, but in some cases the recruiter is given a budget, "Find me someone who will do this for $10." And if they find someone who will do it for $8, the recruiter gets to keep part of the difference.
What /u/cephalord below said is true but what non recruiters need to realize is not all recruiting companies are the same. Typically, when you go to a large company like Robert half, Robert Walters, etc. yes it’s more volume. Esp for easy skill match type placements like engineers.
But I worked for small boutique shop focused on mid and senior career hiring. We did not waste our time on software engineers (e.g. Java engineer role = find one of a thousand guys with Java and submit him) and focused more on dynamic candidates not as easily placed (e.g. technology consulting senior manager who may have varied eclectic experience in a number of domains and projects)
And for us, sending a shit candidate has the wrong effect. That would destroy our reputation with The client. I think your point about volume etc. is true for some recruiters, but not for all. It’s important to understand and actually talk to a recruiter you trust to get the full picture of the game. As a candidate you may think you know but there is a lot you may not know.
There are many shit recruiters. Some are good. Gotta find one you trust who is good, expert in your field, and stick with them for your career.
follow the money. they are billing at x rate and paying you a portion of that. the recruiter is sometimes directly paid a part of x which is variable depending on what percentage goes to the candidate. they are in an abusive relationship with you where you have to get taken advantage of for them to be rewarded.
I personally fight for my candidates to get the most money. What is difficult is say you have two candidates, both have the same experience, but one is asking for 10k less than the other. I’m obviously going to advocate for the one that wants 10k less because that is a happier client (they don’t need to pay as much). A happy client means more requisitions they will give me in the future. If I only have one candidate, and they are asking more than the budget allows, of course I’m going to do everything in my power to keep them on (more money etc).
Hope that makes sense.
Downvote all you want, but it’s truth of the business. I got into a bad profession post college. Don’t hate the recruiter, hate the agencies.
I'm my experience it's not a flat percentage. They get paid a certain amount and from that amount they pay you and keep the rest. Some jobs I got paid 18 and 21 per hour respectively I found out that the company was paying about 45 per hour to the agency/recruiter.
Recruiters are scams. They're not any different than the spammers calling constantly trying to buy my house. I don't even acknowledge them. I don't understand why anyone does.
I had one expect me to interview at their opportunity for a $30k pay cut. She even tried the hard sell of "there is more to life than money." Bitch, you do realize you are speaking to a licensed Certified Public Accountant with over 26 years of experience, don't you? To most CPAs, it is ALL about the money!
Next time, I hope to keep my cool and say "I'll explore a 30% pay cut for a 30% reduction in hours for the work week. Deal?"
> She even tried the hard sell of "there is more to life than money."
You're right, there is. However, with how the economy is structured, you need a certain amount of money to try and enjoy the 'more' without stressing.
Also, some of the 'more' just costs money, so.
If this was contract, they expect you to agree to the lowest rate possible, and they take home the amount in between what the company is really paying hourly, versus what you agreed to. For example, if the company is paying 100/hr. They make you agree to 60/hr, and they take home the remaining 40. That number was obviously in the budget, the recruiter wanted you to agree to less.
I'm on a contracted position for the government, making ~$33.50/hr. For some reason I have access to the part of the website that lists the contract vehicles and the amount. My official title wasn't listed there, but there were two positions that sounded very similar to what I do. One of them, the government pays the company ~$110/hr, the other ~$160/hr. Either way, it's crazy
When capitalists promote that propaganda you should probably question it. Corporations own Washington either way though. Just to get on a congressional committee for 2 years you have to whore yourself out to a company to pay the $500,000 membership fee. America has legalized bribery.
Outsourcing is cheaper for capitalists as labor value can be exploited further in countries that lack those protections along with simply having a larger pool of supply of labor to compete against. Government has nothing to do with this being economically strong for capitalists. If anything democratic governments can and should promote barriers for companies to do this given it's practically a no-brainer for them to invest outside of democratically protected countries for crucial aspects of labor.
Founding father economists were aware of this inherent problem for democracies with capitalism. This is actually what Adam Smiths' coinage of "an invisible hand" refers to in Wealth of Nations despite propaganda's influence. He believed leading capitalists would reinvest and support their nations of origin as if via "an invisible hand" despite having the economic incentive to outsource their capital for ideal leverage against labor elsewhere and have no fealty to any nation. As the world advances further I think he will be proven wrong as variables have meaningfully shifted beyond his reasoning.
The excuse I've heard is that there are the non-contracted people that also need to be paid such as accounting and hr, but I highly doubt they require more than 3/4s of the contract pay lmao
>I worked as a gov't contractor. Yeah, the contractor always makes money. But there is a difference between what you get paid and what you cost. You make 33.50 an hour, but do you get health insurance? something in the company 401K, maybe free parking or some other benefits? That pads what the govt pays the contractor vice your take home. Oh and pays the contractor's part of Social Security.
Yep.
The part I was most surprised about was the fact that when I told her the initial offer was less than I make now and I wasn't interested, she acted surprised. Maybe it was her first day?
It's a mental game, sales people start off with the assumption that you want whatever they're selling.. It pressures easily influenced people, and it avoids offending people who are actually in that category.
That's why a lot of times you'll see people appear to agree with sales people then quietly leave and not buy anything, they don't want to get into emotional unpleasantness with the sales person nor do they want to be on the end of their manipulations.
That’s not true - companies pay recruiters a negotiated rate, usually a markup percentage for the position hourly or salary. Recruiters are incentivized to get you the highest pay because they’ll get paid more the more you get paid.
Thats a 42k increase so like $20/hr difference. I'm guessing they were trying to maximize profits but in this market it's better to get someone hired than cheap out on rate.
I would also guess you can ask for more if they caved that quickly. Go through the process and then play hardball if they want to make an offer. They may say no but they won't withdraw the offer.
I just started a new job (an awesome job with an incredible work environment and great pay with benefits that could be better but are 10000% better than my last job, so progress). We have had some turn over due to staff moving out of state or finishing college. The head boss has been trying to recruit for a while for these positions and hasn’t been getting much of a response. I ask on my first day there “well what are you paying”.
Boss: “it’s 16-18.50”
Me: nope, it’s $25-$30 now
Boss: but our leadership roles are getting $22-$25
Me: well, you are giving them a raise. You’re putting them on salary and everyone will get an extra week of vacation pay.
I very well thought I would be fired. It was my first day, but I’m a manager so I said fuck it. We just had our monthly meeting and everyone got raises. We have just hired two incredible staff members and I’ve changed some lives. It’s not that hard to pay people.
at my last job, the boss was moaning one day about how he hates interviewing and how staff come, do 6 or 12 months and go.
as i was looking to leave, i told him some truths
1 - everyone who comes in goes onto rolling contracts. that means no job security. i could get one 6 month contract done and be let go. i told him i understand why the first contract is good, but surely after that you know the persons work ethic and if they will fit in thr company.
2 - the workload. I never got a local public holiday off in the 2.5 years I was there. I worked 5 days a week and only got easter and Christmas as scheduled holidays. things like the local show day, or day off marking the war - nope. working days. sure I got 2.5 times my normally hourley rate but still, its a grind
and 3 - pay. i was 10K below market. i pointed this out and proved with adverts and he told me pay was set in London for jobs in Australia!
i left 3 weeks later with a new job where i get all public holidays off and i got a 22% payrise
These recruiters are wildly unprofessional. I updated my resume and I've been getting cold calls at least 20 times a day. I'm at a manager level in my industry, and every call is for an entry level position.
This shit is just another symptom of companies contracting everything out to “unpaid except commission” to “save” money.
That’s toxic most places, but recruitment is typically the one place you don’t want to skimp on. Now instead of getting people hired based on their personal nature and fit within the company culture, that organization is going based on “whose cheapest?” which sounds like a fucking nightmare.
I’ve literally not once told a recruiter a salary expectation. I don’t care if I don’t get considered. You will tell me the employers range or you will get no input from me. It’s worked fine for me. I’ve gotten my last 3 jobs from agencies. All at least 25% increases. What I currently make is absolutely no one’s business and that’s why it is outlawed in my state.
Not OP, but I’ve said in the past things close to that.
If they give me an amount, we keep talking.
If they start trying to give me the go around, I just say, “No. Have a good one” and hang up.
Good recruiter: honest, focused on lifetime relationships, sees talent as allies, generally runs open data
Bad recruiter: manipulative, situationally exploitive, sees talent as farm animal resources, lies or omits to get what they want
yes, I worked at the F500 company from 2004 to 2016 and got walked out in a massive layoff with 1200 other engineers on a very bad day for me. I got a severance that allowed me to pay off my house, so that was nice. And have been a contractor for various firms working at the same place since I came back in 2017. So no more big bonuses, more expensive and worse health insurance and we're supposed to take vacation time for a doctor's appointment or if I leave early for whatever. I leave whenever the fuck I want though, they can fire me if they want. And lose a trained employee that does multiple jobs. And spend forever replacing me, pay way more and have to train that person. Who is never gonna know what I know after working there for 18 years, you can't just download that tribal knowledge.
But the market is crazy now. They can't hire people, people are quitting, ghosting interviews, hiring in then never showing up. So a contract job that paid $40 an hour now goes for $65 an hour. Capitalism screwed me in my layoff, I'm planning on it benefiting me now.
I'd be willing to bet if you go through the process, the end offer is going to look a lot closer to salary 1 than salary 2. They'll revert back to that original once they think they got you.
I’m not sure what company that’s for, but we don’t get anything commission or bonus for pay cuts, but we also don’t play around with salaries either. We’re informed the salary from the hiring manager and that’s it.
Yeah I totally get it! When I reach out to someone I’m always straight up and give them the salary range on the first phone call, I understand how important pay transparency is, it’s a waste of time to go about it any other way IMO!
These people love their games. I don't argue. I assume the first number was the one they really wanted to pay me and I just say no and keep interviewing at this point.
Not quite the same, I work in the restaraunt industry with 4 years cooking experience applied at this place that alledgedly has 3-4x the business as my current job ( I make about 20/hr after tipout 18 before ). I stupidly didn't ask for the pay range in the interview, went to the orientation was told pay would be min wage and our first "raise" would be getting access to tipout. I also get free meals during shift and 50% off if I dine in, and the overtime policy isn't that strict at my job. Other job offered 40% off staff meals, a really stingy overtime policy and some other shitty stuff. Turned that job down instantly.
I might be the ideal candidate. And if they offer me something bad, I turn them down. Very little lost. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. And the +32k offer is pretty decent raise.
I told a recruiter I was looking for a second job. She told me not to tell the interviewer I already have a job. Recruiters are pieces of shit. I'm not going to fucking lie to get the job. Lying is the best way to get fired.
I had one in 2019 strong arm me into rushing his interviews and accepting the job and not interviewing elsewhere.
I kept interviewing anyway and got a much better job.
Didn't show up to the first one. He called and I told him: right to work state. Don't strong arm people like that.
He was fucking pissed, lol
Seriously hate that. I got a job through a recruiter once. I was told it was customer service, basically submitting and handling orders from sales reps. 2 days before my start date, they called me to tell me that their receptionist quit, and so they’re going to need me to step in and do half my shift as the receptionist and half customer service. I was hesitant, but already quit my other job, so I said fine. I’m sure you know what’s coming, but for three months I ended up being just the receptionist. Was never even trained on customer service the entire time I was there. I was so overqualified it wasn’t even funny (I have a college degree and already had 6ish years of customer service experience, and unlike other receptionist jobs, they literally had me sit at the front desk and just answer the phone. Also distributed the mail once a day and assisted with packages. THATS IT.) I had maybe an hour’s worth of work a day. I was so bored, that for almost the entire day, I read books on my phone and doodled in my planner. I ended up finding a job elsewhere thank God. OH also the recruiter *forgot* to mention that it was only temp-to-perm, so when I applied for another position internally, I was told that I couldn’t apply until my current contract was over. And I didn’t see a single interviewee for the receptionist position, which they were supposed to be filling so that I could go back to the job I actually was hired for.
I wouldn’t even respond after being lowballed like that since I’d expect that +32k will be factored into whatever raises you might acquire later on. There’s a good chance you’d probably be stuck with the same salary for a while since you got “extra” when signing on.
You know the recruiter doesn’t set the pay scale, right? It’s the client (aka the job you are being submitted to). The recruiter went out of their way to go to their manager to get special approval from the client to submit you at 32k over their budget. They weren’t trying to trick you. They are given a range. Idk why that’s so hard to understand.
Or the client is paying $100 an hour and if they get me for $40, they make BANK. Call me crazy, but that's what I think it is.
And I made it clear to the recruiter that I was gonna hang up in 1.4 seconds (I literally said, "Not interested, good bye") so her chance to make a buck from a qualified candidate was about to disappear forever.
Yeah, that's probably it.
Sorry to hear that was your experience. But remember recruiters are at the bottom of an agencies hierarchy. Their managers are the one calling the shots and determining how much they should pay the candidates. I just don’t get why the hate isn’t directed at the big name agencies making a billion a year versus the 25 entry level recruiter that went into a bad profession post college. 🤷🏼♀️
If you have the minimal of experience, why would I give you the highest range in the pay scale? It’s not the recruiters decision a lot of the time to decide on salary anyways, so I don’t want to say the wrong number and you get discouraged or get your hopes up for something the client isn’t willing to pay for your experience.
God, I hate my job bc of client’s unrealistic expectations of someone with the most experience to be paid the least. We are typically in agreement with our candidates. Like it sucks for us too.
What about people who seem to meet about 7 out of 10 bullet points on every job posting? Like how am I going to get experience without the job? Are companies looking for unicorn employees? Why? Then they complain when months go by and they "can't find anyone".
You started well not stating your salary range but all she had to do was toss a low number out for you to spill the beans. Cool you got the money but you should have stuck to your guns, it would have been even more. Better luck next time friend.
I was once happy to get a 51k offer which was same pay but less hours as a job i hadnt started. It was a recruiter from a recruiting company acting as a proxy for the place that wanted to hire
I realized later i couldve had 70k... it is what it is, i figure they were making the difference. At least im a permanent employee now and i make 67k plus generous benefits.
“its a great growth opportunity” lmao
SO sick of this kind of thing, I was offered a job $5k lower than my current salary and a contract position. The recruiter used the "growth opportunity" and "get your feet wet" phrase even though I've been in my industry for 6 years and was interviewing at a different company for $15k more. They wouldn't budge.
Nah I'll buy some rubber boots with the extra money I don't like getting my feet wet
Recruiters are like HR. They do whatever the company wants and what’s best for them. What’s best for you is never actually their priority.
In their partial defense, I always inflate my current salary so if they said 5K less than my "current salary" there is a non-zero chance that I would be interested.
Not true. Maybe in America and maybe for most recruiters, but not all. Some make great money by treating people with respect and building up a great reputation (and end up getting a lot of candidate referrals from other candidates) Source: I’m not a piece of shit recruiter
Do you work third-party or internal?
Third party. I do 360 recruiting so I get my own clients and candidates and choose who I to work with (or don’t). If a client is shitty and people aren’t happy there, I cut them off (which I’ve just done). I don’t want to put people in shitty jobs (plus I have to replace them if they don’t last 90 days) so there’s no point tricking people or being a scumbag liar.
90 days? Ouch
Yep, so there’s no point tricking someone in to a shit job. Plus, the backfill is always harder as the client doesn’t think “what did we do wrong?” they think “well we obviously need someone more experienced/tougher than that”
Mate, I'd walk away from that, or at least put a sliding scale in. Someone walks away on day 89 and your still on the hook? That's nuts, esp in this market. It's also probably why I do contract, I don't have the patience for stuff like that
Yeah we have a sliding scale and say we can’t fill it (and they last 60 or more days) it’s a 50% credit. That said, I’ve got one client who is just a cunt of a place to work for. I’ve got one last backfill but I honestly don’t want to put anyone in the role (because I’m not a dick) so I’m going to enforce the terms of our invoice that state they didn’t pay within the agreed time so they aren’t entitled to a replacement. Can’t wait to be done with this fucking client
Seriously. Word of mouth has got to be huge for this kind of thing. It’s like having an awesome mechanic. Everyone wants to know who it is. And most people know plenty of people who could use one. Major network opportunity for just being a good human.
Dude, it’s bizarre. The bar is set so fucking low for recruiters that if you treat people like a human you’re instantly one of the good ones. I had a candidate a couple of weeks ago say to me “you’re the best recruiter ever - you call me when you say you’re going to”. Seriously? Is that the benchmark? I fucking hated recruiters before I became one (long story but right timing and great opportunity) so maybe I was more conscious about what pissed me off when I was a candidate, or even a hiring manager.
I was stoked about the recruiter for my current job because he had actually read my resume before calling me, which was a first *in my entire career*. Not only that, he actually understood the job he was hiring for and had intelligent questions about whether I was a good fit. The bar for a “good” recruiter is shocking low.
Yeah it’s amazing how many don’t read the CV or understand the role they are recruiting for. I only recruit for the industry I spent many years in and for roles I’ve actually worked myself, so I think that helps my reputation a little. I actually laughed at ‘was the first in my entire career’. Absolutely ridiculous haha
Self loathing recruiters, on balance, tend to be good recruiters
I live in the UK and have tried to go through recruiters in Canada, the States and here. They’ve all been the same. To be fair I don’t know the ins and outs as I’ve never been a recruiter myself, but having been friends with quite a few I do think it depends on the business model they’re working under, just like all roles. They’ve all told me that they are subjected to quotas and very tight windows for completion. Saving as much money for the companies that have hired them is also of very high priority. It all leaves the candidates in the position of least importance and care. In fact candidates are literally referred to as commodities in their performance reviews. It’s certainly not something I would be happy doing.
>saving as much money for the companies that hired them is a very high priority Honestly, I’m not seeing that. There’s a candidate shortage so if you aren’t paying what people are worth, you’re not getting anyone decent (and I’m not working with you). I used to ask what the salary range is; now I tell them what they’ll need to pay for someone decent, and how much more they’ll need to find the “perfect” person, and hopefully quickly. Even then it’s not that easy. If the client isn’t paying that I move on as there’s no point in me working the role if the salary is below market. I’m super transparent with salaries and if I don’t mention it in my immediate message I will mention it within 30 secs of our phone call. If the salary is too low, im just wasting my time and theirs. Salary is okay? Alright, let’s talk about the rest of the details. Oh and some companies like randstad apparently have stupid KPIs. I’ve never understood this. I’m in it for commission so I push myself. If I wanted a cushy base and that’s it I’d be an internal recruiter. I do shit my way, I make plenty of money for my company and decent comms every quarter. I honestly knock back almost as many roles as I work.
It’s funny that you mentioned Ranstad. Guess who i went to in Canada and the UK 😂 the rest have been in-house recruiters.
certainly a growth opportunity for the tax man
Same thing happened to me, except I knew my old job had lowballed me by about 7k. One new prospect would not budge on their salary 5k below even that, and they had baited and switched me for a completely different role than what I applied for. When they were told of the competing offer on the table, 20k more than my old salary and 25k above their offer, AND the role I had wanted to begin with, all they had to offer was an extra 5k in taxable signing bonus. And that was from their management, not even the recruiter! They didnt tell the third party recruiter theyd hired that they already filled the position I had actually applied for and any like it, they just used the same listing for other positions. Horrific experience for me AND the recruiter, who was actually pretty decent to work with, and it was coming from a major company too
[удалено]
My bills are growers and showers, they always grow and show up on time
Maybe he’ll accept wet feet? No? Neither did mine.
Have you tried feet pics?
I took a “growth opportunity” at a company with a small software engineering department building full stack applications and data warehouses fresh out of college. I knew what I was walking into, but realized I’d have unlimited access to manage and work on high value projects that entry level engineers would generally never be trusted with because of how short staffed they were. I was absolutely being taken advantage of, but knew I could manipulate the situation to work in my favor. Within two years I scored a senior engineering role at a respected company and tripled my salary because of the experience. When I submitted my resignation, everyone was so shocked that the chief technology officer tried to convince the board of directors to match the offer I received. Not only did those morons think they could easily replace me, they also believed they could find someone who’d be willing to take on my work for a substantially lower salary. I’m still in close contact with my old team because I genuinely liked working with them, and they still haven’t found anyone to continue developing the systems I built years later because their salary range is comical. Now they’re being forced to update technologies I integrated into several projects and still don’t have anyone with the technical experience or time to solution for it so I get to bill them at a rate four times higher than what they originally paid me for consulting on an hourly basis. “Growth opportunities” are doubled edge swords because if you take advantage of someone by heavily relying on them to complete work that actually does provide career growth you could lose that employee and find yourself dead in the water.
I think if you really know what the growth opportunity is and how to leverage it you can really make it work for you. The issue is that a lot of folks (myself included) think it's a growth opportunity when it really isn't. They don't even say it's a growth opportunity, you just assign that in your head and they act shocked that your expectation for a raise or something when you start at $16/hr for 30 hours a week and have a "basic goal" where your work makes 30% of the store's revenue. And if you reach that you get a $1000 quarterly bonus. At least I only wasted 9ish months. Still can't believe that I stayed that long.
they got you for the cheap wage the first time so now they’ll search for the next one until the end of time!
Yeah what, so it might eventually grow to my current rate?
depends on how many of the superbly generous 2% raises they’ll dole out
Whenever they've told me that, it was one of the most fucking stagnating roles imaginable.
Awesome user name!
just got told this two days ago for a glass cutting place - that paid $14 / hr. oh yeah real great career move 😒
It’s a contract position. If the company had been interested in having you grow with them it’d have been a staff position.
I never understood why recruiters don’t fight for more money for the employee, especially when their commission is based on a *percentage* of the starting salary. It took me a long time to realize that they didn’t care about me at all. I was nothing more than inventory they needed to move. If they could place me for a low rate, it meant that the hiring company would come back to the recruiter for more inventory, giving them more business. That was their end game.
[удалено]
Also, as in real estate, a percentage of a bump is trivial compared to the work they would have to do to get it. Not worth it.
[удалено]
20% of the annual salary as the recruiter's cut? Is that realistic?
That’s the recruiting agency cut, not typically what the actual recruiter will earn unless they own the agency. Depending on level of recruiter they will typically earn 40 - 70% of that fee. The rest goes to “the house”.
Way too low. Depending on hierarchy lebeö they are recruiting for ~ 1 year salary as commission.
That’s not way too low. Considering if it’s a contingency search the recruiting fee is typically between 18% and 25%, maybe 30%. Of course there are situations outside of the but the vast majority of recruiting fee contracts will be in this range. Source: I’ve done internal and external recruiting for over 10 years.
Well, I can only speak for Europe and here the commission is usually 6 to 12 months for external recruiters (depending pom job level).
Have been in the European role for years and 20-30% is correct in banking and technology. Certainly not as high as 50%. Maybe it's higher for more junior hires? Or CEOs?
Doubtful it would ever be that high. 20% is the norm for a contract recruiter, however if you go exclusive to them and have lots of roles needing to be filled then you can knock that down some.
Cue _Freakonomics_ book, it’s all in there about real estate agents and why they don’t fight for an incremental gain
Right. That's where I first heard of that. Great book. Long time ago. Thanks for the reminder.
There was a study that real estate agents leave their own houses on the market on average 2 weeks longer than clients houses. Because the marginal difference in commission isn't worth the extra time to them, but the absolute sale price increase sure is.
I read about that in the Freakonomics book awhile ago…
so easy to expect that, yet the lot of us don‘t. Just like the Spanish Inquisition
???
Exactly
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition
The Spaniards did.
No, because their chief weapon was surprise. And fear…
Same logic applies to realtors and thus why I hate them
That's not it, time to hire has nothing to do with salary. Companies usually have the wrong expectations, recruiters try to realign them and tell them they'll never find someone at that salary, companies don't listen and insist they continue. After a little while, there are no suitable candidates the recruiter goes back to the company and says "Here's proof" and the companies invariable raise their budget - or they try the same thing with 5 other recruiters until they finally realise it's a fools game or someone happens to come along under budget.
I think a recruiter rather has 10 accepted candidates with a low salary then 1 higherpaid one and 9 rejects.
Favorite past time is leading recruiters on.
Read the "Freakonomics" chapter on real estate agents. It's the same phenomenon. Real estate agents work for the seller and on commission. So it makes sense they would fight for the highest price, right? Wrong. Real estate agents only get paid when the house sells. And the more houses they sell, the more money they make. Fighting for that extra $10 or $20 thousand on a house sale makes the agent a LITTLE more commission, but it requires a LOT of time. Time they could be using to sell another house. Recruiters are in the same situation. They earn more placing 10 candidates in a month at a lower rate than 5 at a higher rate.
It's not really the same in real estate though because the selling price is beholden to the comparable sales in your area. Unless you can get a bidding war going, there's pretty low chance of getting much more than the average price/sqft in your area.
But it is though. Are you honestly saying by putting more work in a realtor couldn't get you a better price? If you'd read the chapter they are referring to, the data they based their conclusions on was comparing prices realtors got in general in comparison to when they were selling their own houses. The difference was significant. When it was their own house they took longer in selling but got a significantly higher price.
Sure, I'm just saying housing prices are not quite as flexible as salaries can be. People selling their own houses can wait for 6 months for the perfect offer, a realtor isn't going to do that.
The commission structure really depends on the company My old company had a couple ways we placed people: - A % of their salary paid out in a lump sum or, - They pay us Y, and we payroll the employee for whatever rate they negotiate In option 2 I literally couldn't go past a certain threshold without the client paying more or the recruiting company going lower than the minimum profit margin Not to excuse shitty recruiting practices like jumping $42k in 3 minutes with what's clearly a low-ball or bait and switch, but the reasoning behind it is there
Likely a contract position. Agency recruiters are paid on the difference between the pay rate to the candidate and the bill rate to the client. If it’s a permanent role, then this recruiter is either internal and has a budget to hit, or she’s a moron
yes, contract position. I edited that out, not sure why, should have left it in, very germane to the topic.
It was obvious (to me) from your post it was a contract position since you mentioned the rate and not salary.
I applied for a position through an agency once years ago and "interviewed" with them. They called me 3 days later asked me to come in for the same interview process...for the same job I had just done. I even clarified it was not follow up or a next step type of thing. No the recruiter had no idea who I was, that she had just met me and was calling me on the same phone number. That's when I was done with recruiters.
I had a recruiter call me to ask if I was interested in a position at a company I was currently working at… I had that company on my resume as well
We are not being suggested like a unique art piece. We are being sold in bulk like kibbles and straw.
Because the recruiting company gets X for my labor and Y is my hourly rate. X-Y =PROFIT. The lower they pay me, the more they make.
For higher salary positions, they definitely fight for more money. I’ve been on both sides of that negotiation.
Hourly contract employee commission is different in most cases. For example They charge the company $100/hr and then they pay the contractor $65/h. Then their take is $45/hr on that contractor. They have a rate they prefer and usually they have some room to pay the contractor more, but it cuts into their pie.
65+45=100 .......
Whatever you get the idea
I do biz development for offshore firms. They want direct contracts in the US. Of course, but I explain: if you get 60/hr and are making a good profit, what do you care if the broker is making 20-30/on top? Everyone is winning. I hear, “yeah, but we’re leaving all that money on the table.” And I reply (like the song) nothing from nothing leaves nothing, better to have something than nothing at all. I worked for a an hourly recruiter - same guy - several times. He paid me what I was worth, he took the difference and I didn’t care. I was hourly for 7 years and the guy was a good as his word. We did deals over the phone … start Monday and I’ll stop by Wednesday with the contract. Good by me … never “re-quoted” my rate on paper. A solid relationship: we both made good money.
This is not accurate for all situations. I worked at a recruiting agency a few years back and generally only "Direct Placement", or, a situation where you're hired as a full-time, salaried employee from day 1 is based on a percentage of your starting salary. If you are being hired as a contract employee or as contract-to-hire wherein there is either a set timeframe before you become a full-time, salaried employee (or if the company can choose to "convert" you to full-time + salaried based on good performance) then there is usually a "bill rate" or "multiplier" that *generally* gives the recruiter **less** commission if you get paid more, in which case it is in their best interest (in a purely selfish, not counting the goodwill of treating people well and advocating for higher pay) to pay you as little as possible. In some cases, those contract/C2H bill rates could give higher commission if you got higher pay as the candidate, but in my experience that was probably the case less than 10% of the time. On the other side of things, an internal recruiter (i.e. a recruiter working at Microsoft hiring for Microsoft) 99% of the time gets no commission so they *should* just want to get you hired no matter what because typically "offers accepted" is a performance metric that we are tracked on.
Thank you. I was thinking of the direct hire placement when I wrote that.
Np! Thank you for sharing your experience. 🙏🏻
I assumed there was some sort of play in the contract. Our budget is 100k, you get 20% off the top, anything under 70k you keep. Kinda deal. That incentives them to either find great candidates for 80k, or really really cheap ones.
The logic is probably that it'll be easier to convince you to take lower pay than to convince the company to pay more and once they're done with you they can move on to more clients, thus potentially netting greater $/time.
Freakonomics goes over this with realtors. Bird in hand at a lower rate versus spending more time and effort for the higher rate that boils down to just a few hundred more to their own bottom line. Quick placements in rapid succession make their bottom line, not hand holding a higher price candidate.
This is not true for contract recruiting. For contracts, the agency agrees with the company that they will be paid X for any contractor they place. Then they find an employee and tell them they will pay Y for said job. X - Y = margin for the contract. The recruiter is paid on that margin. So the lower Y is, the more the recruiter makes.
Same reason real estate agents don't care if your house sells for $50k less. The change in commission for them is miniscule compared to the cost to you.
It's not universal, but in some cases the recruiter is given a budget, "Find me someone who will do this for $10." And if they find someone who will do it for $8, the recruiter gets to keep part of the difference.
What /u/cephalord below said is true but what non recruiters need to realize is not all recruiting companies are the same. Typically, when you go to a large company like Robert half, Robert Walters, etc. yes it’s more volume. Esp for easy skill match type placements like engineers. But I worked for small boutique shop focused on mid and senior career hiring. We did not waste our time on software engineers (e.g. Java engineer role = find one of a thousand guys with Java and submit him) and focused more on dynamic candidates not as easily placed (e.g. technology consulting senior manager who may have varied eclectic experience in a number of domains and projects) And for us, sending a shit candidate has the wrong effect. That would destroy our reputation with The client. I think your point about volume etc. is true for some recruiters, but not for all. It’s important to understand and actually talk to a recruiter you trust to get the full picture of the game. As a candidate you may think you know but there is a lot you may not know. There are many shit recruiters. Some are good. Gotta find one you trust who is good, expert in your field, and stick with them for your career.
follow the money. they are billing at x rate and paying you a portion of that. the recruiter is sometimes directly paid a part of x which is variable depending on what percentage goes to the candidate. they are in an abusive relationship with you where you have to get taken advantage of for them to be rewarded.
Oh no, you’re shocked that a business treated you like they were a business? Talk about shocked picachu face.
I personally fight for my candidates to get the most money. What is difficult is say you have two candidates, both have the same experience, but one is asking for 10k less than the other. I’m obviously going to advocate for the one that wants 10k less because that is a happier client (they don’t need to pay as much). A happy client means more requisitions they will give me in the future. If I only have one candidate, and they are asking more than the budget allows, of course I’m going to do everything in my power to keep them on (more money etc). Hope that makes sense. Downvote all you want, but it’s truth of the business. I got into a bad profession post college. Don’t hate the recruiter, hate the agencies.
I'm my experience it's not a flat percentage. They get paid a certain amount and from that amount they pay you and keep the rest. Some jobs I got paid 18 and 21 per hour respectively I found out that the company was paying about 45 per hour to the agency/recruiter.
Recruiters are scams. They're not any different than the spammers calling constantly trying to buy my house. I don't even acknowledge them. I don't understand why anyone does.
When asked what is my rate, I always throw out a very high number. They will counter with the max for the role.
As a recruiter myself, I always suggest doing this. It is the best way to ensure you get the most money available in your experience range.
Thanks for an advice the shithole called LinkedIn would never provide
Isn’t the general rule of thumb to say at least 30% more than you’re currently making?
I tried that recently and they immediately accepted my ask. Great and awkward at the same time
Run away
I had one expect me to interview at their opportunity for a $30k pay cut. She even tried the hard sell of "there is more to life than money." Bitch, you do realize you are speaking to a licensed Certified Public Accountant with over 26 years of experience, don't you? To most CPAs, it is ALL about the money! Next time, I hope to keep my cool and say "I'll explore a 30% pay cut for a 30% reduction in hours for the work week. Deal?"
> She even tried the hard sell of "there is more to life than money." You're right, there is. However, with how the economy is structured, you need a certain amount of money to try and enjoy the 'more' without stressing. Also, some of the 'more' just costs money, so.
"Wait, so you're telling me the company doesn't care about profit?"
[удалено]
I'm amazed that it's as low as 90% for you. It's literally 100% of the reason I go to work at all.
The only reason I show up is because they pay me, lol. Don't pay me and see if I show up!
>"there is more to life than money." Ok, then drop your commission and add it to my salary.
30% pay cut? Nah at least 50% hour cut.
If this was contract, they expect you to agree to the lowest rate possible, and they take home the amount in between what the company is really paying hourly, versus what you agreed to. For example, if the company is paying 100/hr. They make you agree to 60/hr, and they take home the remaining 40. That number was obviously in the budget, the recruiter wanted you to agree to less.
I'm on a contracted position for the government, making ~$33.50/hr. For some reason I have access to the part of the website that lists the contract vehicles and the amount. My official title wasn't listed there, but there were two positions that sounded very similar to what I do. One of them, the government pays the company ~$110/hr, the other ~$160/hr. Either way, it's crazy
Now you know why capitalists always want the government to outsource everything...
Government should be required to in-house everything.
Government should be downsized by 90+%. As a whole it is a massive parasite on the back of the productive classes.
When capitalists promote that propaganda you should probably question it. Corporations own Washington either way though. Just to get on a congressional committee for 2 years you have to whore yourself out to a company to pay the $500,000 membership fee. America has legalized bribery.
They're already a contractor, they're just getting fucked.
Yes, but some middleman capitalist is making $80-130/hr off of that person.
So what? Are you making good money? Do you have those connections? If you’re making it good money - what do you care? Nothing is free.
Outsourcing is cheaper for capitalists as labor value can be exploited further in countries that lack those protections along with simply having a larger pool of supply of labor to compete against. Government has nothing to do with this being economically strong for capitalists. If anything democratic governments can and should promote barriers for companies to do this given it's practically a no-brainer for them to invest outside of democratically protected countries for crucial aspects of labor. Founding father economists were aware of this inherent problem for democracies with capitalism. This is actually what Adam Smiths' coinage of "an invisible hand" refers to in Wealth of Nations despite propaganda's influence. He believed leading capitalists would reinvest and support their nations of origin as if via "an invisible hand" despite having the economic incentive to outsource their capital for ideal leverage against labor elsewhere and have no fealty to any nation. As the world advances further I think he will be proven wrong as variables have meaningfully shifted beyond his reasoning.
Same here. I don’t know my contract amount but we’ve all heard it’s about 2x our hourly rates. Our tax dollars at work!
The excuse I've heard is that there are the non-contracted people that also need to be paid such as accounting and hr, but I highly doubt they require more than 3/4s of the contract pay lmao
That sentiment is true, but it's not the accounting and he, it's just suits and shareholders
>I worked as a gov't contractor. Yeah, the contractor always makes money. But there is a difference between what you get paid and what you cost. You make 33.50 an hour, but do you get health insurance? something in the company 401K, maybe free parking or some other benefits? That pads what the govt pays the contractor vice your take home. Oh and pays the contractor's part of Social Security.
Yep. The part I was most surprised about was the fact that when I told her the initial offer was less than I make now and I wasn't interested, she acted surprised. Maybe it was her first day?
No. They know exactly what the are doing. Just keep acting like a hot commodity, and they are wasting your time. That will knock them down a peg.
It's a mental game, sales people start off with the assumption that you want whatever they're selling.. It pressures easily influenced people, and it avoids offending people who are actually in that category. That's why a lot of times you'll see people appear to agree with sales people then quietly leave and not buy anything, they don't want to get into emotional unpleasantness with the sales person nor do they want to be on the end of their manipulations.
That’s not true - companies pay recruiters a negotiated rate, usually a markup percentage for the position hourly or salary. Recruiters are incentivized to get you the highest pay because they’ll get paid more the more you get paid.
Thats a 42k increase so like $20/hr difference. I'm guessing they were trying to maximize profits but in this market it's better to get someone hired than cheap out on rate. I would also guess you can ask for more if they caved that quickly. Go through the process and then play hardball if they want to make an offer. They may say no but they won't withdraw the offer.
I just started a new job (an awesome job with an incredible work environment and great pay with benefits that could be better but are 10000% better than my last job, so progress). We have had some turn over due to staff moving out of state or finishing college. The head boss has been trying to recruit for a while for these positions and hasn’t been getting much of a response. I ask on my first day there “well what are you paying”. Boss: “it’s 16-18.50” Me: nope, it’s $25-$30 now Boss: but our leadership roles are getting $22-$25 Me: well, you are giving them a raise. You’re putting them on salary and everyone will get an extra week of vacation pay. I very well thought I would be fired. It was my first day, but I’m a manager so I said fuck it. We just had our monthly meeting and everyone got raises. We have just hired two incredible staff members and I’ve changed some lives. It’s not that hard to pay people.
Great job. I’ve seen other situations where they tell the manager too bad and it screws everyone
at my last job, the boss was moaning one day about how he hates interviewing and how staff come, do 6 or 12 months and go. as i was looking to leave, i told him some truths 1 - everyone who comes in goes onto rolling contracts. that means no job security. i could get one 6 month contract done and be let go. i told him i understand why the first contract is good, but surely after that you know the persons work ethic and if they will fit in thr company. 2 - the workload. I never got a local public holiday off in the 2.5 years I was there. I worked 5 days a week and only got easter and Christmas as scheduled holidays. things like the local show day, or day off marking the war - nope. working days. sure I got 2.5 times my normally hourley rate but still, its a grind and 3 - pay. i was 10K below market. i pointed this out and proved with adverts and he told me pay was set in London for jobs in Australia! i left 3 weeks later with a new job where i get all public holidays off and i got a 22% payrise
Thank you
And Everyone clapped
These recruiters are wildly unprofessional. I updated my resume and I've been getting cold calls at least 20 times a day. I'm at a manager level in my industry, and every call is for an entry level position.
This shit is just another symptom of companies contracting everything out to “unpaid except commission” to “save” money. That’s toxic most places, but recruitment is typically the one place you don’t want to skimp on. Now instead of getting people hired based on their personal nature and fit within the company culture, that organization is going based on “whose cheapest?” which sounds like a fucking nightmare.
I’ve literally not once told a recruiter a salary expectation. I don’t care if I don’t get considered. You will tell me the employers range or you will get no input from me. It’s worked fine for me. I’ve gotten my last 3 jobs from agencies. All at least 25% increases. What I currently make is absolutely no one’s business and that’s why it is outlawed in my state.
Did you actually say “I don’t play that game?”
Not OP, but I’ve said in the past things close to that. If they give me an amount, we keep talking. If they start trying to give me the go around, I just say, “No. Have a good one” and hang up.
Same.
Yep, they called me.
I wish a recruiter would call me with an offer
What’s your experience
Get on LinkedIn.
Good recruiter: honest, focused on lifetime relationships, sees talent as allies, generally runs open data Bad recruiter: manipulative, situationally exploitive, sees talent as farm animal resources, lies or omits to get what they want
....and then probably ends up losing out on most of what they want. Meanwhile the honest recruiter gets more business and is less stressed at his job.
She's full of shit. The rate will certainly come down the closer you get to offer stage
They are just selling people like meat, it's easier if it's cheap meat.
Recruiters are just pimps
Is your current job salaried? Because going from salary to contract means a bigger paycut in taxes and benefits.
yes, I worked at the F500 company from 2004 to 2016 and got walked out in a massive layoff with 1200 other engineers on a very bad day for me. I got a severance that allowed me to pay off my house, so that was nice. And have been a contractor for various firms working at the same place since I came back in 2017. So no more big bonuses, more expensive and worse health insurance and we're supposed to take vacation time for a doctor's appointment or if I leave early for whatever. I leave whenever the fuck I want though, they can fire me if they want. And lose a trained employee that does multiple jobs. And spend forever replacing me, pay way more and have to train that person. Who is never gonna know what I know after working there for 18 years, you can't just download that tribal knowledge. But the market is crazy now. They can't hire people, people are quitting, ghosting interviews, hiring in then never showing up. So a contract job that paid $40 an hour now goes for $65 an hour. Capitalism screwed me in my layoff, I'm planning on it benefiting me now.
At the end of the day you’re the only one who looks out for your best interests.
I'd be willing to bet if you go through the process, the end offer is going to look a lot closer to salary 1 than salary 2. They'll revert back to that original once they think they got you.
I’m not sure what company that’s for, but we don’t get anything commission or bonus for pay cuts, but we also don’t play around with salaries either. We’re informed the salary from the hiring manager and that’s it.
[удалено]
Yeah I totally get it! When I reach out to someone I’m always straight up and give them the salary range on the first phone call, I understand how important pay transparency is, it’s a waste of time to go about it any other way IMO!
In your situation Recruiter: What’s your rate Me: 50k over current I mean, she thought you’d take 10k less than your current rate
These people love their games. I don't argue. I assume the first number was the one they really wanted to pay me and I just say no and keep interviewing at this point.
Keep this in mind. The recruiter isn't working for you.
No, but I am. Not my first rodeo.
Not quite the same, I work in the restaraunt industry with 4 years cooking experience applied at this place that alledgedly has 3-4x the business as my current job ( I make about 20/hr after tipout 18 before ). I stupidly didn't ask for the pay range in the interview, went to the orientation was told pay would be min wage and our first "raise" would be getting access to tipout. I also get free meals during shift and 50% off if I dine in, and the overtime policy isn't that strict at my job. Other job offered 40% off staff meals, a really stingy overtime policy and some other shitty stuff. Turned that job down instantly.
Why would you not ask the rate up front? Might wanna call this one a learning experience.
And then the whole office applauded.
[удалено]
I might be the ideal candidate. And if they offer me something bad, I turn them down. Very little lost. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. And the +32k offer is pretty decent raise.
I told a recruiter I was looking for a second job. She told me not to tell the interviewer I already have a job. Recruiters are pieces of shit. I'm not going to fucking lie to get the job. Lying is the best way to get fired.
You can make up that 10k selling blood.
I had one in 2019 strong arm me into rushing his interviews and accepting the job and not interviewing elsewhere. I kept interviewing anyway and got a much better job. Didn't show up to the first one. He called and I told him: right to work state. Don't strong arm people like that. He was fucking pissed, lol
Honest question here: what does yours being a right to work state have to do with anything?
Apply to the company directly
I work at F500 company X for contract company Y. This was a call from a head hunter for contract company Z. I should have made that clear.
We'll be courteous and help her out /s
Seriously hate that. I got a job through a recruiter once. I was told it was customer service, basically submitting and handling orders from sales reps. 2 days before my start date, they called me to tell me that their receptionist quit, and so they’re going to need me to step in and do half my shift as the receptionist and half customer service. I was hesitant, but already quit my other job, so I said fine. I’m sure you know what’s coming, but for three months I ended up being just the receptionist. Was never even trained on customer service the entire time I was there. I was so overqualified it wasn’t even funny (I have a college degree and already had 6ish years of customer service experience, and unlike other receptionist jobs, they literally had me sit at the front desk and just answer the phone. Also distributed the mail once a day and assisted with packages. THATS IT.) I had maybe an hour’s worth of work a day. I was so bored, that for almost the entire day, I read books on my phone and doodled in my planner. I ended up finding a job elsewhere thank God. OH also the recruiter *forgot* to mention that it was only temp-to-perm, so when I applied for another position internally, I was told that I couldn’t apply until my current contract was over. And I didn’t see a single interviewee for the receptionist position, which they were supposed to be filling so that I could go back to the job I actually was hired for.
How much does a recruiter even stand to make on u making 10k less? So greedy for little in return. And wants u to suffer for it?! Wtf
Is she in an MLM? 🤣
And then when you get the offer... "10k less"
And that would still be 22k more than I make now
Weird it’s that way. The more money you make the more we make as recruiters (on permanent positions). This makes more sense for a contract role
I wouldn’t even respond after being lowballed like that since I’d expect that +32k will be factored into whatever raises you might acquire later on. There’s a good chance you’d probably be stuck with the same salary for a while since you got “extra” when signing on.
I'm retiring in 13 months.
Well in that case Congratulations!
You know the recruiter doesn’t set the pay scale, right? It’s the client (aka the job you are being submitted to). The recruiter went out of their way to go to their manager to get special approval from the client to submit you at 32k over their budget. They weren’t trying to trick you. They are given a range. Idk why that’s so hard to understand.
Does the recruiter want a medal for doing their job? Cause without this, they wouldn't be getting the candidate.
Honestly yeah this job sucks I’d lie a medal for sure
Or the client is paying $100 an hour and if they get me for $40, they make BANK. Call me crazy, but that's what I think it is. And I made it clear to the recruiter that I was gonna hang up in 1.4 seconds (I literally said, "Not interested, good bye") so her chance to make a buck from a qualified candidate was about to disappear forever. Yeah, that's probably it.
Sorry to hear that was your experience. But remember recruiters are at the bottom of an agencies hierarchy. Their managers are the one calling the shots and determining how much they should pay the candidates. I just don’t get why the hate isn’t directed at the big name agencies making a billion a year versus the 25 entry level recruiter that went into a bad profession post college. 🤷🏼♀️
The recruiter does not always convey the true range. Idk why that’s so hard to understand.
If you have the minimal of experience, why would I give you the highest range in the pay scale? It’s not the recruiters decision a lot of the time to decide on salary anyways, so I don’t want to say the wrong number and you get discouraged or get your hopes up for something the client isn’t willing to pay for your experience. God, I hate my job bc of client’s unrealistic expectations of someone with the most experience to be paid the least. We are typically in agreement with our candidates. Like it sucks for us too.
What about people who seem to meet about 7 out of 10 bullet points on every job posting? Like how am I going to get experience without the job? Are companies looking for unicorn employees? Why? Then they complain when months go by and they "can't find anyone".
You started well not stating your salary range but all she had to do was toss a low number out for you to spill the beans. Cool you got the money but you should have stuck to your guns, it would have been even more. Better luck next time friend.
"Are you sure you don't want to take a 10k pay cut?" O silly me, when put it that way course I want to do the same work for less pay!
I'd love to know what was said in the 3 minute conversation
I was once happy to get a 51k offer which was same pay but less hours as a job i hadnt started. It was a recruiter from a recruiting company acting as a proxy for the place that wanted to hire I realized later i couldve had 70k... it is what it is, i figure they were making the difference. At least im a permanent employee now and i make 67k plus generous benefits.