Ask HN: I received an offer, and the company asked me not to tell the recruiter | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: I received an offer, and the company asked me not to tell the recruiter

I know this might seem extremely immoral, and I would normally not do business with such a company. But I really need a job right now and haven't had any luck elsewhere. They've made quite a few excuses to justify not paying this recruiter, such as:

They never signed an agreement with the recruiter in the first place, he cold called them with my resume. Likewise, I never signed any agreement with this recruiter. Not even sure where he found my name in the first place.

His finder's fee is very high, and it wasn't disclosed until after the interviewing took place.

But at the end of the day, I only became aware of this company via this recruiter, and the offer would not exist without the work he did.

So I'm torn. Is this legal? Is this moral?

View on HN

I'm puzzled. If there's no agreement between the new employer and the recruiter, then nothing you say to the recruiter matters. The company isn't obligated to pay the recruiter absent an agreement, even if the recruiter delivered you to them in a shiny gold box. So the fact that they're asking you not to disclose suggests to me that they're not being entirely truthful about the situation.

But that's not important right now. What is important is the signaling behind it -- that this is a company who's willing to find ways not to pay people by asking people to hide otherwise ordinary information. A company that's willing to screw one person is usually willing to screw another, and the next person may well be you.

My advice: find another company to work for ASAP.

Yeah, this is major red flags. The company is asking you to sacrifice your reputation with this recruiter and potentially all their friends. It's short-term thinking for you and them.

Sure, maybe the recruiter/company messed up on the contract side of things...but at the end of the day the recruiter found a candidate that the company likes and the company isn't willing to compensate the recruiter for his efforts.

Let's look at a similar but slightly different scenario - If there was an issue with your contract and the company realized they didn't have to pay you...you can guess what decision they're probably making.

Sure, while this might not be illegal (and you wouldn't be at any fault either way), I definitely wouldn't want to work at a company that operates this way.

Also, not to mention - the recruiter will probably find out you got the job, when you update your LinkedIn, you post something online, etc...

> If there was an issue with your contract and the company realized they didn't have to pay you...you can guess what decision they're probably making.

Issue I’m seeing there is the matter of “Consideration“. If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is not legally a binding contract.

So if they decided to not pay you because of an “issue” you could argue you are not getting your consideration so the contract is null and void including the part that says all my work done under this contract is owned by the company. Which could then lead to the company using your work without a licence. And could cause all sorts of legal headaches. But I’m not a lawyer.

Definitely not a lawyer. (IAAL but not providing legal advice.) There's a lot to unpack here:

* There's no license involved. Typically, an employee's work product is the property of the employer; it's not property of the employee licensed to the employer.

* Consideration can take many forms, not just cash payment. Health benefits in the US are consideration. A starting bonus is consideration. Even being allowed to view trade secrets can constitute consideration. Consideration is anything that a contracting party wasn't legally obligated to provide to the other party in the absence of a contract that has some value.

Absence of consideration is extremely unlikely to be an issue here.

As a Recruiter who has been in the industry for 11 years, I can tell you that companies are well aware of the going rate for a Recruiter. So whether a contract is signed or not, they know that by telling the Recruiter they would be interested in reviewing and/or interviewing their candidate, they are not only accepting the solicitation (thus can't claim it was unsolicited), they are also indirectly agreeing to pay a fee. If they had concerns about how much that fee would be, they could have asked before any interviews were set up. But it sounds to me like they never had any intention of paying the recruiter, otherwise they would have made sure to address/negotiate fees upfront. Additionally, I'm sure the Recruiter would be willing to negotiate with them on the fee, especially if the alternative is not getting paid at all. As you stated, you wouldn't have known of this opportunity without the recruiter's efforts and likewise the company wouldn't have known of your existence without the Recruiter's help. So there is no question that this recruiter is owed a fee. What the company is doing is immoral and should definitely raise some red flags. Throughout my career, I've unfortunately had a couple of companies try to pull a similar move, but was lucky enough that the candidate had my back in those situations and therefore I did receive the fee I deserved.

>So whether a contract is signed or not, they know that by telling the Recruiter they would be interested in reviewing and/or interviewing their candidate, they are not only accepting the solicitation (thus can't claim it was unsolicited), they are also indirectly agreeing to pay a fee.

I know of firms that will pay a small finders fee (usually $500 to $2000) for a referral that turns into a hire from any random stranger. Without the recruiter specifying otherwise and getting agreement, it's completely reasonable for the firm to assume this is just another such referral.

One way or another the recruiter is going to find out. But in this situation it seems like very much not your problem. What I would do is accept the job but inform the company that while you're not going to go out of your way to inform the recruiter that you're accepting, you are also not willing to lie either. And if the recruiter asks you will be honest about your new employment. That should assuage your own conscious and leave the issue over finders fee where it belongs, with the company and the recruiter.

OP - I'd listen to what you've been told so far. I can sympathize with your position (needing the job), but this sounds like bad juju in the end.

You have a choice here; you already know a couple of them. But there is another option:

Talk to the recruiter. This person sounds like he's a hustler; you treat him well (telling him what is going on), well - you'll probably lose the job offer, but what you gain with the recruiter may be much more. You'll be known to that recruiter as trustworthy - and he'll likely convey that to others.

Ultimately, it's up to you and your choice - good luck, whatever you decide.

If the candidate is going to call the recruiter, my advice would be simply to ask "What is the status of the position with company X?" The answer will reveal a lot. Maybe the recruiter will come clean. My bet would be that the recruiter tells the candidate they are no longer in consideration for the position. Interposing themselves between candidates and jobs is how a large segment of the recruiting industry seeks revenue. It is not uncommon for a candidate to reduce their odds of getting hired at a particular company by going through the class of recruiter that operates without a recruiting agreement in place.

I think its neither immoral nor illegal at all, if nothing is signed. Nobody asked the recruiter to match you to this job. But he did and now you like it, thats not your fault. If the recruiter would have been honest from the beginning, the meeting would not have taken place, because the company would have declined asap. Its like people dropping you unwanted journals in your postbox and requesting you to pay or send it back if you dont like it...

If you don't take the job: you lose out on employment, the employer loses out on a new employee, and the recruiter loses his fee. If you take the job: you get employment, the employer gets a new employee, and the recruiter loses his fee. The recruiter is screwed in both cases, so maximise what's left for everyone else—take the job.

game theory?

As someone who does contingency tech recruiting, I'm very curious how this plays out. I have a couple biases, mainly 2 decades in software engineering and a sense of ethics many recruiters would call "stupid." But I'll clear some things up in this thread.

First, I'm shocked this worked. Typically, recruiters send out "headless" resumes with the name and contact details stripped out, for candidates you can't easily match on LinkedIn or other resume databases. I assumed they were fake and consider it a form of phishing. I will add that this is not done by just lone recruiters hard up, but by many major firms. And they do it to me, too, which means they didn't even read the first line of my LI profile to learn we are competitors.

Contingency recruiting fees are well known in the industry. But I suppose if you were not a technical manager (or very inexperienced), and didn't run it past HR, this might happen. You might think, "how much could it be?"

While there is no contract in place, there are lawyers who specialize in collecting recruiting fees because so many companies try to get out of them even when there is a legit contract. So the threat of a lawsuit is real, and depending on the jurisdiction and the actual correspondence, they may be liable for something (IANAL).

Personally, the same ethical code that prevents me from trying to trap potential clients would also prevent me from lying to the recruiter. I'm sorry you were put in such an uncomfortable position.

[Random advice from the internet]

Take the job because you need it and to realize that you are going to work for a business that thinks that it is O.K. to do what they are doing.

In different circumstances, my advice might be different. Here your immediate need is not frivolous. The option is employment versus unemployment not increasing an existing salary. This is business. The issues are contractual. They are not moral and not ethical.

This isn't an "It's not about the money." It's about the money all around. High volume cold calling and holding candidates for kingly ransom is the business model.

Good luck.

I’m inclined to agree with you regarding your last full paragraph.

This topic also seems to clearly fall within the “if you have to ask the question, then you probably already know the answer”

This is a tricky situation, and I'm sure the finders fee probably shocks you ($20k + is not uncommon for tech hires in the Bay Area). And the recruiter screwed up by not having a contract between themselves and the client.

But this is "random advice from the internet" is bad advice. Do you really want to deal with a company that won't honor their word? This is absolutely a moral and ethical issue.

It is about the money. Recruiters aren't free. Developers aren't either. Companies are aware of both of these facts.

Disclosure: I am a sales recruiter.

As a rule of thumb there are three quality levels of recruiters. Retained recruiters who get paid whether anyone gets hired or not. They don't waste anyone's time. Everyone's interests are aligned.

Next down are contingent recruiters who have established working relationships with businesses. Because they have contracts in place that pay them only when someone is placed they balance throwing candidates at the wall and seeing what sticks with the limit to which companies will allow their time to be wasted.

The last class of recruiter has a phone and an internet connection. They scan websites looking for job listings. They scan public resumes looking for candidates. It's a high volume low success business. The recruiter will invest as little time as possible in each candidate and job listing. That's what this smells like...a recruiter whose business model cannot afford to negotiate contracts before sending a candidate out.

The recruiter cold called the candidate and sent them out on an interview without having a working relationship with the company. There's no other way to put it but that the recruiter was using the candidate's time and energy as the sole basis for establishing a business relationship with the employer.

The finder's fee doesn't shock me at all. I would not be surprised if what the recruiter was seeking was significantly higher and that is the reason for the current situation. The class of recruiter who cold calls candidates about jobs with companies that have never heard of the recruiter have to make all their income from a tiny sliver of luck. They have to press every payday with rates high enough to cover companies that won't sign their deal.

This whole thing is about money. It's about money with the recruiter. If you want to go into morals and ethics, the recruiter is willing to keep the candidate from a job unless they get paid. They are willing to keep the employer from an employee unless they get paid. They have been willing to waste everyone's time and then set their rate.

It's a matter of money and contracts. When someone says "It's not the money it's the principle", it's the money.

Fair point - my firm tends to work contingent / contained (similar to retained, but for less senior candidates), and we always get our clients on a contract first. All the t's crossed and i's dotted. I've never done the whole cold call -> submit public resumes (and never will).

There are better and worse recruiters. The classic model is two tier: retained and contingent. That's how the recruiting industry likes to think of itself. The reality of working with recruiters as a candidate is how I recognized the third tier. It's most of the interactions that most candidates have for reasons implied by Spolsky's description of the job market [1].

The low end recruiters are recognizable with simple questions. "What is the name of the company?" is a good first question. "Are you retained or contingent?" is a good follow up. A person with a professionalist attitude will have no trouble answering either. In part because they are in the business of providing information to candidates. In part because they have a contract in place. In part because they have done their homework and are contacting the candidate because the probability of fit is higher than average.

I once had a job where I was unhappy and so I put myself through the pain of answering calls from recruiters. One of them seemed reasonable enough and we had a couple of conversations. It was a Wednesday afternoon and I was sitting in my office and got a call on my cell. I stepped outside to hear about the job the recruiter had found. The recruiter built it up and then said "The firm is X, have you heard of them?"

I'd worked at X for a few years a few years earlier. X was listed on my resume. My resume was one page.

[1]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/09/06/finding-great-deve...

I'm sure many people have similar stories, but the first thing that went through my mind was when a new dev joined my old company. He'd been recruited directly, and after a successful week trial he was given a full-time role.

A week later he answered his phone. It was a recruiter for a popular recruitment agency in Bristol. This recruiter unloaded on this poor guy about how he'd sent him the opportunity to work for his new employer, and how he was cutting him out. The recruiter threatened the dev by saying that he'd pull every string to make sure he didn't work in Bristol again. After a heated back-and-forth with the MD, the head of the recruitment agency said that there was no "recruiter black list" that this guy was threatened with, but it's a common enough story that I'm willing to bet that it exists in some form, at least for that recruitment firm.

The point of that rant was that there's nothing illegal about freezing the recruiter out. Obviously, there's a dilemma around whether you'd want to join a company that's happy to do such a thing, but one thing worth considering is whether the recruiter is going to sit back and accept it. At best, you'll be hired and the recruiter will learn a lesson. At worst, this recruiter might take it out on what he/she considers to be the weakest link in the chain - you.

Can't speak to legal, but not moral if they are not willing to pay anything at all. Recruiter will definitely find out. The recruiter did some work, put in the time to set you up with a job, they ought to be comp'd for their efforts. Now if the recruiter is asking for something unreasonably high, then there should be some negotiation (particularly if there is no contract in place), but the recruiter ought to get something.

As to what you should do, most people probably wouldn't fault you for taking the job if you're desparate (as in, my kids will starve/be homeless if I don't take this job). But if it's like, I can't buy that $200 hoodie because I won't have a job, then you might be in a position where you can afford to keep looking.

As far as the company goes, a lot of people will say that "oh be careful working for these guys, look at how they'e telling you to be dishonest" etc. I can understand that, but I also understand what it takes/means to hustle as a startup. I'm not saying what they're doing is right, but that their runway might be thinning out and they are resorting to tactics such as this to cut costs. End of the day, it's your call, the recruiter will hopefully help other candidates and get by. My feeling is this happens more often than we think..

It's a gray area.

Recruiter could have forced you into their lap, even when they didn't agree to pay his fees. The company itself did benefit from his service but doesn't want to compensate for it.

Ideally, the recruiter should get some token fee. It might be 10x smaller than what he normally charges, but some fee.

But it's not your problem. I would take the job and just convince them to pay the recruiter something.

Is this moral? No. You already know that. ("I would normally not do business with such a company.")

Is this legal? Probably not. The company is trying to get out of a contract, not by finding a legal flaw, but by trying to not let the other side know that the contract's terms have actually triggered.

Also note that they're telling you (at least) two conflicting stories about why they don't have to pay the recruiter. Also note that they aren't willing to actually tell any of those stories to the recruiter, preferring to hide that they are hiring someone the recruiter presented.

And, fair warning: If this company is willing to screw the recruiter, they're willing to screw you. No matter how badly you really need a job right now, think hard about whether you're willing to walk into this snake pit.

And, another warning: IANAL, and I don't even play one on HN, but you may be exposing yourself to legal problems if you go along with this scheme.

> The company is trying to get out of a contract, not by finding a legal flaw, but by trying to not let the other side know that the contract's terms have actually triggered.

From the excuses the company is giving (presuming truthfulness from a company that seems to be anything but), there was never a contract between either party with the recruiter. There may have been a more formalized verbal agreement, but if the terms of the recruitment fee weren't disclosed until after the interviewing process, it sounds like there wasn't much more than a "Yea, I'd be interested in talking to your candidate" from the cold call. In that case, I can feel sympathetic to the company not wanting to pay a rip-off rate that wasn't ever agreed to, even if they had intention to pay a market rate until the recruiter tried to rip them off.

That said, it sounds like an issue between the company and the recruiter. To the OP: the recruiter found your information before, it'll be just as easy for them to see when you switch jobs. At which point the recruiter is going to take issue with your company, regardless of if you told the recruiter anything. So I'd accept the offer, not tell the recruiter, and let those parties deal with the fallout between themselves. If you talk to the recruiter again, just tell them that you have a job now and if he asks where, tell him that you're not allowed to disclose that information. He'll figure it out quickly, but you'll have kept your agreement with the company.

For what it's worth, the agreement (or lack of) is between the company and the recruiter. It's none of your business! If asked about it by either party, I would refer them to the other party and simply state you have no authority on the matter.

The employer is the recruiter's client, not yours. You don't work for the recruiter. You are the asset in this equation.

Personally, I would take the job and let things play out between the recruiter and employer. You said yourself you're struggling to find work. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Is it legal? You are acting legally. It's none of your business if the employer is or isn't. Is it moral? Nothing you are doing is immoral. You have fulfilled your obligation by only allowing the recruiter to represent you for the role. It is a disappointing situation. Not immoral!

This trips my bullshit detector:

> They never signed an agreement with the recruiter in the first place, he cold called them with my resume.

No, the recruiter cold called them, sent them a contract, received a signed copy, THEN sent your resume to them. This is the ONLY reason new potential employer wants you to lie.

For myself, I know if an employee will lie for me, they will lie to me. In your position I would view it as a test to see if I’m a liar, and set up the win/win. Either I pass the test, or I am rejected by a sociopath boss who will lie to me and rip me off. Because know this, bad actors try to lure you into a false sense of security...”I would never do that to you” they say. The truth is, their behavior is not victim-dependent. Their behavior lies in wait and when the opportunity arises, they will do that to you too.

Unless there was a contract signed between the company and recruiter, I don't see a moral issue with it. He was spamming them with resumes (that apparently he took from elsewhere, since you've never heard of him).

If I were the company I wouldn't want to do business with a spammy rent-seeking recruiter like that either.

Wow, you're reading a lot into this situation that wasn't stated.

Not sure of the facts in this particular case but here are some general rules IMO:

Companies should have a policy of rejecting unsolicited resume’ from recruiters.

A recruiter shouldn’t lie about working with a company when they actually aren’t.

Why job seekers should care: If spammy recruiter “A” sends your unsolicited resume’ to a company, and spammy recruiter “B” or good recruiter “C” does the same, what does the company do? (A) Pay both recruiters or (B) throw out your resume’ to avoid the hassle?

Rather than judging, I'll try a different tack: the company can only offer you a single job, with them, and you have already seen evidence of their behaviour. The recruiter has already found you this position and may well be able to find you others, with more scrupulous employers. I am sure that they will be grateful for your honesty.

Just run. If the company didn’t want to pay a recruiter they shouldn’t have used one. And if they’re going to try to screw the recruiter they shouldn’t involve you. Just think of what it says about their morality and what they’ll do to screw you as well. You’d be better off driving uber for money.

> I received an offer, and the company asked me not to tell the recruiter...

Accept the offer (cheerfully), and ask the company to make this situation right with the recruiter.

You get a job, the company gets an employee, the recruiter gets a 'modest fee' for fostering the match. Everybody wins!

It is legal; ethical, if you are desperate for that job; unethical, if you have a decent job. Basically, it is all about your circumstances, the context between the company and the recruiter.

This tells you much about the company and it's ethical culture. It also points to their cluelessness about potential legal and reputational risk.

Run away...

I don't think we have enough info. Can you add detail to "it wasn't disclosed until after the interviewing took place"?

Seems strange. I wouldn´t do it because of fairness. If my company cheats on their recruiter, they´ll also gonna cheat on me.

My personal highlights:

> he cold called them with my resume

> Not even sure where he found my name in the first place

> I only became aware of this company via this recruiter

> His finder's fee is very high, and it wasn't disclosed until after the interviewing took place.

This sounds like one of those LinkedIn/Dice recruiters who messages/emails you out of nowhere trying to pressure you into a job for their precious "finders fee". Also, the recruiter seems to have not had any prior contact with the company before and is trying to pressure the both of you into payment.

IIRC, this is why most job apps have "NO RECRUITERS" in big bold print on the applications. I'm surprised that the employer even offered to interview you knowing that the recruiter cold contacted you both.

> They never signed an agreement with the recruiter in the first place, he cold called them with my resume. Likewise, I never signed any agreement with this recruiter.

This is the most important part. If nothing was signed, then nothing can be truly enforced. So OP/the company could get away with not talking to the recruiter anymore since there's nothing to enforce payment of the finder's fee. That being said, the recruiter could become very evil if he/she finds out his payment isn't coming (threatening, even).

I personally spent a year out of work after college and learned the hard way just how low the bar is for someone to call themselves a technical recruiter. After creating an account on Dice, I was called daily for months about "technical opportunities" by recruiting firms with hastily put together websites and disconnected phone numbers (as well as the occasional McDonalds as their listed address). Now that I'm on the job market again, I'm having to be very careful about what sites I use and what information I leave online.

Bottom line about OP's situation: RUN AWAY. Although it is legal for you to cut him/her off since nothing was signed, the scammer (let's call this recruiter for what he/she really is) would probably start threatening OP, the employer, and their respective families. This guy is nothing but scum, and is a huge reason why people have trouble finding good jobs. The fact that you were actually interviewed is also a red flag since it illustrates that the company has no idea how to handle these sorts of "recruiters". It's possible that they're trying to be nice to you. But, based on personal experience, they're usually hiding something as well (but that's another story for another super long HN post).

TL;DR: Both OP and the employer are being scammed. OP needs to run away now before it gets worse.

Not a "traditional" book (although there are pirated PDFs and ebook versions of it out there), but the Worm Web Serial is absolutely amazing.

Alternate reality where superheroes and villains are common, but told from the perspective of different heroes and villains. Also, it goes really deep into the Universe's logic and science around how powers function and intermingle with each other, their origin, and most importantly, what the experience is like to actually USE the powers by those that have them.

It is also quite long--I've heard it is longer than all the Harry Potter books combined. I was sad when it ended though.

https://parahumans.wordpress.com/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com