[qeorge]

As I understand it, the problem is this:

Joe Random Recruiter can decide one day that he is a recruiter for Google/Twitter/FB/anyone else. He doesn't need or obtain their permission - he just starts firing out emails to everyone he can find on i.e., LinkedIn.

The email says something like: "My client, {Google, Facebook, etc}, is looking for someone with {one of your skills}. Are you interested?"

If you reply yes, he then sends an email to {Google, Facebook, etc} and says:

"I'm representing an engineer with {your skills} at {outrageous price including fat commission}. Are you interested?"

Assuming they are in fact interested in you (which they likely are), Google/Facebook/etc is now in a tough position.

- Google/FB/etc can say YES, pay the fat commission to the recruiter, and give you the job. You think the recruiter is a gift from heaven.

- Google/FB/etc can say NO, and the recruiter will just tell you they flaked, the opportunity disappeared, or just never contact you again.

The twist is that if Google/FB/etc says NO, the you will end up with a bad impression of THEM, not Joe Random Recruiter. They don't even know your name, with which they could reach out and explain.

Google/FB/etc know this, and as an engineer you are (currently) so valuable that they are (currently) forced to play ball.

And unfortunately, since this method actually works, we see more "recruiters" popping up every day. Even worse, the bad ones are the most aggresive, and they drown out the honest players.

My advice to the Googles/FBs/Twitters of the world: make a page listing the firms you DO work with, just as you list the IP ranges of your crawlers. Not a great idea, but its all I've come up with.

My advice to the job seekers of this world: cut them some slack - you probably didn't ever actually talk to Google/Facebook/etc, or at least they were misinformed about you.

[zedpm]

This is definitely a problem, and in the case of Amazon that's likely what happened, as the individual I dealt with is part of a third-party recruiting firm. In the case of Google, however, the recruiter has an @google.com email, so I'd say he's actually employed by them and it really does reflect poorly on them.

[sanderjd]

You seem to have a good grasp on this, so I'll ask you: why are things set up such that recruiters are "Joe Random Recruiter" to me, rather than "Joe, who I have met, worked with across multiple job switches, and who relies on my trust"?

[vertis]

There are recruiters out there that fall into the later category. lookahead.com.au is a great example of a company that doesn't spam, doesn't pressure and doesn't lie.

I've known the founder of the company for about 5 years now and he is well respected within the communities he operates in (Ruby on Rails, iOS, DevOps, etc)

[withdavidli]

One big reason: turnover rate. For recruiters it's about 70% first year, and ~90% by second year. Most jobs are contract and not many people survive agencies. Internal jobs are more stable so turnover rates are likely a lot lower.

There are people that stay in contact throughout multiple switches, but it's pretty rare. Staying in touch after getting you multiple jobs presumes they are likely in agency and that they still work on the same type of roles. Agency turnover is high so they might not even be in recruiting after the first year. Then also take myself, I worked on varying roles from finance, healthcare, mech eng, swe, ml, pm, and more all in the last 2 years. Chances of me working the exact type of role I got you into a year later is unlikely.

[qeorge]

Perhaps a reputation system for recruiters, i.e., an Angie's List for recruiters, could help here? That could be a useful service.

Its a tough market to serve because the most people don't change jobs more than a couple times in their career.

[bcbrown]

Whenever you have a good interaction with a recruiter, tell them that, and tell them that you'd like to build a relationship and contact them every time you begin a job search. The good ones will be receptive.

[chrisbennet]

I think it is common for agencies to have Non Compete clauses such that if your favorite recruiter goes someplace else, they aren't allowed to represent you for a certain period.

[tome]

> The twist is that if Google/FB/etc says NO, the you will end up with a bad impression of THEM, not Joe Random Recruiter.

I can't imagine getting a bad impression of Google from what a random recruiter tells me.

[qeorge]

What if the recruiter tells you that Google/FB/etc reviewed your resume and you didn't make the cut? (When in actuality they just don't want to pay the commission)

You wouldn't dislike them, but you might then not apply for a job there (thinking you had already been turned down once), and then Google/FB/etc misses out on any chance to hire you.