I'm happy with your candor, at the same time you're displaying just about every trait that makes me loathe recruiters. It's refreshing to have this so out in the open, a bit like an SEO expert giving you the inside of his mind.

Someone's current salary is none of your business, it's that simple and as a block of reasonably intelligent professionals we could simply all agree to never supply that information to the company hiring.

Note that almost all of the risk at the time of a job change is already born by the employee, the employer using a recruiter is actively looking to dislodge employees elsewhere and has a few tools at his/her disposal to effect this.

Since recruiters are paid by the future employer they should be considered an extension of that employer and in no way are they to be taken to be independents or objective, their job is simply to dislodge you for the minimum amount required.

If you want to know that your employer and the candidate are on the same page then why don't you, the person initiating the contact disclose the range of salary offered plus or minus 10% so the prospective employee can decide whether or not you're on the same page? That's because you'd like to snag them for a little bit over what they are currently making, and you'd be happier if you could deliver a 'gem' well under the budget your employer has set aside. You might even get a bonus for that.

If 95% of your software engineering candidates have no qualms about sharing their salary then that is what should change if you continue to game the process by asking such questions. What a software engineer makes is their private information, and asking for it is just another means of price-fixing between employers.

And those candidates that challenge that requirement are not more trouble then they're worth, they are the only ones that apparently understand your game enough to not be easy marks and that is why you feel they are more trouble than they are worth because it isn't easy money.

Interesting response. Loathe recuiters? Let's take it easy on the echo chamber cliche here. Yeah, lots of bad apples out there, but ask any reasonable professional: a good recruiter is extremely valuable.

You did forget that there are 2 types of recruiters: agency (outside) and corporate (inside).

I, the agency recruiter, do not want to "dislodge" the candidate for the minimum amount required. Not because my fee will be higher with a greater salary, but because I'm actually incentivized to do what is best for both the employer & employee. This is called sales. When you do good by all parties to the transaction, it pays dividends long-term.

So, no, we're not trying to "snag" them. I appreciate your paranoia, as you're not alone; many people dealing with bad recruiters probably need to vent.

But for the most part, your perception of the recruiting industry is different from the reality.

You did not reply to @jacquesm 's post. If you want to make sure the salary expectations from the applicant and the employer, you only have to

1. tell the employee what salary range the employer is willing offer, or 2. ask the applicant for their desired salary level.

The current salary is NOT your business. If the applicant earns 1x salary now and wants 2x salary and decide to look for a new job that offers that, how does it help the applicant to tell the recruiter that he earns 1x in his current job? You basically ask the employee to play a cards game but have them all in the open for you.

"This is called sales". Yeah, involving an engineer lacking any business skills and two weasels.

> Interesting response. Loathe recuiters? Let's take it easy on the echo chamber cliche here.

That's my personal opinion based on personal experience. Feel free to attribute it to others but the echo chamber does not factor in there unless you wish to consider my office part of the echo chamber.

> Yeah, lots of bad apples out there,

Present company, as always, excluded.

> but ask any reasonable professional: a good recruiter is extremely valuable.

A good recruiter is a good recruiter for their paymaster. I've yet to see 'reverse headhunting' where you submit your resume to a recruiter and they then go out to find the best possible position for you. So for now recruiters are exclusively working for companies looking to employ people.

> You did forget that there are 2 types of recruiters: agency (outside) and corporate (inside).

I've dealt with both, neither group to date has me particularly impressed. And I've dealt with them both as an employer and as someone who somehow made it onto the list of recruiters. Clueless wouldn't begin to describe them, they used to have a joke saying that 'those who can do, and those who can't teach', you could probably amend that with 'and those that can't teach recruit' and it wouldn't be too far off the mark.

> I, the agency recruiter, do not want to "dislodge" the candidate for the minimum amount required. Not because my fee will be higher with a greater salary, but because I'm actually incentivized to do what is best for both the employer & employee.

And what is that?

> This is called sales.

I don't particularly care about what you call it, to me it felt more like interacting with a class of buzz-word wielding vultures trying to make money from placing people based on an extremely limited understanding of what makes the tech world tick.

There are multiple ways to make money in any industry: you either dig for gold, you sell shovels to the miners or, in the case of the recruiters, you sell the miners to the mining company.

> When you do good by all parties to the transaction, it pays dividends long-term.

Yes, I'm sure it does. In the long term your loyalty has to lie with your repeat customer, the corporation that hires you. Since you are not going to get any repeat business from the individuals that you've placed (unless you're willing to risk that long term relationship, but there are plenty of other recruiters that will be more than happy to play the game again).

> So, no, we're not trying to "snag" them.

Said the fox to the chicken.

> I appreciate your paranoia, as you're not alone; many people dealing with bad recruiters probably need to vent.

So, many people dealing with bad recruiters on the one hand..

> But for the most part, your perception of the recruiting industry is different from the reality.

And yet my perception is different from reality. That's an interesting concept but I can't fit both of those into my head without significant cognitive dissonance.

Either my experiences match those of others and the venting has - as you apparently confirm - a basis in fact or my perception (and by extension that of all the others complaining about their experiences with recruiters) is wrong. You can't have it both ways.

And you conveniently forgot to address the main point I made and instead latched on to my 'perception issues'.

First, I already addressed the main salary point in my original post. I don't need to respond to every random who wants to poke holes. I will address a couple issues you brought up in your reply. Just like I don't presume I know more about software engineering than my candidates, I trust you'll defer to someone who knows recruiting.

--I've yet to see 'reverse headhunting' where you submit your resume to a recruiter and they then go out to find the best possible position for you.

Yeah, this exists - they're "agents" for software engineers (for example). But it's rare and not sustainable.

---In the long term your loyalty has to lie with your repeat customer, the corporation that hires you. Since you are not going to get any repeat business from the individuals that you've placed (unless you're willing to risk that long term relationship, but there are plenty of other recruiters that will be more than happy to play the game again).

You forgot one thing: reputation. If you do best by your client AND candidate, then your candidate sends your referrals, eventually comes to you when he/she becomes a hiring manager, etc.

---I don't particularly care about what you call it, to me it felt more like interacting with a class of buzz-word wielding vultures trying to make money from placing people based on an extremely limited understanding of what makes the tech world tick.

I've heard this before, usually from less level-headed software engineers. Like I said, sales is a different business - we do different things than you guys. I have repeatedly watched as techies have tried and failed to transition into recruiting. There is an extremely low correlation between tech savvy & recruiting success. Recruiting is a people business.

The underlying theme here, again, is that you're lumping every recruiter into your personal bad experiences - like I already said, some are good. That's not a valid approach in this situation.

You pretty clearly don't know to whom you were replying so your language ends up looking a little off. If you're going to come pick a fight in HN, you could probably make a better choice as to who to pick it with.

> 1) Why would I waste the candidate or the client/employer's time if there's too large a gap between candidate's salary & their highest potential for this role?

It's trivial to solve this problem for a recruiter by simply stating the company budget range upfront. The problem is that recruiters want the client to give up their information without revealing any of their. That is where the asymmetry of information come into play and engineers end up getting the short end of the negotiation.

> These candidates that challenge this minor issue end up being more trouble than they're worth in other ways too; it's a red flag.

Speaking of red flags: organizations that think people who have basic negotiation skill are too much trouble to work with.