I strongly disagree with the premise of this title (or the conclusion of the story).
Bad recruiters are bad, yes. But there are good recruiters (even if they're hard to find!)
A good recruiter knows not to do things like spam developer mailing lists, stiff candidates on reimbursements, or any of the many ridiculous shenanigans we often hear stories about. A good recruiter also knows that the best way to recruit talent is to develop longstanding relationships with said talent, and therefore understands that meeting with developers who aren't actively looking for a job is not only a valuable use of their time, but arguably the most valuable use of their time[0].
That said, I've had my fair share of bad experiences with recruiters. I'm still waiting on a travel reimbursement for a company I interviewed with (and eventually turned down, partly because of this debacle) months ago. (It's not a 2-person, bootstrapped company; they have well more than enough cash to cover a ~$500 check.)
I really wish there were a "wall of shame" for companies that take more then 2 months to reimburse people (especially student candidates) for travel expenses. Six months (the longest I have ever had to wait, from a well-funded company that was later acquihired) is the longest I've heard of.
[0] Yes, I had a recruiter stop responding to my emails a couple of years ago when I told him that I was several months away from graduating and wanted to wait a couple of months before actually beginning the interview process.
If you're a student and don't really want to make a commitment yet (and don't even have the time to interview), it can still be valuable to hop on the phone for 15 minutes and figure out if someone's worth keeping in mind for later, when you actually are looking for jobs.
By the way, when I say "recruiter", I mean anybody who's in a hiring position. This can include a CTO who is actively searching for talent.
Maybe it's because I used to work at a venture firm, but I'm always happy to hear a founder who's enthusiastic talk for a few minutes about what they're building.
See my above note about using the term "recruiter" to mean anybody who's looking for talent (eg, lead engineer, CTO). Maybe that wasn't clear.
I got it, but talking to a complete stranger on the phone when you are not looking for a job, so he keeps you in mind for an undefined later? Maybe drop in an example, because I don't see how could it work better than just dropping an email which you either delete (and post an obligatory rage-tweet about stupid recruiters) or tag for later if the offer/company seemed interesting.
I agree, the title is more link-bait of an individual's situation with one particular agency than any form of generalization of the recruitment process. Flagged for title change.
For businesses the UK is quite clear on payment terms: "If you haven’t already agreed when the money will be paid, the law says the payment is late after 30 days for public authorities and business transactions after either: the customer gets the invoice or you deliver the goods or provide the service (if this is later)"[1]
So this: "I see no payment terms so it will be at my discretion when we release payment" actually means " could mean kanmei can now claim interest and debt recovery costs.
Recruiting is a two-sided market with high stakes and perverse incentives. Any time money and conflicting interests collide in the same actor, weird stuff happens
Recruiting attracts good faith actors and bad faith actors. It makes good people do bad things, and sometimes makes bad people your friends (at least as long as it takes to get your placement)
This is clearly a strongly negative experience for one individual, but probably not a shocking story.
But why did this up-voted to the frontpage in a matter of minutes? It's currently in the top 10, after 40 minutes.
In my experience, the title is a fairly common sentiment amongst software engineers...until they join in on hiring responsibilities for their team(s), and then the relative value of recruiters becomes rapidly apparent.
I was on the hiring side before I had my first encounter with a recruiter. They're worthless. Floods of bad candidates, almost never anything worth pursuing. Promising candidates come almost exclusively through some form of contact that bypasses any form of in-house or external recruiter. Being-hired experience is the exact mirror: Contacted constantly about positions utterly unsuited for me, and good matches only produce interviews if the recruiters are bypassed.
Recruiters have negative value. They are parasites.
Just FYI: I've had a recruiter book and pay my ticket to London in advance, after I told him I was quite skeptical about whether this would be a good match after a phone interview with the employer.
And it was just one of those CV-mill recruiters. It's pennies compared to what they make if they score, so I'm guessing it's just a matter of being assertive.
Most of the VC-funded startups in SF that we're working with are more than happy to pay for a Southwest flight and a hotel room upfront, rather than doing the reimbursement thing.
As a general rule, the "submit receipts & wait for reimbursement" methodology is a bad idea. If a company truly wants you, they should be rolling out the red carpet, which includes not inconveniencing you.
On the flip side of the coin, we've had 2 separate occasions where the start-ups paid for airfare, only to have the engineers not show up to interview. So it definitely goes both ways...
I'm wondering if it's ethical to spread the word about someone who didn't pay you back. I mean, obviously the another one wasn't ethical, but are you allowed when he/she wasn't?
PS: Surely I'll not post on HN another history of someone who didn't pay me, I'm trying to know the ethics implicit on this scenario.
I have found that when dealing with people who don't care at all about you, it helps to include 8 or more progressively harsh credible threats in an email.
It was a post by a developer recounting his experience with a particular recruiting agency. Basically, he was given an interview through an agency TestDriven Recruiting (or something similar) for a job outside his home country. The agency agreed to split the costs of travel. The interview was in January, and he hadn't been reimbursed by March. After multiple attempts at contact and requests for payment were ignored, the OP threatened to post on social networks. At this point Test Driven finally replied, stating "no timeline was agreed upon, we pay at our own discretion" or an equivalent message. It's unclear if the OP has been reimbursed at all at this point.
Bad recruiters are bad, yes. But there are good recruiters (even if they're hard to find!)
A good recruiter knows not to do things like spam developer mailing lists, stiff candidates on reimbursements, or any of the many ridiculous shenanigans we often hear stories about. A good recruiter also knows that the best way to recruit talent is to develop longstanding relationships with said talent, and therefore understands that meeting with developers who aren't actively looking for a job is not only a valuable use of their time, but arguably the most valuable use of their time[0].
That said, I've had my fair share of bad experiences with recruiters. I'm still waiting on a travel reimbursement for a company I interviewed with (and eventually turned down, partly because of this debacle) months ago. (It's not a 2-person, bootstrapped company; they have well more than enough cash to cover a ~$500 check.)
I really wish there were a "wall of shame" for companies that take more then 2 months to reimburse people (especially student candidates) for travel expenses. Six months (the longest I have ever had to wait, from a well-funded company that was later acquihired) is the longest I've heard of.
[0] Yes, I had a recruiter stop responding to my emails a couple of years ago when I told him that I was several months away from graduating and wanted to wait a couple of months before actually beginning the interview process.