[poisonborz]

Those are not offers but asking your permission that they can pitch you on a job ad they think somewhat fits. It's like automated job ad submission except you start with a disadvantage as they get up to 10% of your yearly salary.

[benjaminwootton]

I would encourage you to look at recruiters more as partners or as an unpaid sales team. They are out there speculatively busting their ass and building relationships with buyers.

I run my own business and would pay 10% commission in exchange for qualified opportunities all day long.

[sirsinsalot]

Except most recruiters are not working in your interest. Only their own. They'll push down your pay to increase their margin. This is particularly true in contracting.

Not all work on transparent commissions, at least here in the UK that's rare.

They are, by and large, talentless liars and cheats with a false narrative and harmful practice.

Seeing them as anything other than hostile to your interests is a quick way to get ripped off by these hacks.

Source: I consult for them on technical screening processes.

[em-bee]

as long as my pay is according to my needs and expectations, i don't care how much of a cut the recruiter makes. the company i work for is getting ripped off just as much as i am. otherwise if the pay is not enough, don't take the job.

the worst that can happen is that the recruiter misrepresents your skills and experience. that can easily be solved by sharing your CV directly with the hiring company. if the recruiter doesn't allow you to do that, then it's a red flag.

[sirsinsalot]

Believe me that's not the worst that can happen.

Ive seen people work for a year at a lowish rate, then be denied a rate increase.

Only to find out later the increase was authorised but the recruiter took it and lied to the worker about it be accepted.

This, sadly, isn't at all uncommon. I see it constantly.

They'll risk your security, reputation and income for quick results to hit their quotas for bonuses.

[Silhouette]

Only to find out later the increase was authorised but the recruiter took it and lied to the worker about it be accepted.

If an increase was requested by the worker and authorised by the client and then the recruiter just plain lied about it and took the money - how is that not plain old fraud?

[sirsinsalot]

Well, they were never contracted to be honest. The only way any party would know about the deception would be to conspire... Something explicitly forbidden by quite a few contracts where recruiters are middle men.

Note, they did conspire... Eventually. Next rate increase, I was in the room when client and contractor alternately took calls from the recruiter on speaker phone.

Everyone was shocked at the outcome.

The client ended up buying the contractor out of the recruiters exclusivity.

[em-bee]

ok, but why are they still involved at that point? shouldn't a recruiter get out of the picture once the connection is made? if they are still involved after that then they are an employment agency. you get good and bad ones there too. but my contract should make it clear which one it is.

[sirsinsalot]

Yes but when contracting, that's how it is structured much of the time.

[ivandenysov]

What an unexpected ending.

[sirsinsalot]

I'm not above taking their money

[poisonborz]

I am speaking out of longtime experience and can confirm what the other replier here said. Rent-seeking without end, catering to companies that are too busy/lazy/incapable of attracting quality talent themselves. They just look for some keywords and have very superficial knowledge of the industry.

(disclaimer, even if obvious: sure, there are some honest good independent recruiters there, I met them as well)

[bitwize]

"If you're not paying you're not the customer, you're the product" is as true of crooters as it is of Google and Meta.

[codingdave]

Yeah, but in this case that is deliberate. You are absolutely the product. Recruiters are selling you to the buyer. That is exactly the point.

[Silhouette]

In my experience the biggest problem with recruiters in contracting was always the gatekeeping and control. Normally once they provided an introduction the client could only engage you via the recruiter - even if the role was also available through other recruiters or advertised directly by the client and you could have found it elsewhere as well.

That meant you could find a great client and have a deal lined up with all the key terms agreed and everyone ready to go and then at the last minute the recruitment agency could send you a terrible contract and refuse to negotiate. Then you'd not only have wasted your time going through possibly quite a long process with the recruiter but you'd also be blocked from working with a client who also wanted to work with you for a long time, which makes no business or economic sense at all.

This had been less of a problem a few years earlier when more contracts were direct with clients but the whole software contracting industry was becoming increasingly toxic here in the UK thanks to IR35 and the like. As a result many contracts - particularly with the larger clients who tend to be slightly more reliable about actually starting the work and having the budget for it - have only been available through the client's preferred suppler/recruiter list for some time.

I think if the whole contract recruitment industry got regulated almost out of existence it would probably be a huge boon to the sector. Or just declare that if intermediaries offer contracts in bad faith and won't negotiate - maybe with a list of specific hostile practices that are automatically considered bad faith - then any non-compete terms with either the worker or the client become unenforceable. In fact it might be better just to make the intermediaries generally liable if they act in bad faith because then the ones who waste your time with roles that are never really there and do shady things just to harvest CVs for their database could also be sued for the wasted time at the contractor's normal rate.