1 2 3 4 ... 6
Basil Exposition
Basil Exposition Dork
10/6/14 12:40 p.m.
Ian F wrote: I've never lied on my resume... but the copy my company attaches to client proposals has a few stretched facts...

That's because your company is a company and you are a people. Or companies are people. Or something...

spitfirebill
spitfirebill PowerDork
10/6/14 1:05 p.m.
alfadriver wrote:
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.

A head hunter came through and got me a job one time. A very good company that shat on me 41 months later.

aircooled
aircooled UltimaDork
10/6/14 1:20 p.m.
Duke wrote:
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?

Silly boy. Companies ARE people:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Bobzilla
Bobzilla PowerDork
10/6/14 2:17 p.m.
Datsun1500 wrote:
z31maniac wrote:
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!
I didn't realize you were venting about a shady recruiter based on the title of the thread.... I thought you were saying the company low balled you, since that's what you typed, my bad.

Don't read what he wrote, read what he MEANS. Geesh you people are dumb. Like I tell all the new hires: Don't give them what they ask for, give them what they want. You give them what they ask for and it's all your fault.

bgkast
bgkast GRM+ Memberand SuperDork
10/6/14 2:28 p.m.
HiTempguy 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?
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).

Tell this to Craigslist

Swank Force One
Swank Force One MegaDork
10/6/14 2:32 p.m.
Bobzilla wrote:
Datsun1500 wrote:
z31maniac wrote:
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!
I didn't realize you were venting about a shady recruiter based on the title of the thread.... I thought you were saying the company low balled you, since that's what you typed, my bad.
Don't read what he wrote, read what he MEANS. Geesh you people are dumb. Like I tell all the new hires: Don't give them what they ask for, give them what they want. You give them what they ask for and it's all your fault.

I don't suppose either of you have considered the idea that maybe recruiting companies exist?

Bobzilla
Bobzilla PowerDork
10/6/14 3:20 p.m.

What? Companies with the sole purpose of recruiting? Unpossible.

Strike_Zero
Strike_Zero SuperDork
10/6/14 4:00 p.m.

Well . . . the recruiter can be the employer based on the terms of the contract. I worked for many recruiters/recruiting companies in the past.

To keep my post relevant to thread, those firms usually lowball you worst than the company they are recruiting for.

  • 5 yrs Project Manager
  • PMP required
  • SixSigma Black Belt required
  • 5 yrs managing IT Projects of $1 million +

Pay = $25/hr

Ian F
Ian F UltimaDork
10/6/14 9:20 p.m.

It probably depends on how the contract between the employer and the head-hunter is written, especially for a short-term job as originally described. Sometimes they are merely go-betweens for the company and potential employee. Sometimes, the hire actually works for the head-hunter, not the company. Goes something like this: company calls HH, "Send us a person who can do 'X' for 6 months. I'm willing to pay you 'Y'." Now the HH's job is fill that job as cheaply as they can since however much they get less than 'Y' is added profit.

gamby
gamby UltimaDork
10/6/14 9:31 p.m.
Strike_Zero wrote: Well . . . the recruiter can be the employer based on the terms of the contract. I worked for many recruiters/recruiting companies in the past. To keep my post relevant to thread, those firms usually lowball you worst than the company they are recruiting for. - 5 yrs Project Manager - PMP required - SixSigma Black Belt required - 5 yrs managing IT Projects of $1 million + Pay = $25/hr

Wow. That's a lowball. They're 10-15 years out of touch with that offer lol. They are big and they're brass.

bentwrench
bentwrench HalfDork
10/6/14 9:36 p.m.

I hates that they call a temp position a "contract" position. It is a lie, and a disrespect to the worker to attempt such a deception.

Utter BS, contractors get paid more than hourly employees for their skillset and also because they are not provided benefits. B - E - N - E - F - I - T - S Say it with me now Beeneefiits Benefits Benefits.

Offer to Pay me what I'm worth or quit bothering me...

bearmtnmartin
bearmtnmartin GRM+ Memberand Dork
10/6/14 10:04 p.m.

It makes sense to paying a worker the going rate. You find out the going rate by offering less and being prepared to come up if necessary. Not like they can offer more than the going rate and have the new hire say "hey, I am making more than my peers. I think you should drop my rate a couple points."

Being an employer, I see the other side. I just hired someone and he worked one day, and then quit because he got a better offer. It was that easy for him to jump ship with no thought to the commitment he had made. So I understand how it works, and I am fine with it but it works both ways. Workers have to earn my loyalty because very few have shown any over the years. I no longer offer the world and bend over backwards to keep them until they have proven themselves.

The0retical
The0retical HalfDork
10/7/14 1:15 a.m.
Strike_Zero wrote: Well . . . the recruiter can be the employer based on the terms of the contract. I worked for many recruiters/recruiting companies in the past. To keep my post relevant to thread, those firms usually lowball you worst than the company they are recruiting for. - 5 yrs Project Manager - PMP required - SixSigma Black Belt required - 5 yrs managing IT Projects of $1 million + Pay = $25/hr

I'd have told them not to bother to call me again because obviously they aren't very good at their job.

SVreX
SVreX MegaDork
10/7/14 6:44 a.m.
Strike_Zero wrote: Well . . . the recruiter can be the employer based on the terms of the contract. I worked for many recruiters/recruiting companies in the past. To keep my post relevant to thread, those firms usually lowball you worst than the company they are recruiting for. - 5 yrs Project Manager - PMP required - SixSigma Black Belt required - 5 yrs managing IT Projects of $1 million + Pay = $25/hr

Regional differences are much bigger than many of you realize.

Where I live, that is a good offer.

asoduk
asoduk Reader
10/7/14 7:51 a.m.

Contract recruiting is a growing business and helps companies with temp to hire. Here is how it works: a company says they want to hire someone on contract for X months and is going to pay $100/hr (arbitrary amount). A recruiter figures out the costs of benefits, insurance if needed and whatever other costs he might have. Yes, you can get benefits as a contractor if you go through certain contracting companies. So the contracting company takes $30/hr to cover their costs and make some money doing what they do. The recruiter also decides he wants $30/hr. That leaves you with $40/hr. The company you are working for loses the risk, and pays more for it. The middlemen get paid until the contract runs out.

Its a system that I know very well and do not understand how it can not only exist, but thrive.

PHeller
PHeller PowerDork
10/7/14 8:34 a.m.

I know in my company, especially in my department, if you know how to do the stuff we do and do it well, you'll earn yourself a job. We were utilizing a contractor for about 2-years (we didn't renew the contract), but his people were quite good. If they were be able to work at our office (they were in India), we probably would have hired them directly.

As someone who has worked as a contractor for a recruiter, its far easier to assume that its a temporary job. Make friends with the company your working at, ask frank questions (would you considered hiring me?) and bail when a more stable opportunity arises.

93EXCivic
93EXCivic MegaDork
10/7/14 8:59 a.m.

In reply to z31maniac:

Ignoring all the stupid E36 M3 in this thread, I know exactly how you feel. I dealt with some recruiters after I found out my old company. One of them kept lying to me saying my salary demands were too high despite them being perfectly average for an engineer in my area. Then she kept trying to put me in positions that I was in no way a fit for.

In the end I found a job with pay in the upper end of my range and I love it.

z31maniac
z31maniac UltimaDork
10/7/14 9:00 a.m.

Gents, I've worked as a contractor for a company before, I know how it works.

It's funny that many assume I don't understand the game just because I'm complaining that it's BS.

The race to the bottom isn't helping anyone except the very top.

Duke
Duke UltimaDork
10/7/14 9:06 a.m.
93EXCivic wrote: In reply to z31maniac: Ignoring all the stupid E36 M3 in this thread, I know exactly how you feel. I dealt with some recruiters after I found out my old company. One of them kept lying to me saying my salary demands were too high despite them being perfectly average for an engineer in my area. Then she kept trying to put me in positions that I was in no way a fit for. In the end I found a job with pay in the upper end of my range and I love it.

So some recruiters act like sketchy car salesmen. This shouldn't be news. Just like buying a car: know what you're getting, what it should cost you, and don't settle for something that doesn't meet your criteria. If you absolutely can't find the deal you want, you may have to reconsider your criteria.

I don't understand the anger and bitterness (in general, not necessarily the OP). If you don't like the deal, don't say yes, until you have to.

93EXCivic
93EXCivic MegaDork
10/7/14 9:38 a.m.
Duke wrote: I don't understand the anger and bitterness (in general, not necessarily the OP). If you don't like the deal, don't say yes, until you have to.

Maybe because people don't like to be lied to and generally treated like crap especially when if they are at a low point of having to find a job because they are about to lose their current one (that was my situation). I wouldn't think that would be that hard to understand......

Advan046
Advan046 Dork
10/7/14 9:50 a.m.
aircooled wrote:
Duke wrote:
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?
Silly boy. Companies ARE people: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

UGH.

Too big to fail but has rights. bad combo.

Advan046
Advan046 Dork
10/7/14 9:56 a.m.

The Federal Government, as far as the laws I have worked with and studied go, doesn't mandate maximum pay rates for contractors only minimum pay rates.

And no recruiters and companies are NOT supposed to find the cheapest person that can do the job. Unless they are planning a suicide mission. If they want to RETAIN a good employee that will be able to accomplish a number of missions/projects/tasks in the organization effectively and grow into an effective manager and leader then they pay to attract and retain them.

Somehow people have have this false notion that just because the pay is cheap as it can be it is a win for your business. Where is the value analysis? That employee puts out minimum for minimum; then leaves and you have to pay a recruiter and all the other sunk costs to hire the replacement. I want someone that can put out a lot more than minimum and I will pay them a lot more than minimum. Save cost on replacement actions and have someone that may want to run the company in a few decades.

Strike_Zero
Strike_Zero SuperDork
10/7/14 10:12 a.m.

In reply to SVreX:

While that may be somewhat true, in most cases it isn't.

That example I supplied is from an area that pays almost two times for that skillset . . . As the low rate.

They (company or recruiter) go to "lower cost" areas with lowball rates, hoping the potential hires don't know about the actual rate. The tactic usually starts with "I'm working for a confidential client . . ."

For that contract PM position, that rate is pretty damn low for their requirements. They are asking for a midlevel PM with upper level skills at a Jr rate . . .

Duke
Duke UltimaDork
10/7/14 10:31 a.m.
Strike_Zero wrote: They (company or recruiter) go to "lower cost" areas with lowball rates, hoping the potential hires don't know about the actual rate.

Caveat emptor. You should know the approximate going rate of the job for the location you're looking in. And if you consistently cannot find a job at that rate, perhaps your information is not correct.

Think of it exactly like buying new a car - if you haven't researched the actual value of the car, then you're much more likely to end up getting charged the MSRP (or worse). But most of us here inform ourselves first and know we can do better. But there is a threshold beyond which the dealer cannot or will not go, and no matter what we want, we're not getting it. Maximizing that threshold takes the luxury of time and effort.

It's exactly the same as finding a job. Information is power.

SVreX
SVreX MegaDork
10/7/14 10:39 a.m.
Strike_Zero wrote: In reply to SVreX: While that may be somewhat true, in most cases it isn't. That example I supplied is from an area that pays almost two times for that skillset . . . As the low rate. They (company or recruiter) go to "lower cost" areas with lowball rates, hoping the potential hires don't know about the actual rate. The tactic usually starts with "I'm working for a confidential client . . ." For that contract PM position, that rate is pretty damn low for their requirements. They are asking for a midlevel PM with upper level skills at a Jr rate . . .

I'm sure you are correct...in YOUR area.

The median income where I live is $28,600.

There are VERY few $50k salaries, regardless of the occupation.

There are plenty of wealthy people, but they don't make salaries at all.

I know senior engineers with 30 years experience making under $40k. No benefits.

Yes, I understand if we talk national averages, you are probably right.

But there ARE areas of the country that are just not competitive with everywhere else.

1 2 3 4 ... 6

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
nVbvCuU4LOS8DkV9YvBg50gxzicyMLetELOiI7c6yOxQ5B6O3K1qf2kBAIYyUzkW