Give ne back my hat!

Generic recruiter email response

Here's what I'm replying lately to the offers I'm getting from recruiters:

Hi Generic Recruiter Name,

thanks for your offer. Since I'm currently employed at a rate of $X / hour, I'm available for interviewing at an overtime rate of 2 * $X / hour with a minimum of one hour.

As long as you're paying me this rate I'm happy to do any sort of whiteboard, hacker rank, clever puzzles, whatever type of tests where the interviewer about whose qualifications I don't know anything is evaluating all my skill and experience through the prism of the five problems he knows by heart since he repeated them some 257 times before me on candidates who were most likely not capable of evaluating the worthiness of their time. Since the likely outcome of these interviews is not even the courtesy of a feedback, I can no longer afford to waste my valuable time unless I'm payed at least at the rate that my employer considers me fit for.

So my time is valuable and interviewing with your client means work I'm not performing for another one. Therefore if your client considers my experience + vouch of my current employer is enough to warrant 2 * $X / hour with a minimum of one hour, then I'm happy to interview with them.

Attach you can find my updated CV.

Best regards,
Io.
Permalink Io 
December 4th, 2017 10:13am
“Payed” is incorrect
Permalink Stupid guy 
December 4th, 2017 10:19am
Have you gotten a single reply??
(Even counting replies like "Go to hell?")
Permalink Morons 
December 4th, 2017 10:21am
True, the word is 'paid'.

(English isn't very logical, sorry).

...unless you're talking about ropes.


Regarding the sentiments of your post:

I've tried stuff like this in the past, it makes you feel better momentarily, but long term you just get ignored.
Permalink Zaq 
December 4th, 2017 10:25am
Well, I don't give a fuck at the moment. I'm employed, I'm in the process of starting my own business and I can find another job in an instant through my network, or in about two weeks by cold calling on Romanian market. So really, this is the most sensible answer I can give at the moment.
Permalink Io 
December 4th, 2017 10:30am
And you know, “In the long run we are all dead”.
Permalink Io 
December 4th, 2017 10:31am
I've sent responses like that. Never gotten a response.

I found this one works great too.

Hi Generic Recruiter Name,

Thanks for your offer. I'm currently employed it this segment at a rate of $X / year, no overtime, no on call, no travel, full benefits. Please let me know if the minimum available for this position meets or exceeds my current rate. Thanks.
Permalink Reality Check 
December 4th, 2017 1:56pm
Eventually I'll lose the sarcasm, although that's exactly irrelevant because you never get an answer anyways. If you know the market then the reason is obvious.

Recruiters are unqualified, minimum wage, telesales cannon fodder. Their lowly job is to get other cannon fodder for the piece of shits (aka hiring managers) tasked with filling the disposable company ranks. If you enter this meat grinder you are nothing and nobody. You only enter it if you truly are a loser, in acceptance with the hopelessness and helplessness of your pathetic existance.
Permalink Io 
December 4th, 2017 2:04pm
Asking for a rate in exchange for your interview work is exactly equivalent in effect to just ignoring the spam mails but superior in that it sends the message that the universe has a way of telling that you are a human and they are just scum.
Permalink Io 
December 4th, 2017 2:07pm
Recruiter mails should always be filtered to a mailbox labelled: "CAN I HAZ TEH INTERVIEWZ?".
Permalink Io 
December 4th, 2017 2:15pm
It's 2017. You are still looking for a job? That's too 1990s. All jobs should be automated.
Permalink BibimbapClinton 
December 4th, 2017 2:15pm
I saw the opposite once - a candidate completely bombed an interview, and then the employer sent him a bill for the engineer time wasted interviewing him.
Permalink FSK 
December 4th, 2017 6:30pm
Also, 99% of the recruiter spam I get now is from an Indian headhunter.
Permalink FSK 
December 4th, 2017 6:31pm
>99% of the recruiter spam I get now is from an Indian headhunter.

I suspect 99% of ALL recruiter spam, worldwide, is from Indian headhunters.
Permalink Zaq 
December 5th, 2017 3:29am
>I saw the opposite once - a candidate completely bombed an interview, and then the employer sent him a bill for the engineer time wasted interviewing him.

Employers really can be assholes. My son has done a couple of those online tests recently for one organisation. Three weeks later and they haven't bothered to reply.
Permalink libtard_uk 
December 5th, 2017 7:30am
When they actually spend time in in interview with you, at least you know they're losing their time too if you lose yours, so it's more even out. They still have far more time available to loose though, and most of them don't look for "gets the job done" but for the shady "best". Which means both someone that memorized thousands of interview problems and is lucky enough to fall on the set of 5 that the interviewer also knows, plus devious enough to appear like he's got those "a-ha!" moments, perhaps with a little help from the interviewer but still fast enough that this one wets his pants of excitement what a genius he came upon. A genius who's not smarter than him though, or you'll see your hiring perspectives fading faster than the speed at which those cartoon characters disappear yet leave a momentarily trace of their former shape.
Permalink Io 
December 5th, 2017 8:39am
If you have a choice, don't do online tests, they automate you to hell. On the employer evilness spectrum they fall at the "devlish" scale since they require no time investment whatsoever out of the employer, and since money is peanuts to them, they can afford to have you fighting tens of thousands of poor souls for a single lousy job. Good luck coming on top!
Permalink Io 
December 5th, 2017 8:39am
I wouldn't encourage a recruiter by any emailed response.

That just puts you on their emailing list for future spam.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
December 5th, 2017 10:18am
You know companies lose money when they interview people that don't work out too, right?

You know lots of people claim to have ten years of experience writing C/C++ and can't even knock out fizzbuzz right?

Should they start charging for interviews?
Permalink Wabi-sabi 
December 5th, 2017 11:40am
I suspect they don't.

If they interview 10 people, by some HR drone earning minimum wage, so they can hire 100 H1B Visa people at 1/10 the wage of an American developer, they've made a profitable decision in the short run.

In the long run, that those 100 H1B visa people produce crap that has to be re-done -- well in the long run we're all dead, they don't care about that until three years have passed.

So, each interview that doesn't work out, Ka-Ching! they make money.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
December 5th, 2017 12:01pm
>> Should they start charging for interviews?

A very good idea. A few bucks would eliminate like 95% of those "10 years C++" who can't write a fizzbuzz.
Permalink Io 
December 5th, 2017 12:01pm
If you're making candidates spend a few hours before you even talk to them, you're charging them for a CHANCE of an interview.
Permalink FSK 
December 5th, 2017 12:33pm
> If you're making candidates spend a few hours before you even talk to them, you're charging them for a CHANCE of an interview.

I wasn't defending that practice.

Most of the brand name companies that pay fat stacks of cash to work in cushy offices don't do that though.
Permalink Wabi-sabi 
December 5th, 2017 1:56pm
It's the "lemon market" problem.

If you're a brand name company, you get enough competent people applying that you should be able to fill your slots.

If you're a no-name company paying below-market rates, most of your candidates will be incompetent.  Then you spend even more effort trying to filter out the incompetents before you waste time talking to them.

A pre-interview screening test is a strong negative indicator, going by the times I did pass and make it to the onsite anyway.
Permalink FSK 
December 5th, 2017 7:00pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: December, 2017 Other topics: December, 2017 Recent topics Recent topics