| 24-03-2014 01:06 AM |
| Unregistered |
To further add on my experience with poor recruiters in this thread, there was once when the recruiter emailed me to confirm the interview the date and time. At the end of the email, she mentioned that she has informed the employer that my expected salary was 2.8, which was way below what i was willing to accept. We have yet to discussed anything about salary previously. Informed her my expected pay and she mentioned she will convey to the management.
Was shortlisted to the final round of interview. Guess what, i managed to take a glance at the info sheet the interviewer was holding on to - my expected salary was not revised.
|
| 23-03-2014 05:44 PM |
| Unregistere |
any idea on the recruiter's comm scheme?
am considering a job offer working as a recruiter with a small recruitment firm but think was quoted a very low comm scheme as compare to market rate... 10% based on 3 mths closed deals.
|
| 30-07-2012 01:04 PM |
| poor and stupid |
Quote:
Originally Posted by icy water
hi all, so is there an agreement that this is true (at least most of the time) since i am considered junior executive? Although HR budget for 1st year salary is the same, can i assume that going through recruiter would mean that the bonus and increment would be lower since the basic I will be getting is lower?
|
bonus and increment really depends on your performance, unless your job duties are "standardized" then ya by percentage your bonus and increment will be lower.
I usually oppose going thru a recruiter(not head hunter) for the following reasons:
1) You must complete at least xx months otherwise subjected to penalty, I usually have no problem working, but some companies post their jobs ONLY to recruiters, WHY? I guess because the turnover is high and they want to prevent it. (Red flag)
2) HR may perceive you as "lesser awareness", if you go to popular job postings site, you can easily identify the same job posted by the direct company and other recruiters, why did you apply to the recruiters?
a) Maybe you did not actively search for job, but registered your resume with them earlier. (It happened to me several times its just stupid)
b) You are desperate for "just a" job.
c) You are not "sharp" enough to identify. Or just lazy.
3) Overall cost for your employment is higher, this is all this thread is about right? Actually it does not really matter for recruiters because most people who use recruiters often do not negotiate their pay; or not have the skill to negotiate to their maximum pay range. But if you do, then yes, your maximum pay will be lesser because your cost is now higher.
Just my personal opinion on recruiters, if you take any offense, feel free to defend or outright bash my comments in this thread.
Be friends with head hunters thou, they are really useful if you are in a senior post.
BTW: Do NOT trust me, I am an "engineer", my pay is so low, head hunters slam my calls.
|
| 28-07-2012 12:03 AM |
| icy water |
Quote:
Originally Posted by pretz
below a certain pay grade (below $100k/annum) it is 1 month of the person's salary.
She will get 50% of it immediately as her commission. Once the person completes 90 days work at the company, she gets the another 50% (split 25% to her, 25% to her boss).
So using her formula;
$2800 x 12 months pay + (hidden cost of $2800 recruiter's commission) = $36400, for the Employer.
$36400/12 = about $3050, if you had found the job by yourself, and HR budget the same.
|
hi all, so is there an agreement that this is true (at least most of the time) since i am considered junior executive? Although HR budget for 1st year salary is the same, can i assume that going through recruiter would mean that the bonus and increment would be lower since the basic I will be getting is lower?
|
| 27-07-2012 03:26 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbee
Yes I have to reword it. What I meant was placements for positions ranging from 80-300k p.a.
|
Yep this range sounds about right for mid-managerial positions, so we are in agreement. For this level is usually fixed% fee.
|
| 27-07-2012 03:20 PM |
| cbee |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
There is a big difference between senior executives like you mention earlier & mid-senior positions in your latest post.
It is very seldom now for senior exec placements to be done solely on % salary. mid-senior, yes most still operate on % salary fee
|
Yes I have to reword it. What I meant was placements for positions ranging from 80-300k p.a.
|
| 27-07-2012 03:16 PM |
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbee
Not all recruitment placements are on a retainer basis. Contingency searches still exist from mid-to-senior positions.
|
There is a big difference between senior executives like you mention earlier & mid-senior positions in your latest post.
It is very seldom now for senior exec placements to be done solely on % salary. mid-senior, yes most still operate on % salary fee
|
| 27-07-2012 03:08 PM |
| cbee |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Recently, I went for an interview with a bank (avp position) and used a head hunter.
I told the her that my last drawn was $xxxx a month, she told the employer my last drawn was x - $2.5k. I got shortlisted, interviewed and went to the final stage of discussing package. Then the bombshell surfaced. After the session, I immediately called the hh but instead of apologising, she spent half an hour try to persuade me why I should accept the job for the lower pay. DAMN PISSED
|
That happens because sometimes recruiters are on contingency search basis (i.e. they do not get paid until they actually make a placement) Hence they will try their best to fit you into their client's budget in hoping that they will still be able to close the deal, or at least be able to answer to the company that there are things in the pipeline. Regardless, it is unethical and unprofessional and you should not engage her services again.
|
| 27-07-2012 03:05 PM |
| pretz |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Recently, I went for an interview with a bank (avp position) and used a head hunter.
I told the her that my last drawn was $xxxx a month, she told the employer my last drawn was x - $2.5k. I got shortlisted, interviewed and went to the final stage of discussing package. Then the bombshell surfaced. After the session, I immediately called the hh but instead of apologising, she spent half an hour try to persuade me why I should accept the job for the lower pay. DAMN PISSED
|
That's bloody unethical.
|
| 27-07-2012 03:04 PM |
| pretz |
Quote:
Originally Posted by icy water
As above. For a full time job.
I applied for a job through an agency online, agent called me and quoted $2600-$2800 for a position which I think is below market rate. A friend of mine working in another company same position draws a salary of $3100. I will be meeting an agent soon before I go for an interview with the company. Thus, I am curious to know if the lower salary quoted by him is because he took a cut or it was quoted by company's HR and he did not take any cut. Or do recruiters earn just by taking a one time amount from company?
I understand that 'market rate' is subjective so please don't flame me. Main thing is still to understand how the recruiters/agents earn. Others is just to provide some context.  |
I asked a friend who is working in a small time job agency.
She said, below a certain pay grade (below $100k/annum) it is 1 month of the person's salary.
She will get 50% of it immediately as her commission. Once the person completes 90 days work at the company, she gets the another 50% (split 25% to her, 25% to her boss).
So using her formula;
$2800 x 12 months pay + (hidden cost of $2800 recruiter's commission) = $36400, for the Employer.
$36400/12 = about $3050, if you had found the job by yourself, and HR budget the same.
Additionally, she did say HR people prefer to use agencies as to HR, cost is the same (cost per hire) and agencies can bully or pressure people into accepting the lower pay by using the threat of "i have other candidates lined up for this position if you don't want it".
Furthermore, her boss will send gift hampers for each new hire...
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
