Slashdot Mirror
Tech Recruiters Defend 'Blacklists,' Lack of Feedback, Screening Techniques
Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes Remember when executives at Apple, Google, and other firms "fixed" the market for highly skilled tech workers by agreeing not to steal each other's employees? That little incident made a lot of people think about the true modus operandi of corporate and third-party tech recruiters. Dice sat down with some of those recruiters, who talked about everything from "no poaching" tactics to the "blacklist" that exists for candidates who make boneheaded mistakes in interviews. The bottom line? Recruiters seem to pass the blame for some of the industry's most egregious errors on "junior recruiters and agencies," while insisting that their goal in life is to get you a job. How does that align with your experience?
From my experience, the boneheads were almost exclusively in the HR agencies. And that's a light term for fucking-unbelievable-idiots. I have tons of incompetence-filled horror stories. Techies (anything from coders to any branch of engineering), IMHO, should only be recruited by their peers. Period.
Recruiters (in general, I have known a couple of good ones) are in my opinion the absolute scum of the earth, complete parasites. They rarely have a clue what they are talking about in terms of tech skills, and will try and shoehorn you into any job as long as they get their commission. Just a useless middleman.
Recruiters, right after realtors and used car salespeople, are my least favorite people in the world. They rarely help you, instead they frequently impede and often profit off your risks and successes.
Fortunately, technology now allows you to bypass these people. LinkedIn allows you to directly apply to companies, without having to go through recruiters. Even small companies that normally wouldn't have online application process.
I work for a tech company that, for exactly this reason, tends to hire people who've never recruited before into its recruiting group -- that way, they're less likely to be broken (we also consider hiring managers responsible for recruiting, and recruiters don't have any technical conversations with candidates).
That said, I'm not all that opposed to blacklists, and I know that we use them ourselves. If you interview with us and make profoundly idiotic statements (I was once in a hiring loop where the candidate told the recruiter, an Asian-American woman, that he'd never hire an Asian woman because they're too diffident. After a moment's pause, he then amended to note that it wasn't that he was sexist -- he wouldn't hire an Asian-American man, either) I don't see a huge reason why we'd want to bring you in, ever again, for another position.
(Anti-poaching agreements, though, are just evil)
Their job is not to screw up. That means they have to take the SAFE choices.
Companies dislike training. They would rather hire someone who already has all the named skills to do the job. So they go looking for that.
The problem is that those named skills? The reason they are named is that they have classes to teach you them.
What corporations usually really want and need are those qualities and un-named nebulous skill that can not be taught. They are not named because their are no classes, because they can't be taught in anything less than years. Or they are innate qualities - like intelligence and creativity - that people are born with.
As a direct result, recruiters go looking for the one thing they should NOT look for - the people that have the sills that can be taught. All the time ignoring the qualities and skills that can not be taught.
As for messing up an interview - that is just plain bad luck. You get sick, you have a bad day, etc.
Recruiters are a necessary part of a very flawed system. But they did not create the system, they merely try to make money satisfying the system.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Since we have DICE in this discussion, why don't you fix it? If DICE is our friend and helping us to get a job, you could very easily change the rules to make this more worker friendly. There are only really 2 job sites, Monster and DICE. Why doesn't DICE get together with Monster and agree on some changes.
#1. require salary info in the job posting. It's insulting and dishonest to allow employers to not even bother telling us what they're willing to pay until after the interview process.
#2. require employers to assert that they don't use blacklists and no poaching agreements or risk losing access to your services.
Alternatively, maybe we the workers should setup our own employment site that does protect us and then refuse to use sites like DICE and Monster. We have the power, it's our laziness that allows them to continue abusing us.
The best signs I've seen that a recruiter is quality are:
They don't call during the workday
They don't spam you with every gig they have available that you match a keyword search for
They don't push back on when high salary requirements are communicated
Those would seem to be three pretty simple signs, but it's amazing how many recruiters fail those tests, ESPECIALLY the third sign, which is arguably the most important.
See, with open floor plans abound, calling me during the workday assures that I'm not going to get to talk to you (and everyone suspects the person stepping away from his desk all the time to take calls of looking for a new gig). The spray-and-pray recruiting method tells me that you don't give a crap about actually mapping people to jobs, you just want as many "sales" as possible.
Finally, any recruiter that pushes back on pay requirements is afraid of losing their entire commission by having what seems to be a good match go up in flames over the candidate going for top dollar -- after all, they don't have an incentive to get you the best possible salary they can (even though they'l all say that), but they have the incentive to get you to accept an offer as fast as possible to bring in a constant stream of commissions. Negotiations falling apart over, say, asking for $160,000/yr rather than settling for $150,000/yr means that if they're seeing a 5 percent commission on first year's salary, means they're risking $7,500 to push for your extra ten grand, which only gets them another $500 if successful.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke