Recruiters?

onesaint

Pardon my n00bness to the recruiter scene.
So, I've been contacted by a recruiter with a recruiting company local to LA/OC. Chatted with the rep. this afternoon for a bit, then he gave me a speech about 20% increase in pay, etc. etc. He goes on to tell me about 10 positions I match, skills wise, and then a specific position where he has a contact with. Call them, Somesecurity company inc. Ok, trouble is a recruiter from Somesecurity company inc. had sent me an email about the same position earlier this morning. I didn't have time to get back to her though. Question is, who do I go with to pursue the position? The recruiter who works at the company or the one at an outside firm, who I've already spoken with?

TYIA for input.

hardstylewon

I would go with the company and not the recruiter. Im here in the bay area and I personally know people that have had 1/2 their checks taken from hiring agencies.

dave330i

hardstylewon wrote: »

I would go with the company and not the recruiter. Im here in the bay area and I personally know people that have had 1/2 their checks taken from hiring agencies.

That's the rule of thumb. Whatever you're making the company is getting about twice as much.

OP, research the recruiting company and the security company. If the recruiting company is a large one, it can be worth while to go with them.

Bokeh

Former recruiter here. It is not uncommon for companies to give their openings to multiple firms to fill.

As others have stated, if it is a contract or temp/temp to perm position, whatever you are getting, the recruiting firm is getting about double of that.

kurosaki00

If you can go directly to the company without in betweens, then awesome.
That should always be the #1 way

Recruiter way, I rather have a local recruiter rather than an outside firm.
I already lost a job once when the firm didnt came to terms with the company, even though the company gave me the green light of having the job

Also, whats up with recruiters with horrible English from outside the states calling ?
After a while I just... Please send information to email, thank you.

MrBishop

I always known that recruiting and temp agencies make double of what they're offering you. I'll usually will get hit 5 times about the same job in some cases and I'll use it to gather information about the job and pay from one company and use it to my advantage when negotiating a salary.

BradleyHU

why is there any doubt with who to go thru? I'd always go thru the direct company rather than some 3rd party/recruiter...this should be a no-brainer...

dave330i

kurosaki00 wrote: »

If you can go directly to the company without in betweens, then awesome.
That should always be the #1 way

No. Pay difference between direct and contract can be as much as 30%.

N2IT

Actually I have some knowledge in staffing/sourcing. Several friends and former co workers are account managers. In the central and northern part of the United States, 63% is industry standard for staff augmentation. It can go as high as 75% and usually no lower than 25%.

onesaint

Thanks all for the input.

The position is Perm., direct, I believe. If I'm not mistaken, the benefit of using the 3rd party would be higher pay (as they want as much as they can get). Whereas the internal recruiter would be a direct link to the company and possibly better chance of landing the position?

So, do I play the two recuiters for information and see who gets me closer to the position? Also, does the internal recruiter contacting me mean a greater interest in me? Or better odds?

N2IT

Without knowing the dynamics I would side on the error of caution and go with the direct link. He/She is well versed with the corporate HR policies and practices and it's one less gate to go through. Of course there is the question how much more money would you make going through the 3rd party recruiter?

It sounds rather bizarre to me that you would make more money going through a 3rd party recruiter rather than the direct link. I would think negotiations would take place sometime after the interview.

I think the direct recruiter means that you meet their requirements. I would go with that individual.

onesaint

"It sounds rather bizarre to me that you would make more money going through a 3rd party recruiter rather than the direct link. I would think negotiations would take place sometime after the interview."

I believe it is that the more money you make, the more the 3rd party recruiter makes. So, it's in their interest to see that you're paid the highest the position offers.


"I think the direct recruiter means that you meet their requirements."

I think this may be the case as the internal recruiter called me directly today. As Dave330i noted though, the possibility of 30% more pay is a good reason to use the 3rd party.

N2IT

First line in my sentence mentioned I didn't know the dynamics which also includes the financials. If we had the financials for both sides we could look at opportunity cost, but with the information we have, ROM assumptions is the best we can come up with.

Keep in mind if the mark up was at 30%, how much of that would go to the recruiter? Would you end up walking away with the full 30% with another cut going to the recruiter or would both of you split the 30%? 50/50 60/40, there is a lot that rides on those numbers in my opinion.

Possibility is very subjective, I would still consider this a higher/negative level of risk than the direct hire unless we can get more data.

Just my thoughts. Either way good luck I wish you the best.

onesaint

"Keep in mind if the mark up was at 30%, how much of that would go to the recruiter? Would you end up walking away with the full 30% with another cut going to the recruiter or would both of you split the 30%? 50/50 60/40, there is a lot that rides on those numbers in my opinion."

And this is where my recruiter n00bness shows. I was under the impression the recruiter takes their cut from the company and your salary isn't effected. Something like if you/recruiter negotiate an 80K salary, then the recruiter gets an additional 40k from the company on top. Or is this not the way it works and instead you negotiate an 80K salary and go home with only 40K?

dave330i

onesaint wrote: »

And this is where my recruiter n00bness shows. I was under the impression the recruiter takes their cut from the company and your salary isn't effected. Something like if you/recruiter negotiate an 80K salary, then the recruiter gets an additional 40k from the company on top. Or is this not the way it works and instead you negotiate an 80K salary and go home with only 40K?

Recruiter Negotiates their rate with the company. You negotiates your rate with the recruiting company.

N2IT

I've been a contractor on projects a few different times and Dave is right on the money.

When you add another party to the relationship there is a cost. That cost could effect.......

Insurance quality and cost
Annual / hourly pay
Educational perks
Bonuses
Job security
More acceptance into the organization (Contractors aren't perceived as well as FTE's in my experience)

Even if they paid you 30% more which I see highly improbable, going direct still maybe a better route to go.

I've never seen an instance where going through the 3rd party recruiter was a better option than going through the direct recruiter. The 3rd party recruiter is relying on that company so they can make money. The service cost money therefore making it highly improbably that you will get a better deal with them.

dave330i

N2IT wrote: »

I've been a contractor on projects a few different times and Dave is right on the money.

When you add another party to the relationship there is a cost. That cost could effect.......

Insurance quality and cost
Annual / hourly pay
Educational perks
Bonuses
Job security
More acceptance into the organization (Contractors aren't perceived as well as FTE's in my experience)

Even if they paid you 30% more which I see highly improbable, going direct still maybe a better route to go.

I've never seen an instance where going through the 3rd party recruiter was a better option than going through the direct recruiter. The 3rd party recruiter is relying on that company so they can make money. The service cost money therefore making it highly improbably that you will get a better deal with them.

When I was working for a certain company as a contractor my rate was $55/hr. When they hired me as full time the best they could do was $85k/year.

In general, contractors get better pay, but worse benefits while direct gets better benefits, but worse pay.

paul78

Is this a salaried or hourly position? I only have experience on the hiring side and with salaried positions so my comments assume its a salaried position. A lot of the responses seem to assume an hourly position. The placement fee with a recruiter is always prenegotiated. I have paid in the past anywhere from 15 to 30 percent of first year base salary. The percentage that I would be willing to pay depends on my willingness to fill the candidate pool and the quality of the candidates. So that doesnt have anything to do with percentage placement fee. I will pay more if its a hard to find candidate.

Also, the salary offer does not change just because I use a recruiter. That would be unseemly.

As a hiring manager, if I got a resume from a recruiter first and then I was contacted directly by the candidate -I would refer the candidate to the recruiter. It would be highly unethical and a possible contract breach to cutout the recruiter.

Similarly if a candidate tried to play off 2 recruiters, I would only work with the recruiter that pressented the candidate first.

My comments are from 10 years ago -when so your mileage may vary.

matt333

maybe this is relevant... i am working with a recruiter now. its a contract-to-hire salary range is 55-60 which I was happy with and an hourly of around 30.. is there a catch? because it sounds good to me.. I don't really know how often contract-to-hire jobs turn into full-time because that is what im looking for
any input would be helpful

N2IT

Matt you almost have to look at the culture of the environment you are going to work for. That is almost an impossible question to answer. I think a large part of transitioning from W2/1099 to FTE is how well you mesh within the culture and how well you deliver. Of course the financials have to make sense as well. Some corporations like to transfer the risk to the recruiting agencies temporarily (try before you buy), and others like for that risk to remain with the recruiting agency the duration of the workers stay. This all swings back into the environment and the business resource model.

Creating a resource road map of stakeholders who are in your sphere of influence is strategy I'd recommend implementing when you join a company. This can help you make the right connections and open doors that might not be there without this strategy.

onesaint

Thanks again for all the input.

Here's the funny thing. The 3rd party recruiter dropped the position offering all together. So, I questioned him on it to see why. He said he and the internal recruiter were actually good friends and the internal recruiter had mentioned contacting me. Just goes to show, you never know who knows who.

N2IT

Yeah usually internal recruiter is > external recruiter. That doesn't shock me in the least.