It's amazing the way companies are trying to low ball possible employees now.....

I received an email from a recruiter on Friday, inquiring if I would be interested in a 6 month contract gig (I currently have a full-time job with great benefits) that would allow me to work from home.

I replied only for a sizeable amount of money.

He replied with a figure that is $5/hr lower than what I currently make (plus I would lose my 401k, wife and I's insurance, etc) and told me the company was bound by federal contract restrictions...........I told him thanks, but people with my experience and skill set won't be hired for that much.

He then replied approx 15 minutes later saying he had talked to his client and they had raised their bid by $10/hr.

Geez.

that's the way it's supposed to work: pay people the absolute minimum that you have to in order to keep them around or make them come work for you.

Sad thing is you ask for a raise or peace out and they give you the ol good berkeleyin luck pat and out you go, they'll pay the next lowest bidder to screw it up more rather than have quality.

novaderrik wrote: that's the way it's supposed to work: pay people the absolute minimum that you have to in order to keep them around or make them come work for you.

I didn't like that they lied about "Federal Contract Regulations" as a cover for the pay, then immediately increased by almost 50% when I told "lulz," that seems incredibly shady.

novaderrik wrote: that's the way it's supposed to work: pay people the absolute minimum that you have to in order to keep them around or make them come work for you.

I would argue that it is not how it is supposed to work, but might be how it does work at certain adversarial companies.

dculberson wrote:

novaderrik wrote: that's the way it's supposed to work: pay people the absolute minimum that you have to in order to keep them around or make them come work for you.

I would argue that it is not how it is *supposed* to work, but might be how it does work at certain adversarial companies.

That's not what Apple, Google and Adobe did when they were in an adversarial position over employees...

z31maniac wrote:

novaderrik wrote: that's the way it's supposed to work: pay people the absolute minimum that you have to in order to keep them around or make them come work for you.

I didn't like that they lied about "Federal Contract Regulations" as a cover for the pay, then immediately increased by almost 50% when I told "lulz," that seems incredibly shady.

Sounds more like the recruiter knows exactly what is offered, and wants to keep whatever else by lowballing the end employee

yamaha wrote:

z31maniac wrote:

novaderrik wrote: that's the way it's supposed to work: pay people the absolute minimum that you have to in order to keep them around or make them come work for you.

I didn't like that they lied about "Federal Contract Regulations" as a cover for the pay, then immediately increased by almost 50% when I told "lulz," that seems incredibly shady.

Sounds more like the recruiter knows exactly what is offered, and wants to keep whatever else by lowballing the end employee

That's not surprising either, still pretty crummy.

I suspect I won't get a return email when I countered with what it would take for me to give up my current gig to take a 6 month contract.

Basically about 60% more than their 2nd offer.

Isn't this how the free market works in figuring out what the market price is for a set of skills and experience?

Recruiters are generally lying scum, especially if they are of the contingency variety. Don't believe anything they tell you.

I've had a recruiter tell me I had to pay my own airfare to an interview because the potential employer really wants to see me, but don't have airfare in their budget. Then, after I've agreed to that, the recruiter calls the company and tells them that I'll just happen to be in town and available on such-and-such a date (they had expressed no interest in me). Once I had direct discussion with the employer we both realized that it wouldn't be a good match and that the recruiter was lying to us both. Fortunately, that's before I spent the money on airfare.

I have other examples.

oldtin wrote: Isn't this how the free market works in figuring out what the market price is for a set of skills and experience?

With outright lies about legal obligations and horrific lowballing? Well technically I guess so, it would be nice if the invisible hand of the free market had a bit more tact than that, but it does love to give us all the finger...

Datsun1500 wrote:

oldtin wrote: Isn't this how the free market works in figuring out what the market price is for a set of skills and experience?

Please don't bring logic into this.

No issues stretching the truth with a recruiter to get what you want.

Datsun1500 wrote:

oldtin wrote: Isn't this how the free market works in figuring out what the market price is for a set of skills and experience?

Please don't bring logic into this.

How does logic explain outright lying? I understand trying to get the most for your money but misrepresenting a Federal Contract seems as though that could possibly constitute a crime.

Kind of goes both ways:

Percent of resumes and job applications that contain falsifications : 53 %

Percent of college students surveyed who would lie on a resume to get a job they want : 70 %

http://www.statisticbrain.com/resume-falsification-statistics/

I never lied on one. Oh, wait

aircooled wrote: Kind of goes both ways: Percent of resumes and job applications that contain falsifications : 53 % Percent of college students surveyed who would lie on a resume to get a job they want : 70 % http://www.statisticbrain.com/resume-falsification-statistics/

Dude. People are good. Companies are bad. Don't you get it?

Datsun1500 wrote: The recruiter used it as an excuse to offer you what he did. It's the same thing as saying "they can't pay you more because it's a family owned business and it's not in the budget" it's just a reason for the $$ amount, nothing more.

It seems worse to me to lie about the terms of a contract than some other bullE36 M3. Maybe it's just me.

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to z31maniac: The people with the federal contract did not misrepresent anything. The recruiter used it as an excuse to offer you what he did. It's the same thing as saying "they can't pay you more because it's a family owned business and it's not in the budget" it's just a reason for the $$ amount, nothing more. You seem to be overly upset about getting a job offer that you didn't take, what's the big deal?

I'm not upset at all.

But I can see many of you are trying to turn this into a political discussion when I was merely venting about a shady recruiter.

Enjoy folks!

What if the recruiter was Ayn Rand?

Basil Exposition wrote: Recruiters are generally lying scum, especially if they are of the contingency variety. Don't believe anything they tell you.

Seems like back in the 90's, they were called head hunters.

GameboyRMH wrote:

dculberson wrote:

novaderrik wrote: that's the way it's supposed to work: pay people the absolute minimum that you have to in order to keep them around or make them come work for you.

I would argue that it is not how it is *supposed* to work, but might be how it does work at certain adversarial companies.

That's not what Apple, Google and Adobe did when they were in an adversarial position over employees...

I'm not sure what you mean.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: The recruiter used it as an excuse to offer you what he did. It's the same thing as saying "they can't pay you more because it's a family owned business and it's not in the budget" it's just a reason for the $$ amount, nothing more.

It seems worse to me to lie about the terms of a contract than some other bullE36 M3. Maybe it's just me.

Not to defend the recruiter, but the contract he was referring to was probably his, not the one offered to the potential contractor.

If his rate is contractually fixed, any extra paid to the person that takes the position comes out of his pocket.

The contract may not have changed, he may have just decided that a smaller piece of the pie is better than no pie.

On a different note, I personally would not change from a permanent position to contract for less than 2 times my current rate, and that would require it to be a very sweet deal.

Even when I was out of work, I always negotiated for double my previous permanent rate to cover insurance, retirement, taxes, fica, etc.

dculberson wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote: That's not what Apple, Google and Adobe did when they were in an adversarial position over employees...

I'm not sure what you mean.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/silicon-valley-poaching-case/

oldtin wrote: Isn't this how the free market works in figuring out what the market price is for a set of skills and experience?

I think its the fact that is insulting. If I am selling a car that for all intents and purposes is worth $5k, and there is this one guy that calls every $5k car seller and offers $1k, they are just blatantly being dickheads. Nobody likes a dickhead (insert dicks, Bob Costas, and shiny happy people speech here).

I've never lied on my resume... but the copy my company attaches to client proposals has a few stretched facts...