Jobs through temp agencies/recruiters paying more than direct hire jobs?

I'm totally new to the IT world, just searching for jobs, trying to get my foot in the door, but there is something odd that I'm finding.

I seem to be seeing jobs through recruiters and temp agencies paying higher wages than jobs that are direct hire. Now things might be skewed, especially since wage range is rarely disclosed on job postings.

However various recruiters I've talked to say something entry level like a helpdesk, noc, or low end desktop support, can pay around $20 /hr give or take a bit. I've also seen them on job boards for around that wage, posted by recruiters.

But searching job boards, I find lots of positions advertised directly from various companies, with much higher requirements, wanting like 4 years experience, multiple certs, a BS, etc, that are only advertising around $15-$20.

Something seems wrong. Am I just getting bad data, by only comparing whatever postings I find on job boards where pay range is indicated, or do you really often earn higher wages working on contract, even after they take their cut?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

John-John

Temps don't get very good benefits compared to permanent most times. And that can count for a lot. Health care is expensive.

Danielm7

John-John wrote: »

Temps don't get very good benefits compared to permanent most times. And that can count for a lot. Health care is expensive.

Typically none. Take away vacation, health, sick time, 401k, education, etc, then in cases of a true 1099 contractor remove the taxes they would pay and it changes what a company can give you per hour by a lot.

darkerosxx

This isn't a fact, but a general rule of mine is contract work should be 1.5-2x higher pay than a comparable non-contract job.