Hacker News Reader

Comment by cerved | Hacker News Reader

They're not saying the company name because they don't want you going there directly and applying without them getting their hefty bonus

View on HN

> They're not saying the company name because they don't want you going there directly and applying without them getting their hefty bonus

Of course, but I'm not sure why that is my problem. Does the company want good people, or just the best they can afford after recruiter fees? If the recruiter can talk the talk, I'll hang with them vs going direct, and they will get the commission. If not, they won't get the placement anyway. They would be better off telling me the company and making a case for themselves why I should work with them (dealing with salary negotiation etc) vs hiding details and ending up up with me bailing early on the opportunity. The typical approach is short-sighted imo.

For legal reasons, if a company receives a resume for a given person from 2 sources, it tosses them all and marks you as a no hire.

When 2 recruiters sends in your info, the company does not know whom to compensate. They have been sued for this. 15 years ago, the common practice, because lawsuits and fraud are expensive, it was safer to pass on the candidate.

It looks to me like another incentive to avoid recruiters as much as you can.

Getting your application thrown away because you happened to postulate a the company the recruiter didn't disclose you is just horrible.

Good form, is for the recruiter to tell you before they submit, so you can de conflict. Specifically tell them you are working with more than one recruiter, and need to avoid problems.

Between a recruiter and me submitting, I prefer the recruiter, as they should be pushing to get the job, its in their interest. If I get the job, it is no skin off of me.

There's a technique I've experimented with over the past 2 years that seems to cut through some of these cloak-and-dagger games.

State that you want to conduct your own research into the company first, and that by hiding the name they are coming off as unprofessional. To avoid the questions on conflict and timing, add this note: "You can use the this message and its timestamp as a proof of first contact."

Some come back with actual details. Always be kind and courteous with them.

Nonetheless, what I wrote back in 2014 still holds true: https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/pages/recruiter-anxiety.ht...

Why’d I do that? What do I care if they get a bunch of money when I’m hired.

The money on the other side is ‘finite’. You could go direct and suggest getting a signing bonus instead of the recruiter getting 20-25% of your first annual salary.

I’m currently hiring for a bunch of roles and recruiters are aggressively reaching out that they “have the perfect candidate for your vacancy”. Even though I’m looking for experienced ML specialists and they’re offering someone with 1 year of Java CRUD app experience… they’re playing the numbers game on both sides of the market.

Then they should negotiate that they get the signing bonus if they make the referral, whether or not they're involved in the rest of the process.

That would only encourage them to spam the job at everyone who has the faintest glimmer of a chance of getting the job. Which is kind of what they do now..

This is still sort of bananas to me. I can't imagine applying to a company without... Well, knowing and investigating the company. How early in the process is this information normally revealed?

In my experience, you submit your resume to the recruiter, they pass it on to the company, and if the company wants to go further, the recruiter will give you the details.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com