How do you guys look for new jobs nowadays?
I want to know where to go and browse to see what jobs are out there.
15 years ago, the job boards were 95%+ headhunters.
Now, the job boards are 95%+ headhunters who speak with an Indian accent.
May 18th, 2017 9:46pm
Mostly LinkedIn. Also eFinancialCareers but it's a bit of a cesspit.
LinkedIn works by barraging you with messages from recruiters all year long. I start responding to them when I begin looking for a new job.
+1 FSK. Everything is headhunters still, only now it's mainly Indian headhunters. And still fake/vague jobs with dozens of requirements and no indicator of who the company is.
So with American unemployment down around 4.5%, why is this even an issue anymore?
In quant trading, the problem is companies with no intention to hire anyone, but inviting people for interviews to fish for information.
I was thinking on a job board that offers the employers the chance to hire directly and eliminate the intermediary (recruiter).
But common sense tells me that I can't be the first and only guy to have thought about it and if employers wanted to hire directly, they'd do it already.
Which brings the question? But why?! That's a complete different universe than what I get here where recruiters are practically non-existent. With the inverse common-sense problem, it's not like they didn't try or are trying to be. So the question is why companies here don't want to go through recruiters and prefer to hire directly, while it's exactly the opposite on the Western side.
The only explanation I get is to avoid being bombarded by 1,000,000 millions of CVs from the (far) East :D
" So the question is why companies here don't want to go through recruiters and prefer to hire directly,"
Because it's cheaper.
"while it's exactly the opposite on the Western side."
Because it's more convenient for them.
Recruitment agencies in the UK typically charge 15 - 20% of the annual salary of a candidate.
Been a long time since I was job searching but I found companies use recruiters to cover their ass.
If they end up hiring a shithead, "not my faulty the recruiter recommended him".
Bullshit, I've been involved in recruitment several times over the years, you can blame the agency if the guy in the interview is shit, if you hire him it's all on you.
- filter out obvious dunces, at a cost of possibly filtering out useful but non-standard candidates as well, but if the final pool of candidates is good enough, the employers don't really care
- allow the application of non-PC hiring criteria without exposing the employer to legal risk
- make offer negotiations easier and less contentious by being an intermediary between the candidate and the company (e.g. they can tell either party they're being a jerk by demanding X *before* the other party hears it)
- shield the company from candidates who don't take being rejected well
- by being able to match any candidate with any firm (within the constraints described above) they widen the pool of candidates they can draw from as compared with in-house recruiters
- they can "push" for the hiring process to continue to prevent it from stalling in away which doesn't make either the candidate or the company to lose face
- they are a convenient scapegoat in case something stupid happens --- again, by taking the blame they prevent either the candidate or the company from losing face