Comment by larkost | Hacker News Reader

Comment by larkost | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It is ok that you did not feel comfortable with that, but pay negotiations are exactly why you would want to have a recruiter: they handle that for you, and are generally incentivized to get you as much money as they can since they generally get a percentage of your yearly salary as their pay. So by telling the recruiter you were not going to share that with them you were hamstringing them... of course they thought you were a bad candidate (for them).

It is a bit petty that they told the company that you were a poor candidate, but you seem to not understand what was happening. And it could have been they had already mentioned your name to them, and then had to explain why they suddenly were not representing you. I don't know, but that is a reasonable explanation.

I personally have had a mixed bag with recruiters: many I have dealt with are worthless in that they don't understand the jobs they are recruiting for (so give very bad matches to both sides), but I have been lucky twice and had recruiters give me great jobs and handle the pay negotiations so well that I probably got $20-40K/year more than I would have by myself (if I had somehow found those positions).

>and are generally incentivized to get you as much money as they can since they generally get a percentage of your yearly salary as their pay

This is not quite true. They're optimizing for throughput, not max dollar value. If they optimized for the maximum amount of money they could get you that would come at the cost of their time which would lower their throughput of placing candidates and hence the maximum amount of money that they can personally earn in aggregate.

They'll still try to spin you that line though.

The only reason a recruiter would ever negotiate your comp up is that you are asking way below market. Then they will indeed "negotiate" up to the lowest bound of the comp band for the position. Otherwise, it makes no sense to try to get a few grand more in commission at the cost of risking the whole placement. In fact, all recruiters I've ever worked with tried to negotiate me down instead of negotiating with the HM on my behalf.

So the only good candidates for a recruiter are the ones willing to let their recruiter break the law and make a salary history a requirement for consideration?

WA state law makes it very clear as a candidate I don’t need to share salary information, and by some readings of the statute it’s illegal for them to even ask.

My most recent job is at a very large public company where the salaries are well published (levels.fyi) - there was no need for me to give a detailed salary history of all my recent jobs.

If the value-add of a recruiter is getting a better negotiated salary, what is the value-minus of putting another point of failure between me and a job I want. Surely it’s possible that over time the minuses are greater than the pluses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com