[noitpmeder]

They can't, otherwise a significant fraction of the people they reach out to would just skip the head hunter and contact the company directly.

Same reason these same head hunters will usually strip any direct-contact details out of your resume before sending on to companies -- they don't want those companies running around them and contacting the candidate directly.

IMO, these people are all grifters and uses-car-salesman. Their goal is to get as many people as possible to use them to change jobs so they get bonuses. They provide little-to-no value add in the actual process and will actively try to shovel you toward shitty companies and dead-end roles, despite how well they dress them up.

You are ~20-50%~ cheaper (typical is 30% IIRC) in the first year of your employment if you are a direct hire instead of going through a recruiter, from a hiring manager's perspective. If you switch jobs often this compounds to make your offer chances lower as well if you're going through a head hunter (I've been part of these discussions from hiring side).

[satvikpendem]

Not exactly. Recruiters often can guarantee an interview with the hiring manager while if you submitted your resume to the company directly, you'll just get lost in the sea of resumes so not much point going around them. I also always give them a PDF resume and I'm pretty sure they don't edit them as sometimes during a video interview the employer pulls up my resume as a screen share to go through it and it's always been the exact one I've had with all my personal contact details.

It's simply not worth it for either the employer and interviewee to go around the recruiter because they act as a filter for both sides initially.

[noitpmeder]

Definitely could be selection bias, but every time I have seen a copy of a resume a head hunter has forwarded a potential employer it has _always_ had the recruiting firm's letterhead plastered above my content, and my email removed.

[toomuchtodo]

n=1, I have been in tech for 25+ years, and a recruiter has always been my preferred entry into an org when I don't have a network connection. Our incentives are aligned; I want the work, they get paid if I get hired and stay. Their sales commission depends on me succeeding. Without a recruiter, a company is trying to hire the best candidate at the lowest comp offered possible. The greater rate at which workers change jobs for better comp, the more likely comp is to go up (this is why companies pulled remote work and are trying to create geographic stickiness for jobs in the US, to slow wage gains and reduce labor mobility). I would suggest reconsidering your view on recruiters. Some suck, some are worth their weight in gold. If the job turns out to be suboptimal, do your best to find out before you take the role, or live your life in a way you can bail for the next job without much hassle.

When you have success with recruiters, connect and keep in touch with them. A career is long, and its good to have options, as you never know when you'll need them. Optimize for optionality in this context.

[petesergeant]

Source: I've been a programmer for 25 years, and ran a recruitment company for 8.

This happens, but it's unusual. It's normally only really something you'd bother with as a recruiter if you were doing CV marketing, that is, reaching out to people who aren't your clients saying "this is the kind of person I could get you!". They're not really meant to do it, but recruitment regulations aren't strongly enforced in most of the Anglosphere.

To fill a role with one of your clients, they've signed T&Cs that mean they can't really cut you out, and assuming they don't hate you they also don't want to lose you as a recruiter. Fucking candidates absolutely will try and occasionally cut you out of the process -- usually out of incorrectly thinking it will help them land the job because the employer won't have to pay a commission.

There are many shitty recruiters, but finding a good one will absolutely help you find good roles, and can do all sorts of useful things like make sure you're asking for enough money, get feedback that you wouldn't directly get as a candidate, harass the hiring manager about your application on your behalf, and engage in a dialogue with the hiring manager about your application that virtually no hiring manager would be willing to do directly with you.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I've had one good recruiter, one mediocre one, and many shit ones.

The good one got me a job that I stayed at for almost 27 years.

The mediocre one got me a job that I only stayed at for 18 months (it was a rather dysfunctional company). It wasn't really the recruiter's fault. I think they really thought that they had gotten me a good one.

The shitty ones were ones that I encountered, after leaving the 27-year job, and started looking for work.

Every single one, ghosted me, as soon as they found out that I was over 40. A couple were really quite rude.

In-company recruiters were better. They didn't ghost me, but the techies that got involved at the second interview did that.

After some of these, I just said "Bugger this for a lark," and gave up. I didn't need the work, and I certainly didn't need to be insulted, each time I tried looking.

[noitpmeder]

Well then I definitely haven't been finding the good ones!!

Any recommendations on how to comparison shop recruiters w/o a rec/referral from a trusted peer?

[PaulHoule]

There are a lot of places that are more interested in rejecting people than they are in accepting people and the act of getting a headhunter involved a commitment device that helps get them out of the rejection mindset.

[dheera]

I can't get interested in a job without knowing who the people behind it are, and what the actual mission of the company is.

Recruiters say things like "autonomous robotics systems"

For what? Weapons? Hell no. Doing dangerous industrial jobs humans shouldn't be doing? Hell yes.

[tayo42]

That makes no sense becasue contacting the company directly is usually just a communication blackhole

[noitpmeder]

Not if you're a valuable candidate.

An example (I have intimate experience with) is the finance/hft space in NYC -- if you're employed at a competitive player in this space in trading/quant/engineering you will almost certainly be given a phone interview w/o question at every other competitor when you reach out.

If you don't trust the 'contact us' forms on their website it's dead simple to search e.g. LinkedIn to find their own in-house recruiters and reach out directly.

Again, if you're a new grad? Definitely higher chance of your contact going right into the trash. But the target hires are still getting called back within a day.

[nikanj]

Not everyone is Linus Torvalds, and companies generally want to hire mid-level players too - they’re just somehow unable to even email them back

[PaulHoule]

There is a certain amount of job interviewing that people do to gather intelligence. I've went to numerous job interviews where I was trying to find out what was going on and not particularly interested in changing jobs. Companies sure do interview people for the same reason.

[mrkstu]

Depends- my current position was via a staffing firm that was engaged directly by my new company to fill the position, since they had an existing trust relationship.

But they indeed were comfortable revealing the hiring company early in the process due to that trust level…

[LightBug1]

Or they don't have a job opening at all and are just looking to bolster the database.

I remember the annual cycle back in the day. During quieter times of the year, I'd suddenly get a tonne of calls from various recruiters with a job (no company name) ... almost as if they'd been told, "ok, no one's hiring or placing right now, no point you sitting there on your arse while I pay you. So pick up the phone and get some qualified leads"

[rgbrgb]

fwiw my experience building a small tech talent agency / recruiting shop disagrees with this. Cold application pipelines are overwhelmed by gen AI applications and many of the (very qualified) candidates we place report getting totally ghosted on all cold applications - even when we’re able to get them several interviews a week with companies in our network.

Seems like companies still value a curated pipeline. 15-20% of first year salary (numbers we see these days) appears to be worth saving the company time interviewing unscreened candidates. Recruiting can be a real time suck and a bad hire can be catastrophic.