|
|
|
|
|
by JoshDoody
3076 days ago
|
|
I don't dislike recruiters at all. They're making a living helping place people in jobs - that's a useful thing to do. But it's important to distinguish "placing people in jobs" from "looking at for the best interests of those people by getting them the best compensation package possible". It's important to take agency of the salary conversation because it can be so valuable for the candidate to handle that and maximize salary. Unfortunately, maximizing salary often conflicts with the recruiters' goal of placing as many people as possible as fast as possible. Thanks for the question and for giving me a chance to clarify! |
|
In principle, I agree. Execution is vastly different, though. Recruiters I've met up to now are mostly bunch of people not understanding the thing they recruit for in the slightest, so they just move documents from pile A to pile B, rejecting them at random in the process.
I met a few recruiters that understood the industry they operated on. They just were outliers, not the norm.
> They're making a living helping place people in jobs - that's a useful thing to do.
Wrong. Helping people land in a job is an unimportant side effect. They mainly help companies fill the roles with bodies. It's irrelevant if the candidate likes the role, is a good fit, and would grow professionally. The only part that is important is that the company finds the candidate competent enough, not the other way around.