I was once told recruiters did this because they didn't want you reading the email and heading straight to the company's site to apply. If you applied directly, the recruiter was out of the loop and thus out of a commission. I suppose I _might_ be able to negotiate that commission in the form of a larger signing bonus. I doubt that's a winning strategy.
It seems like it would usually be in the best interest of the potential candidate to work through the recruiter. By having been sought out, you have an advantage. You can actually talk to a recruiter and check status of your progress, where as a web application is a black box of which you may never hear another word. At some point the recruiter is going to feel invested in you.
Why would I skip the recruiter and apply directly unless the recruiter is a non-helpful middleman? I’d love to have a direct contact to negotiate the whole process.
If you have ever met a recruiter who was NOT an unhelpful middleman, I'd love to meet them. My spam folder is filled daily with dozens of body-shop spammers with 50-point scrabble names offering me jobs I don't do in places I won't live for money I haven't made since I quit my newspaper route in college. It's maddening and has been very consistent throughout my career.
I've toyed with the idea of finding a for-fee recruiter on my own to spam these companies and their listings and pre-negotiate out something really interesting for myself. But that's more like a sports agent. Anyone know a tech sports agency to Jerry Maguire myself with? :D
(I know, first world diva problems, sigh... it's still grating though)
The recruiter that got me my current gig was great. I literally didn't fill out anything or apply. I handed him my current resume and that was it. He scheduled the interview rounds, managed the negotiations (10k more than my requirements), did everything.
Sure, he's getting like $30k from my employer in a month, but whatever. That $30k has almost no impact on my compensation.
He mainly does Dallas, but my position is fully remote.
Can you email me your Dallas recruiter’s information? Not currently in the market for anything but would be good to have on file and may be useful to some friends in town.
> (I know, first world diva problems, sigh... it's still grating though)
The fact that there seem to be more recruiters than competent developers sometimes tells me a diva status is deserved.
The thing is, a recruiter's pay can easily be 10K per placed candidate. Looking at my current pay, that means they only need to place a handful of people a year to earn as much as I do.
I've worked with ... 4 in over 25 years that I would work with again. They were helpful middlemen. Only 2 landed me anything, but I know the other 2 put in some effort and things just didn't work out. There's been dozens I've spoken with and wasted far too much time with.
tldr - they do exist, but in very short supply (like many skilled/talented people in most industries)
I’ve had almost universally positive experience with recruiters, as a hirer and a recruit.
Not exactly an agent, but you can hire a negotiation consultant at levels.fyi. When you get to the nosebleed levels of comp, it makes sense to have a specialist in your corner.
I was once told recruiters did this because they didn't want you reading the email and heading straight to the company's site to apply.
I've heard this a few times as well over my career, I wonder what-beyond missing out on that sweet contingency fee-recruiters have to lose by, as the article suggest: just being freaking transparent with candidates
It seems like it would usually be in the best interest of the potential candidate to work through the recruiter. By having been sought out, you have an advantage. You can actually talk to a recruiter and check status of your progress, where as a web application is a black box of which you may never hear another word. At some point the recruiter is going to feel invested in you.