Hacker News Reader

Comment by viraptor | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure. Recruiters can spray and pray with candidates the way candidates can spray and pray with applications. They're not going to be great quality, but if you're paid commission on a hire and the recruitment channel can handle the load... what's to stop the recruiter?

View on HN

Aside from it destroying future business (we've had recruiters change candidates' resumes on us and that recruiter is blacklisted - by name - forever, to anyone who will listen), most contracts will have a 30-day clause where if the employee leaves for any reason within 30 days the fee is returned. Some even have if employee is fired within 30 days that the next placement fee is discounted.

When I connect with recruiters on Linkedin, I often notice they've spent a short time at their current position. Their tactics might not be sustainable.

That said, it's a bit absurd there aren't separate classes of users on Linkedin. Do I need to know a recruiter's work history?

Spray and pay works for sending people a little underqualified for a job. Sending people who don't know why they've been put forward for a job under false pretences just means the client won't interview any more candidates you send, especially if that candidate is plenty employable enough not to bother bluffing their way through.

And unlike candidates, recruiters can potentially get paid to fill a lot of a company's vacancies, provided they don't get blacklisted by them...

> Sending people who don't know why they've been put forward for a job under false pretences [...]

Isn't this called 'consulting'?

The good recruiter matches the right candidate to the right company. The dysfunction is a property of the system and is borne by everyone.

And that's probably how I got an interview with AWS once upon a time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com