Different Salaries for same job from two different Recruiters???

-hype

I recently applied to a job and got a call today from the recruiter. She told me the specifics and sent me the salary and job description for the job as well as the name of the company. I told her I would get back to her with an updated resume.

So I went to the company's website and saw they had the job listed on their website, so I applied directly through them on their website. The site did not provide specifics about the salary. I don't want the recruiter trying to make money off me.

Also, while I was browsing I saw the same job at another website with a different recruiter and the salary was higher than what Recruiter #1 was telling me. Difference between the two salaries was $5k.

So this puts me in a weird position. Should I apply to Recruiter #1 or give her the cold shoulder? Remember, she low balled me.

Or should I apply with the new recruiter.

Or should I stay from all the recruiters and hope the company likes my resume.

Any advice would help.

Trashman

I'd contact the other recruiter unless the one offering you the job has some benefits listed that the other one doesn't offer.
Remember, the recruiters job is like sales.

cyberguypr

I've never used recruiters so my question is, why not stay with the direct resume you submitted? Is there any value going with either recruiter?

DoubleNNs

Same thing happened to me recently.

1 recruiter approached me about a position, offering $18 an hour. Saying I was extremely green and making it seem like that was basically near the ceiling of the rate she could offer me and implied she was doing me a favor.
Not even 5 mins later another recruiter called me, same exact position, but for $25/hr. Very big difference.
More time passes by and another recruiter calls, this time for $30/hr. Damn near twice what the original recruiter was "doing me a favor" by offering.

At the end of the day, however, I realize they're just doing their job. Using them is almost a necessity in the current job market, but I take everything one says w/ a grain of salt.

You already submitted your resume directly to the company, right? I wouldn't double submit. And if they pick you out as a direct hire, your pay rate will almost def be higher.
Edit: At least, theoretically you'll have more leverage to negotiate for higher compensation.

-hype

DoubleNNs wrote: »

Same thing happened to me recently.

You already submitted your resume directly to the company, right? I wouldn't double submit. And if they pick you out as a direct hire, your pay rate will almost def be higher.
Edit: At least, theoretically you'll have more leverage to negotiate for higher compensation.

This is what I was thinking as well. I don't like the sound of someone else profiting off my skill set and the hard work I put to get where I'm at. That doesn't fly with me.

Thanks everyone.

Bokeh

Here's the dilemma you may run in to. All has to deal with HR.

** IF ** HR has received your resume from the recruiter prior to getting it direct from you, and the position is offered, there could be a stink raised by the recruiter saying they got their first, so the company has to pay them a fee. If the company balks at it, they can pull your application (that is if the recruiter wants to be a jerk about it).

I did recruiting many moons ago, and ran into a similar situation. Candidate applied to a company and HR didn't they think were worthy, so they never passed on the resume. The company I worked for sent the resume direct to the hiring manager, who grabbed this person immediately. When it came time to pay, HR said no way. They already had the person on file. We said fine, we are pulling him. Got into a bit of a **** contest, but the hiring manager told HR to pay the fee, as the company had never interviewed the person when they first applied directly. HR finally agreed to a reduced fee, and got a nice chewing out by the hiring manager and told that anyone who applies for any of their department openings goes direct to them from now on, no second guessing, etc.

TomkoTech

It's odd for that to be happening. At least in my experience. I work for a MSP that has a lot of clients who are staffing firms. Most companies that they do business with sign contracts. They only fill certain positions by using the recruiter. So to have multiple recruiting firms trying to fill the same companies position just seems odd.

At any rate the direct hire route is preferred for more than just the hire pay. Most of the time if you go through a recruiting firm you will end up working for that recruiting firm for X amount of days(60/90) and if they company then wants to hire you they can. Usually the company pays the recruiting firm say 25 an hour for the person placed there, and the recruiting firm then pays the person as little as possible in order to maximize their cut of that salary. Skipping that process you work directly for the company you want and are less likely to get shown the door after 90 days.

Chitownjedi

That happens all the time. I've seen and known friends and colleague who may be offered a role by one staffing agency, and get calls later in the day with higher pay rates for the same position by a different staffing agency. It's about the bill rate, and getting a bigger piece of the pie.. each staffer has their own "opinion" about what they can offer a candidate, while knowing exactly what could be offered as a % of that.

Company A may say they are willing to pay 80.00 per hour for a position. Recruiter calls you offering 25.00 an hour. Recruiter 2 calls say they can offer 30.00 per hour. Recruiter 3 says they can offer 35.00 per hour. It's all about what % they think they can get away with when they approach you. This has been simplified for the sake of clarity. But the gist is the same.

edzyyy

Bokeh wrote: »

Here's the dilemma you may run in to. All has to deal with HR.

** IF ** HR has received your resume from the recruiter prior to getting it direct from you, and the position is offered, there could be a stink raised by the recruiter saying they got their first, so the company has to pay them a fee. If the company balks at it, they can pull your application (that is if the recruiter wants to be a jerk about it).

I did recruiting many moons ago, and ran into a similar situation. Candidate applied to a company and HR didn't they think were worthy, so they never passed on the resume. The company I worked for sent the resume direct to the hiring manager, who grabbed this person immediately. When it came time to pay, HR said no way. They already had the person on file. We said fine, we are pulling him. Got into a bit of a **** contest, but the hiring manager told HR to pay the fee, as the company had never interviewed the person when they first applied directly. HR finally agreed to a reduced fee, and got a nice chewing out by the hiring manager and told that anyone who applies for any of their department openings goes direct to them from now on, no second guessing, etc.

I don't know how to feel about this.

One part of me feels they were wrong for trying to undercut you with the fee.

The other part feels you were wrong for potentially pulling someone from having a job over a fee.

Chitownjedi wrote: »

That happens all the time. I've seen and known friends and colleague who may be offered a role by one staffing agency, and get calls later in the day with higher pay rates for the same position by a different staffing agency. It's about the bill rate, and getting a bigger piece of the pie.. each staffer has their own "opinion" about what they can offer a candidate, while knowing exactly what could be offered as a % of that.

Company A may say they are willing to pay 80.00 per hour for a position. Recruiter calls you offering 25.00 an hour. Recruiter 2 calls say they can offer 30.00 per hour. Recruiter 3 says they can offer 35.00 per hour. It's all about what % they think they can get away with when they approach you. This has been simplified for the sake of clarity. But the gist is the same.

I have a question regarding this

Couldn't A company just skip both and hire the candidate directly for lets say...45-50 an hour? Or would it end up costing them more in the long run?

DoubleNNs

It costs a company time and manpower to perform the application process. And hiring direct makes it harder to get rid of employees when you no longer need them (project finishes). It also costs a company to provide benefits. (Contractors can be fired a a whim and replaced. They also usually don't get benefits from the company they're contracted to.)

Hiring through recruiters streamlines the entire process. Companies essentially pay more for convenience.

If companies were to recruit internally, employees would either have to be taken away from their regular duties, which may be more pressing, or have employees who are employed specifically to perform HR duties. So you could ask 2-3 SR Engineer, who gets paid $70 an hour, to sift thru resumes for a few days, then make calls, and finally interview. Or you could pay 50K a year + benefits to HR department employees that does all that for you.

Pros and cons to each, but a lot of companies see it as both time and cost effective to simply "outsource" the preliminary part of the hiring process and then interview the candidates that get past the initial screen from the external recruiters.

Or at least that's how I understand it.

SweenMachine

DoubleNNs wrote: »

It costs a company time and manpower to perform the application process. And hiring direct makes it harder to get rid of employees when you no longer need them (project finishes). It also costs a company to provide benefits. (Contractors can be fired a a whim and replaced. They also usually don't get benefits from the company they're contracted to.)

Hiring through recruiters streamlines the entire process. Companies essentially pay more for convenience.

If companies were to recruit internally, employees would either have to be taken away from their regular duties, which may be more pressing, or have employees who are employed specifically to perform HR duties. So you could ask 2-3 SR Engineer, who gets paid $70 an hour, to sift thru resumes for a few days, then make calls, and finally interview. Or you could pay 50K a year + benefits to HR department employees that does all that for you.

Pros and cons to each, but a lot of companies see it as both time and cost effective to simply "outsource" the preliminary part of the hiring process and then interview the candidates that get past the initial screen from the external recruiters.

Or at least that's how I understand it.

THIS ^^^^^

Plus lots of companies hire this way. If it works out, they potentially bring you on board full time with benefits. If it doesn't, no harm no foul if they let you go.

It is a pain to bring someone on, give them benefits, get them acclimated, only to have it fall through because the person is a bad fit. They hire companies with recruiters because they have a certain reputation of vetting out qualified candidates, or at least they can spend more time doing the background, interviews, ect ect

And yep, with that work, comes a fee. Not only do they get that percentage, they usually get a nice chunk if they bring you on board as a perm employee...

-scott

SweenMachine

-hype wrote: »

This is what I was thinking as well. I don't like the sound of someone else profiting off my skill set and the hard work I put to get where I'm at. That doesn't fly with me.

Thanks everyone.

You don't like the thought of someone profiting off you? That's what work is. Someone is making money off your back, unless you own your own business. So why does it matter if a recruiter who is paid to get you a job gets you a job? If you are making what you need, and you are doing a good job and enjoy the work, does it matter at all how you got it? Someone is making money off you, and always will.

I am not talking in regards to this specific situation, I mean in general.

--chris--

TomkoTech wrote: »

It's odd for that to be happening. At least in my experience. I work for a MSP that has a lot of clients who are staffing firms. Most companies that they do business with sign contracts. They only fill certain positions by using the recruiter. So to have multiple recruiting firms trying to fill the same companies position just seems odd.

The position I hold right now has is filled through three different recruiters. I wasn't aware this was strange haha...

-hype

SweenMachine wrote: »

You don't like the thought of someone profiting off you? That's what work is. Someone is making money off your back, unless you own your own business. So why does it matter if a recruiter who is paid to get you a job gets you a job? If you are making what you need, and you are doing a good job and enjoy the work, does it matter at all how you got it? Someone is making money off you, and always will.

I am not talking in regards to this specific situation, I mean in general.

I get that but that's my employer, not some middle man. I get what you're saying.

kohr-ah

I asked about recruiter flat out about this.

It depends on the way the agency works. By this i mean recruiter company A may get a bonus my saving the company money by low balling you. So. You get offered 10k less the recruiter gets 3k of that plus a percent of full year salary.

Recruiter company B is percentage based. Aka you get 10k more which they want because their percentage is based off your final signed total year income. The more you get the more they get.

bryguy

I've encountered a similar situation on a 50 head service desk I supervised... Management made use of several IT staffing companies including APEX, Advantage Tech, TCML, K-Force, etc. Everyone we hired was doing the same job, however, these companies paid different rates, ranging from $12/ hr with no benefits to $25/hr with benefits . As you can imagine, after a few months, people started talking to eachother and it turned ugly real quick. I petitioned management to convert them over to FTE as quick as possible... we paid some early termination fees in order to convert them, but I couldn't stomache the fact how some of these companies were gouging their employees.