[potatolicious]

Compensation - ultimately the company has a budget for hiring for a role, which would include any fees required to bring you on board. In many (not all) cases the recruiter's fee subtracts from your own salary negotiations.

Also, a lot of recruiters are not retained but work on contingency, so they're at best arms-length from the companies they "work" for - it's questionable how "inside" they are. Going with them may not confer as much of an advantage to getting the job as one might think.

In any case, I feel like tech recruiting is a poor solution that encompasses two problems: job discovery, and candidate discovery. Recruiting is effective at the latter, but oftentimes is used to fulfill the former.

[balls187]

> In many (not all) cases the recruiter's fee subtracts from your own salary negotiations.

Do you have evidence of that?

Anecdotally that has not been my experience. While recruitment fees are taken into consideration, between choosing a locally sourced vs 3rd party source candidate, it has had no bearing on salaries.

[kstenerud]

And in fact, it would work against the company to do this. Either you're going to pay me a salary I consider acceptable, or I'm going to move on. I don't care about your expenses from sourcing talent.

As an employer, the trifling cost of a referral that leads to a hire doesn't even enter into the conversation. Any candidate who would go around a recruiter (regardless of the fact that their reasoning is misguided) is demonstrating bad faith already, and I would not hire them.

[balls187]

> Any candidate who would go around a recruiter (regardless of the fact that their reasoning is misguided) is demonstrating bad faith already, and I would not hire them.

Perhaps, but not always. I've been in a situation previously where I felt that the recruiter was not working in my best interest and decided to contact the hiring manager directly.