[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.

[em-bee]

yes, that makes sense. however i call that staffing, not recruiting. recruiting should always lead to a direct hire by the client company.

i guess the important part for any job seeker is to know the distinction and be aware of the benefits and downsides of each. and when talking to a recruiter to make clear which one this is.

staffing agencies have their place and can be an advantage in some situations. depending on what you are looking for. in the US in particular they may be able to provide continuous insurance (just a guess, i don't actually know). another advantage may be permanent employment with the agency. (again, i don't know how this is in the US, but due to stronger labor protection it is more likely in germany.)

when you are employed with a staffing agency, it is clear that they are responsible for your salary, and whatever they may be able to negotiate with the client is only incidentally related. you have to consider that they take a risk. if the client defaults or they don't have work for you they may still pay you (again at least in germany they have to).

when i hire that is the way i'd like to operate, but mainly because i want to build my own team and only offer staffing services only as an alternative to doing projects as an agency. i like to give them a fixed monthly salary, and when i have no client work for them i have internal projects they can work on. (which is the point, to earn enough money so that we can spend part of the time on our own products). but that requires that i take a large cut on what i get from the employees work. and any raise they get is based on their overall performance and not on what i can negotiate with a particular client.

the above example seems to be the result of a misunderstanding of what the role of the recruiter here is. (and it may well be the recruiters fault for misrepresenting that)

so again, when talking to a recruiter, make that relationship clear up front and get it in writing if need be, or bail out if the contract is not with who you expect it to be.

[sirsinsalot]

There isn't so much of a distinction in the UK. Even where it is FTE, the recruiter can still contract with the hiring party to make the same effective leverage as in what you call staffing.

It's less common, but they'll insert themselves as a middleman whereever they can.

At my last job, the recruiter managing the contract and FTE coders flew in on a private helicopter and gifted the office manager a Rolex. Wish I was joking.

[em-bee]

wow, in germany that kind of bribery is illegal if it is against the interests of the company.

but i do not understand how the recruiter can skim off the raise if the employee is contracted directly with the client. i mean, sure they can make a contract to get a cut, say 10% of the employees salary, so when the employee gets a raise, the recruiter gets more too. but negotiating a raise and then keeping that secret from the employee should only be possible if the employee is only contracted with the recruiter and not with the client directly.