[vekker]

Is there a true difference between those two models though? In the end, the client has to foot the bill, no matter how the money is allocated between commission and candidate.

As a recruiter, you could have a similar model for contractors and promise a fixed % of the daily rate. That way, the higher the rate of the contractor, the bigger the commission for the recruiter.

However, I do see your point and I notice most recruiters not being very transparant about their commission, nor do they want to give it up & work with a fixed fee instead. I know one small agency who's very open about their commission and promise to only take a cut for the first year. I hope eventually other freelancers will wise up and choose those types of recruiters over the more shady businesses.

[fecak]

The recruiter argument against a fixed % is that they should be rewarded for their skill in negotiation.

In other words, let's say market rate for your programming skill is 150/hr. I'm your recruiter, and I make you an offer for 170/hr. You should be ecstatic. But what if you find out that I am billing the client for 1000/hr? Would you still be happy? Probably not - you'd feel you're being robbed, even though you are being paid above the market rate.

So should YOU be rewarded for my ability to negotiate the client's rate to 6x market rate?

I'm not saying this is fair or a good way to do business, but I'm just offering you the recruiter's mindset on this.