[blitzcraig]

As a developer, I can't help but see 3rd party recruiters as parasites feeding off of my hard work and expertise. I see any money a hiring company pays to a recruiter as money that could have been in my pocket via a signing bonus or a higher starting salary if there was no recruiter involved.

I don't see anyone in this discussion questioning whether we, as job seekers, even need 3rd party recruiters. In my experience, we don't. Throughout my 16 year career as a developer, I've only been placed by a 3rd party recruiter once. That was way back when I only had a year of experience. I haven't needed 3rd party recruiters for the last 15 years.

If you want to disrupt technical recruiting, don't send recruiters your resume, and don't work with them when they contact you. Instead, do some leg work when you're looking for a new job.

Browse the job boards looking for positions posted directly by the company with the opening. Contact people in your network about open positions where they work. Find tech companies local to you, and look on their job boards. (This is how I found my current position, and it is the best job I've had yet.) If a recruiter contacts you about an interesting position and tells you the name of the company that's hiring, bypass them and submit your resume to the company directly.

Bottom line, they can't make money without us. We can make money without them.

[fecak]

That may be oversimplifying things just a bit, but if you are good at everything a recruiter does perhaps you don't need one. Some people do their own taxes, some don't.

What if I were to tell you that, in negotiating a job 15 years ago, you left say 10% of your salary on the table (you took 60 but were worth 66). And every raise you have received since was based on that number in some way, resulting in compounded earnings loss for your career in the tens of thousands? You don't have to believe this scenario is possible, but I talk to people every day who are substantially underpaid for what they do, sometimes for years. If they had an agent who knew their value, negotiating on their behalf, with inside information on what that company pays other people in the same job, they wouldn't have lost tens of thousands over the span of a career.

Your point about recruiters taking money out of your pocket is interesting. You would assume then, if this were true, that companies that use recruiters pay their engineers less? Or perhaps don't pay for hiring internal recruiters? I've never seen any evidence of companies that use recruiters paying less to engineers - have you?

I guess the alternate theory is that firms that use agency recruiters do so not at the expense of their own employees' salaries, but simply because they have the luxury (because they can afford both a recruiter fee AND to pay employees a fair market rate). If you believe this alternative to be true, is it a coincidence that firms using recruiters are in a better financial situation than those that can't afford it?

Just playing devil's advocate here. Recruiters often have access to jobs hat may not be in your network. Again, if you don't need them, don't talk to them and perhaps miss out on some jobs you didn't know about.

And I would warn you about bypassing the recruiter after he/she told you about a position. If a recruiter finds out about that (in small companies it is easy to find out), the recruiter could very easily call the company to claim they created your interest in the opportunity yet you applied directly, making you look a bit dishonest to a potential employer and possibly costing you the job. Recruiters have been paid by firms without sending resumes/referrals directly in situations just like the one you mention.

Firms that use agencies value the service and are willing to pay for it. I do list many of my client names on my jobs page, running the risk of people doing exactly what you describe. My model is different (primary services paid up front, usually exclusive searches), so I'm willing to take that risk to help publicize my clients.

My service is such that job seekers come to me, even when they already know who my clients are in advance in many cases, because they understand that I know how to prep them to be successful in interviews, which hiring manager will be good or bad cop, and how to negotiate at the end. I don't care how well networked most job seekers are, info on a wide range of companies only comes with experience with many.

Ever been turned down for a job you really wanted? A recruiter could have helped prep you with all that info you didn't have (you didn't know that white board exercise was coming, and you panicked). Even if you failed a first interview, a recruiter may have been able to revive your candidacy by advocating for you (references are good when that happens). I've done that as well for candidates, where companies get the wrong first impression, and I've had companies and candidates thank me years later.

Thanks for the comments and I'm glad to see dialogue with differing opinions.

[blitzcraig]

I would assume that a company that has the money to pay a fair market wage and hire an agency recruiter would be able to give me that money as a signing bonus if they hadn't already spend it on a recruiter.

Also, if I was an employer using your agency, I'd fire your firm if I found out you were telling candidates what was going to be asked in a technical interview. You're doing them a disservice by giving out this information. At one of my jobs where I was interviewing new candidates, we had to make several tests with different questions on each one because recruiters were telling candidates what questions we asked on the test. This became painfully obvious when candidates could answer test questions perfectly, but fell short on other very basic technical question we asked. The recruiter cost us money since we had to dedicate team member time to writing multiple tests instead of working on developing our product.

This brings up another problem with agency recruiting. You can't represent both parties without there being an inherent conflict of interest. At the end of the day, most agency recruiters will misrepresent one party or the other to make a deal and get paid. This of course leads into your article's suggestion that job seekers have an agent who only represents them, but that begs the question whether any sort of middleman is necessary in this sort of transaction. Other industries manage to hire people without using an agency, but recruiting is accepted as a necessity, almost without question, in the IT industry.

Perhaps I am an anomaly because I can, as you said, "do my own taxes." To be fair, I know there are agency recruiters out there who really do manage to add value to both side of the equation. However, in my experience, they are the exception rather than the rule.

p.s. Regarding bypassing a recruiter, I only do this when the company has directly posted the listing themselves in addition to using a recruiter. If I don't see the position posted elsewhere, I assume they are looking exclusively through the recruiter, and I don't bother pursuing the position unless it's exactly the position I've been dreaming about. At that point I'll grudgingly work with the recruiter.

[fecak]

I would fire me too if I were telling people specific questions in an interview. I tell things like to expect a whiteboard exercise, even if I'm not sure it will be given. I would never give a interview question or something meant to surprise.

Regarding your thoughts on representing both parties, that is exactly what I'm saying. It would seem more 'just' to represent the candidate. I'd like to see that model - companies need the referrals and candidate flow, but they can represent themselves without much risk. Candidates mistrust recruiters because recruiters are given the wrong incentives (representing both sides in a deal, but only one pays?).

No explanation needed on bypassing recruiters, that is a decision job seekers are free to make.