Hacker News Reader

Comment by rwmj | Hacker News Reader

I'm wondering how that would even work. Do they blindfold you and take you to a mystery location!?

I’m a recruiter. The contract is with the hiring company. Once I’ve submitted your resume to a company, with your permission, the company can’t hire you without paying me. So as long as I have your permission to put you forward for a role, and submit you to the client, you can cut me out of the process as much as you wish ... I’m still getting paid if you take the role.

Why can’t everyone operate with a bit more trust? Am I too hopeful and in reality people would try to screw you over if you were more open?

Yes.

I've found generally I can operate with almost complete trust, but there are always some bad actors AND people fuck up. Of the latter: programmer contacts me about a job I'm advertising. I tell them about the role. They want me to represent them but decide the best course of action is to apply directly to the client on their website (?!). When I find out, I contact the client and try and explain the situation.

First time I've worked with the client, and after some emails, they grudgingly accept that I have the emails to prove the situation, but the candidate fucked it all up ... however, this has engendered enough shitty feeling that they decide they don't want to continue working together.

I don't get paid for most of the candidates I put forward for roles (employers want 4-5 applicants per person they hire, at least), as they don't get the roles, and can't afford to just forgive a $20,000 commission because the candidate managed to gum up the workings.

TBH, the few times Ive worked with a few recruiters, they misrepresented the position they were recruiting for. Now, I'm not sure if it was a recruiter packaging the job to be 'ideal' or if it was HR having absolutely no clue what they were doing.

Never the less, when I walked in and sat down, it was nowhere near what I was expecting and what was conveyed to me.

Of course that's the worst situation. The recruiter doesn't get paid and spent time, the company wasted time, and the potential employee wasted time. But I have no issue in leaving money on the table for you if you do a good job about recruiting. And once you're paid after a year, I'll ask for a raise equal to what you got :) That tells me what they're really willing to pay for me.

There's hundreds of people working in the same space, everyone with a time horizon no farther than the next quarter. Of course they'll rip you off.

>The contract is with the hiring company. Once I’ve submitted your resume to a company, with your permission, the company can’t hire you without paying me. So as long as I have your permission to put you forward for a role, and submit you to the client, you can cut me out of the process as much as you wish ... I’m still getting paid if you take the role.

But isn't it the same for Wag?

The point is that you have two counterparts:

1) the company that could deny having actually employed your candidate but that cannot because there are records about the hiring

2) the candidate that (since he/she has nothing to loose) has no reason to deny being hired

What have Wag to actually prove that someone got again the same dog walker and that they met for the first time through Wag?

No I presume they tell you after you’ve committed to interviewing. But who would commit to interviewing with someone (a day of your time) that you don't know?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com