Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Reputable recruiters charge employers, not candidates. Any so-called "recruiter" who takes their cut directly out of your salary (as opposed to charging the employer a percentage of a candidate's salary in a lump sum payment) is a con artist. Period.


But on the other hand, that sounds very similar to the arrangement wherein a contracting firm hires you at $100k/year and bills customers for your services at $100/hour, even when you work at the customer's site, using the customer's equipment.

If the customer drops the firm, you just get fired instead of benched.

That is exactly how hundreds of "Beltway Bandit" firms operate. Charge the government double what it costs you to employ someone, and spend most of your workday recruiting on behalf of your customers.


Sorry, yes you're correct - edited my comment.

They wouldn't be charging me, they're taking a 30% cut of the hourly rate and giving me the rest.

My point was that the recruitment agencies will benefit from the rise of salaries


No, they still took the cut directly from your pay. Sorry, but you were scammed.


How else would it work? The recruiters need to take a cut somewhere, whether it's a lump sum up front or a cut per hour is fine with me.

I agree that it's annoying that a company would pay a recruitment agency 90/hour to have me, but would never pay me directly that much.


They take a cut from your employer. The employer pays the recruiter above and beyond what they are paying you.


> How else would it work?

Recruiters get paid by the employer, and not off the candidate's pool. It's employer who bears the burden of paying the recruiter in our current setting. This is why your situation was deemed scam (a.k.a. unusually sub-par for the environment).


Yes my last contract in the UK took a few £ a week to manage the umbrella company




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: