TECHWR-L Digest, Vol 7, Issue 30

[Mike Feimster]

Wow! Can't let this one slide.

<snip>
The company was offering at least $45, maybe $55, $65, or $75.  The
gap to $24 is the recruiter's end.  In exchange for what value, I've
no damned idea.  They're criminals, like realtors.  Big mark-up, no
value.
</snip>

Not all recruiters get paid by charging a company $50/hour and finding
someone to fill the slot for the least amount. Many charge a standard
markup. If the job pays $10/hour, they charge the company 12.50/hour and pay
the contractor the $10.


In other cases, they charge the hiring company a percentage of the first
years salary. For example, if the first years salary, including bonuses, is
annualized to $50,000, the recruiter charges the hiring company 20%-30%, or
$10,000 - $15,000. That is above the prospects salary; the prospects salary
is not reduced. So, in both cases, it is in the recruiters best interest to
obtain the highest possible salary for the prospect.

<snip>
For these low-wage gigs, pump the recruiter for details.  Keep 'em
on the phone, learn all you can.  Then reckon who the company is and
approach them directly, like it's out of the blue.
</snip>

That would be just as unethical as the behavior you have ascribed to
recruiters. The recruiter has done the leg work to find a match for you, and
you have taken his compensation away. That is no different than a tech.
writer being stiffed on a contract job.

<snip>
There's a reasonable wage under there (underwear?).  Recruiters are
money-changing parasites who shouldn't sleep well but probably do.
Probably fancy they're in a respectable "profession".  Go politely
around them whenever possible, and one day they'll crawl back under
their rocks, or return to selling shoes at the mall or cars, and
generally be gone.  Dunno how this bad craziness started, but it
must end.
</snip>

Can't even begin to think of dignified reply to that one.

Mike