but they also have a lot less work to do per client, they're only needed for a few weeks' work every year each.
and that serves them well if they build a portfolio of clients with myriad technical skills between them - IMO engineers aren't anywhere near as fungible as actors.
But their fee comes from the employer, not the developer. That sets up a regime where they do not represent the developer, but their client, the employer.
Contrast that to a Hollywood or major-league sports agent: they represent a client for years across many many possible engagements. They work to get the best possible deal for their client. And they get paid handsomely for that: 10-15% gross of an actor/athlete's earnings.
This is the key. Representing the best interest of the job seeker and not just driven by the fee paid by the client. Ideally, the recruiter's ethics would make them want the best for their candidates, but in the end the fee is what is driving them. Agents represent the talent and not the team/studio/etc.
Well, how much are we talking here? I'm guessing the fee would have to be fairly large to retain an agents service. Perhaps the agent could tie the fee to the engineers salary therefore having a real incentive to negotiate well? The downside to this approach is the same as you've mentioned elsewhere - the agent will push towards any job just to get paid.
I guess I'm just having trouble seeing how this model could realistically work.
My thought was an annual fee for representation, with some bonus after a search. The one function of an agent that hasn't really been picked up is career guidance. Perhaps 'manager' is a better word from an entertainment career parallel term. There is tons of guidance to be given during any year, even if a job search isn't happening.
Manager is a different thing from "agent." Agents get you jobs. Managers handle things like payment, accounting, scheduling, travel, etc., etc.
Trust me: nobody working as a developer can afford to give up the kinds of percentages of their incomes that would make it worthwhile for a potential hired manager or an agent.
It's like the infamous "buyer's broker" in real estate. It only makes sense if you buy enough.
The name difference is just syntax, it doesn't make a difference what you call the person (a developer is not going to have a manager and an agent, but could have one person that handles a whole host of things for him/her).
"Trust me: nobody working as a developer can afford to give up the kinds of percentages of their incomes that would make it worthwhile for a potential hired manager or an agent."
I think you are assuming a bit much here. If you can get say 100 clients (programmers) to give 2K a year, you just made 200K, which isn't too bad. That might be < 2% of salary for most people who would even want an agent - if that person is a consultant, it could be 1% range.
Everyone keeps assuming the agent only gets paid during job changes, where I was assuming it was a career agent that was part of the team all year round and not just during job changes. Athletes have agents, paid a percentage, but don't change agents every time they change teams.
If I negotiate you a 5K salary more than you would have negotiated yourself, that 2K per year seems pretty small. Just spitballing the numbers of course.
Go do some research on Realtors and their incentives to negotiate for a higher price vs. their reward for holding out. Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt of Freakanomics fame didn't see having an agent negotiate a price for you as leading to a higher price:
Ny my reckoning, the only way that Realtors (agents) help you is by bringing you deal opportunities you wouldn't have had otherwise. If those are good deals (e.g. they improve the price relative to others), then they are worth a commission paid if it can cover the price improvement.
But if they can't (and the paper seems to suggest they don't) then it might be better to avoid using an agent and arrange a deal yourself.
The difference is you only use a realtor when you are buying (or selling) a home. Realtors don't talk to you 6 months after buying a home and suggest putting in a pool or a sun room to add future value to the home. As a manager/agent during your entire career and not just during job searches, that would be info you would get (how to improve your asset, your marketability, a promotion or raise). An agent may show the most obvious value during a negotiation, but the guidance provided between job searches will help maximize future earnings.
but they also have a lot less work to do per client, they're only needed for a few weeks' work every year each.
and that serves them well if they build a portfolio of clients with myriad technical skills between them - IMO engineers aren't anywhere near as fungible as actors.