Hacker News Reader

Comment by a2tech | Hacker News Reader

I don’t think this is uncommon—in fact I think it’s the way many recruiters work.

Hence why most companies don't accept placements by recruiters unless it's the one they specifically hired for the job

Unfortunately recruiters lie about "exclusivity" as well.

About a year ago I was on the job market and multiple recruiters reached out to me with the exact same job listing, just with the company name removed. All of them claimed to have an exclusive relationship with the company and they were working directly with the hiring manager. With 5 minutes of Googling I found the original position and the company that posted it.

Do they get penalized if they present a candidate for the job and the company says "No recruiters" and they remove the candidate from their candidate pool?

penalized by who? It works enough that tech recruiters and their agencies make a lot of money. If there is no agreement between the company and the recruiter the company is free to contact that applicant themselves. The recruiter will usually hide the contact information of the applicant for this reason.

Enough hiring companies only care about getting a seemingly qualified applicant in for an interview and will ignore what ever shady things recruiters do.

He's asking if he, as a candidate, will get blackballed by the company if a recruiter submits his resume. I think you're assuring him he will not.

Nowadays you can often use a search with some text from the ad to figure out who the real company is. Though who would bother?

I do that every time a recruiter cold calls me about an opportunity without mentioning the company, if the opportunity sounds interesting.

> Though who would bother?

It takes like four seconds.

Who would bother to find out who the company they would be working for is? Who wouldn't?

I do that to find out who the company is. It's usually a better way to find out how much they pay than the recruiter is. Too often recruiters try to avoid telling me either item.

I would love to do business directly with the company, but often they don't reach out to me, while these intermediary recruiters do. I guess the value of recruiters is that they reach out to companies and to developers, and they connect the two.

Recruiters who merely repost the same listing that the company posted without adding any value, deserve to go out of business. Mind you, if every listing contained the hourly rate or pay range, they'd have a much harder time inserting themselves where they don't belong.

recruiters have all kinds of shady tactics.

A friend asked me if he could use me as a reference, and I said sure.

A few days later I got a call asking about my friend, and I readily engaged because I took being a reference seriously. As we were winding up, he suddenly asked if I was looking for a position. I then began to realize it was the recruiter - who was recruiting off the reference list of my friend. I was gracious (but pissed off, because I think the whole thing might have not been about my friend but recruiting).

And many real estate agents, and sadly perhaps more occupations.

This is simply wrong, and any real estate agent caught doing this would lose their real estate license and might even face criminal charges (depending on jurisdiction).

In a nutshell: a real state agent is an agent, which has a specific legal meaning and legal requirements, and that relationship can't just be hijacked by posting someone else's listing.

How is that how real estate agents work? The seller signs an agreement outlining compensation with a real estate agent before any work is done.

Realtors certainly will try to get you to sign an exclusivity contract as early as possible. But if you don’t sign, most will show you homes for free. Agents will talk about it like you don’t have a choice to get you to sign, though. Personally, I’d at least demand that such a contract include a cash rebate for a portion of any fees the realtor earns, and I’d want it to be limited to the transaction on a particular home. I wouldn’t sign anything that prohibits me from working with other agents on other purchases.

Not engaging a buyer's agent via a contract is a mistake, but few people understand that. If you have no buyer's agent contract, then guess who you are dealing with? The seller's agent! Yes, that very friendly person that is driving you around to see homes, who listens to your negotiating strategy, your maximum price, and your other sensitive information, is bound by agency law and their state license board to share every detail with ... the seller and their agents. (Why? Because the seller is paying all the agents.) Oh, but you say, your nice agent would not do that! Well, let's say they don't do that. Then you have what is called "undisclosed dual agency", and that gives the seller and/or you a cause of action in court. All these agency options are explained in detail in that pamphlet they shove at you on first contact, but almost no one reads or understands.

>most will show you homes for free

I'm still looking for that real estate agent that does anything "for free".

-Some- realtors will. The best ones won't; they know they're offering you more than Zillow. When I bought, our realtor was constantly hounding the seller's realtor and our own financing company to move the process forward, as well as proactively reaching out to answer our questions and in general help us feel good about the process. She also returned texts and calls promptly, and she had an arrangement with an extremely good independent home inspector, plus pretty much every kind of contractor we could need for improvements; everyone she put us in touch with was amazing. She didn't ask for exclusivity, and she absolutely didn't need it.

Meanwhile in the past when we were looking, a mediocre one tried to get us to sign an exclusivity deal that we'd agree to use him until we chose to cancel (no stipulations there at least, though legally I don't know if he could have, but still, into perpetuity unless we canceled) for -any house in the entire state-.

I was told this by a realtor once.

A real estate agent might repost an owner's ad for an apartment, and earn a broker's fee from the renter when the apartment is rented

I have only dealt with agents for apartment rentals in NYC, and there, the landlord hires the agent and agrees to pay them a fee, just like a house seller would agree to.

If neither a renter or the landlord have an agreement to pay an agent, why would the agent be owed any money?

In Mass, it's the renter that pays the fee.

In NYC, the renter usually pays the fee too, but that is simply part of the rental agreement from the landlord.

The person that agreed to pay agent is still the landlord. In times when supply of apartments exceeds demand from renters, landlords have to pay the agent from their pocket.

But the point is that in all cases, someone agreed to pay an agent. The agent did not simply materialize and obtained a right to collect money from someone.

That's not how the multiple listing systems work in the US real estate market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com