[robomartin]

Why are recruiter fees so ridiculously high?

I've been on both sides of the equation. I've used recruiters to try and find people and have used recruiters to try and find work.

On the receiving end it is always shocking to see someone ask you for a $25K fee to hire a $100K employee. I'd rather give the employee more money.

At best a recruiter should be perfectly happy with a 5% finder's fee. Why are they asking to get paid the equivalent of what a person will take a quarter of the year to earn?

This is particularly true in this age of database-driven recruiting. It costs them just about zero to have you in a database.

[bobbles]

Hires and recruitment fees are typically made with the assumption that the employee will be employed for more than 12 months, and that higher fees to the recruiter will result in a more valuable employee.

Not saying its true or untrue, but you can't just say something like "Thats 3 months worth of earnings!" when value is the thing that matters, not price.

[robomartin]

"when the value is the thing that matters, not price"

Are you are recruiter? Because, you know, as an entrepreneur, yes, value is always important, but price is always, always, always important. Fairness too.

25% is ridiculous. The recruiter is NOT generating the employee's value, the employee is. And don't go for the "you would not have found them if it were not for the recruiter". In my experience there are very few recruiters that actually add value to the process. Most are horrible resume farms that algorithmically (or not) match resumes with job requirements and barrage the employer with a bunch of candidates to see if something sticks. In other words, the quest for easy money rather than anything else. The more people and companies you shovel through the system the greater your probabilities of making money.

How many of us have received the formulaic email from some data-entry worker in India saying something like: "I came across your resume and it looks like a perfect fit for one of our clients. Please submit resume, availability, desired salary and ability to relocate." Right.

There are a few (definitely count them with one hand) companies that might truly do a good job of getting to know both candidate and employer, but these days, that is far, very far, from the norm.

I offered that 5% might be a good number. What I actually think is that the whole model is completely broken. I have some ideas on how to fix it, but that's not for this thread.

[blader]

Because they don't get paid if you don't make a hire. If you can find a good recruiter to work with, then they could end up working for you for months or even years, with a chance of never getting paid.