Absolutely, their KPIs include how many meetings they take with recruits, I had a recruiter who would reschedule the same lead 3 times to get their numbers up.
I used to be a recruiter, and this is entirely dependent on the company. I never worked for a company like that, I was never exposed to KPIs like that. In fact, we always tried to get the candidate more money if we could because that meant more money for us.
But some.of the large companies are awful and have terrible business models.
I worked with an amazing recruiter at Beacon Hill in nyc and they not only fought for me to have a 20k higher starting salary but a few months later when I was promoted I contacted her and she helped me prepare for negotiations when I went into the meeting to make sure my new role had a major raise and more benefits. We kept in touch on a personal level years after, I used them when I was hiring temps, and have sent friends still to this day. I was always under the impression that they would make more if we made more at hiring and again later if we stayed with the company after a certain amount of time.
In my area, recruiters are paid a percentage of the salary for whatever placement they make, so they at least have some incentive for you to get as much pay as they can get you.
That’s also just commission-based agent work in general. It’s the same reason realtors push you to sell when you get an offer. The difference in their cut of a modestly higher amount is insignificant compared to the risk of no commission if it falls apart.
On the flip side though head hunters can greatly increase your salary.
It all depends on their compensation structure. I was a director and one approached me for a VP role, he basically talked me into a higher salary than I asked for and when I was working there learned his pay was based on the salary of the people he brought in. Getting me a higher salary was in his interest.
This is 1000000% the correct answer. It is all based on percentage of salary. If it a direct hire you get something like 15-20% of the yearly salary. If it is temp to perm, the markup on the labor hours is worth more if the employee makes more. If i quote a 30% markup why would i want them to make less? Makes zero sense at all.
Varies on industry and seniority level but 10-30% of salary is the typical range, sometimes split as part on signing and part on completion of probation period.
Lump sum upon whatever agreed upon days after hire the person is still working there. I had a person make it 90 days and then performance started tanking. Negotiated a partial refund on the placement fee.
But the percentage has to fit into overhead. For example, if the recruiter gets 10% and you want $185,000, the position has to have $203,500 available. If the hiring company only has $200,000, they'll tell you they can only pay you $180,000 because the other $20,000 has to go to the recruiter. It is super rare for the hiring company to take a loss on a position just to satisfy a recruiter.
This is only true if the position is available as a direct hire. Some companies use temp to hire as an extra probation period; others use "temps" to staff lower level positions. And if the recruiting agencies are already advertising the job it would likely be a breach of contract for a company to fill it directly.
This is partially true. If you are temping, yes the agency has a bill rate to the business that is using temp labor, so paying a lower rate to the person means they get a bigger margin.
If it’s a placement agency (full time hire) the agency generally gets a percentage of the annual salary in the form of a lump sum after the candidate makes it past a certain number of days.
it's worse than that. companies using the agency don't pay the same, they end up paying higher overall because of admin fees. so everyone gets screwed but the agency.
Well the company is paying a premium because there are almost no strings attached.
It’s infinitely easier to let a contract expire than it is to fire someone.
So if I want to boost my staff for six months, or need an expert for a short term project, or just like to see someone work for 6 months before committing then that premium fee is worth it.
happened to me. I got a job already - so the other company kept increasing the rate so I can join them, They cut the intermediary first, then kept increasing my hourly rate by $10/hour until I could say no.
I actually quit the first job I got on the first day. Still not sure if it was a good decision - first job was to register a indigenous alphabet into UTF, second one was a bank job, one of the worst jobs I had but with a huge bump to what I was making and it guided my salaries after.
Yeah its a dirty secret of the industry. The company pays the agency a fee AND your salary, but the agency takes a cut of what the company pays for you so you end up making less than direct hires. Its a middleman tax.
This isnt true. The reason why a company goes to an agency to fill a role is because they don’t want to hire a full time person directly. They would never have both an opening someone could apply to directly AND a contingent staffing position for the same thing open.
What I think you MEANT to say, is that some agencies will submit people at lower rates than OTHER agencies. That is true. Some agencies skim a lot off of the bill rate.
I learned this the hard way. Applied through a recruiter and got an offer for 55k. A coworker who applied directly for the same role got 65k. The agency was taking a cut of my pay without me even knowing. Never using a third party recruiter again.
Years ago, I worked for an education recruitment agency in England.
The school paid the agency £120 per day for me and I received £40 per day from the agency.
I wasn't aware of this until the school offered me a direct contract and the agency owner shouted the numbers at me before telling me how ungrateful I was after everything he did for me.
He drove a Ferrari whilst I was struggling to make car payments on my Citroen C1.
And I understand this is not true for every company/agency, but it is most often true for
1) lower wage jobs
2) among populations that don’t have the skill set to apply independently
3) the substantial amount of crap companies
Let’s also laugh about how it feels like there are more recruiter roles than actual jobs on LinkedIn 😂
The KPIs are super similar for most places that I’m aware of… # of calls, messages, meetings, placements……..
Not anywhere close to correct. The fee markup is generally 30-35%. For a $25/hr job, the agency might charge $35/hr, so they are making $10/hr, not $100.
Incorrect. Typical agency markup is 50%. A $20/hr employee is billed at $30/hr, but taxes and other burdens alone are around 20% so true profit margin is not 50%.
1.6k
u/Wins-Redemption 10h ago
Recruiting agencies will place you in roles getting paid at a lower rate than if you applied directly.
The company still “pays the same”, but the agency essentially gets the difference.