[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.