I run my own business and would pay 10% commission in exchange for qualified opportunities all day long.
Not all work on transparent commissions, at least here in the UK that's rare.
They are, by and large, talentless liars and cheats with a false narrative and harmful practice.
Seeing them as anything other than hostile to your interests is a quick way to get ripped off by these hacks.
Source: I consult for them on technical screening processes.
the worst that can happen is that the recruiter misrepresents your skills and experience. that can easily be solved by sharing your CV directly with the hiring company. if the recruiter doesn't allow you to do that, then it's a red flag.
Ive seen people work for a year at a lowish rate, then be denied a rate increase.
Only to find out later the increase was authorised but the recruiter took it and lied to the worker about it be accepted.
This, sadly, isn't at all uncommon. I see it constantly.
They'll risk your security, reputation and income for quick results to hit their quotas for bonuses.
i guess the important part for any job seeker is to know the distinction and be aware of the benefits and downsides of each. and when talking to a recruiter to make clear which one this is.
staffing agencies have their place and can be an advantage in some situations. depending on what you are looking for. in the US in particular they may be able to provide continuous insurance (just a guess, i don't actually know). another advantage may be permanent employment with the agency. (again, i don't know how this is in the US, but due to stronger labor protection it is more likely in germany.)
when you are employed with a staffing agency, it is clear that they are responsible for your salary, and whatever they may be able to negotiate with the client is only incidentally related. you have to consider that they take a risk. if the client defaults or they don't have work for you they may still pay you (again at least in germany they have to).
when i hire that is the way i'd like to operate, but mainly because i want to build my own team and only offer staffing services only as an alternative to doing projects as an agency. i like to give them a fixed monthly salary, and when i have no client work for them i have internal projects they can work on. (which is the point, to earn enough money so that we can spend part of the time on our own products). but that requires that i take a large cut on what i get from the employees work. and any raise they get is based on their overall performance and not on what i can negotiate with a particular client.
the above example seems to be the result of a misunderstanding of what the role of the recruiter here is. (and it may well be the recruiters fault for misrepresenting that)
so again, when talking to a recruiter, make that relationship clear up front and get it in writing if need be, or bail out if the contract is not with who you expect it to be.
It's less common, but they'll insert themselves as a middleman whereever they can.
At my last job, the recruiter managing the contract and FTE coders flew in on a private helicopter and gifted the office manager a Rolex. Wish I was joking.
but i do not understand how the recruiter can skim off the raise if the employee is contracted directly with the client. i mean, sure they can make a contract to get a cut, say 10% of the employees salary, so when the employee gets a raise, the recruiter gets more too. but negotiating a raise and then keeping that secret from the employee should only be possible if the employee is only contracted with the recruiter and not with the client directly.
If an increase was requested by the worker and authorised by the client and then the recruiter just plain lied about it and took the money - how is that not plain old fraud?
Note, they did conspire... Eventually. Next rate increase, I was in the room when client and contractor alternately took calls from the recruiter on speaker phone.
Everyone was shocked at the outcome.
The client ended up buying the contractor out of the recruiters exclusivity.
(disclaimer, even if obvious: sure, there are some honest good independent recruiters there, I met them as well)
That meant you could find a great client and have a deal lined up with all the key terms agreed and everyone ready to go and then at the last minute the recruitment agency could send you a terrible contract and refuse to negotiate. Then you'd not only have wasted your time going through possibly quite a long process with the recruiter but you'd also be blocked from working with a client who also wanted to work with you for a long time, which makes no business or economic sense at all.
This had been less of a problem a few years earlier when more contracts were direct with clients but the whole software contracting industry was becoming increasingly toxic here in the UK thanks to IR35 and the like. As a result many contracts - particularly with the larger clients who tend to be slightly more reliable about actually starting the work and having the budget for it - have only been available through the client's preferred suppler/recruiter list for some time.
I think if the whole contract recruitment industry got regulated almost out of existence it would probably be a huge boon to the sector. Or just declare that if intermediaries offer contracts in bad faith and won't negotiate - maybe with a list of specific hostile practices that are automatically considered bad faith - then any non-compete terms with either the worker or the client become unenforceable. In fact it might be better just to make the intermediaries generally liable if they act in bad faith because then the ones who waste your time with roles that are never really there and do shady things just to harvest CVs for their database could also be sued for the wasted time at the contractor's normal rate.