| I understand, but is in essence a 'finder's fee' that just works in perpetuity. When I was a recruiter, if I placed a candidate for a FTE role and get say 20% fee (based on starting salary), I got that same fee whether someone remains in the job for 90 days or 90 years. I don't get additional money for each year they stay. That makes sense, because I'm not really responsible at all for that hire once it's made. For consultants, recruiters may play some role in maintaining the relationship between the hiring client and the consultant. Not all recruiters do this, but many stay in contact with the consultant (to protect their investment) and with the client (to maintain that relationship, place more consultants, and ensure the client is satisfied with the work). I'm not trying to defend predatory practices by recruiters, but if a recruiter is able to negotiate a large mark-up for their consultant, that's a skill that they should be rewarded for financially. To view it another way, if I get a client to pay $130/hr for an open role, and I identify a qualified consultant willing to take that job for $70/hr, that's a combination of A) my skill as a recruiter, and B) the consultant's inability to recognize their own market value or inability to negotiate a higher hourly rate. I don't think gouging is good for the industry overall, but if the consultant is happy at $70/hr and the client is also happy at $130/hr, what's "wrong" with the recruiter taking that $60/hr? Everybody is happy, no? At least everybody is happy when there is no transparency as to where that $130 is going. FYI, I'm playing devil's advocate here. During my career I did very little consulting work and my margins were usually closer to 15-20% of hourly rate, though I once worked for someone who had a 400% mark-up on a consultant for almost 3 years (consultant was paid ~$50/hr and bill rate was over $200). |