> When sending us a CV, please include the candidate's salary expectations and availability<p>Sorry, this is just arrogant. If a company is offering a job they should be open about how much it is worth to them and not try to haggle on developer salaries. Based on this alone I would struggle to work for this company.<p>You want someone to work with you? We all know you have a budget and a range. Put it down in writing from day zero.<p>---<p>Edit: apparently they do publish the range. I still feel they should mention that they do so as a policy in that statement.
Very confusing reading this on a github page. Took a moment to realize this was not github's own terms for dealing with recruiters. It is actually linked on github directly from <a href="http://vzaar.com/jobs" rel="nofollow">http://vzaar.com/jobs</a> - rather than being used to generate a page on their site. So why the github hosting? Are they accepting pull requests from enterprising recruiters who disagree with their terms?
I cannot believe that in our age, and in a field like ours where everyone has a computer and is internet savvy we are still using recruitment agencies to find jobs and employees.<p>Paying 15% of my salary for the privilege of being a self-proclaimed hub between employers and employees? Well, thank you very much, but I'll skip.
I feel like this notice is out of touch with reality. First of all-- what hustling recruiter is going to take their time to read this notice, and remember that X company has those conditions?<p>I'm a software developer, and I agree that recruiters don't add nearly as much value as they claim to. But I did a college summer internship at a recruiting firm and I understand their angle.<p>Not all hiring managers are honest enough not to just contact a candidate directly. The anonymous resume is not meant to be a formal application, it's meant to be a teaser to enter into a recruiting agreement and it's a way of protecting themselves.<p>15% is pretty low for the industry. You're just encouraging even lower quality candidate-finding with that method.<p>You specified how to contact them (on a job-per-job basis) but recruiters can work at a higher level than that. Sometimes a candid call about their general talent needs helps a ton. Like: You're advertising for a mid-level employee, but you'd be okay with a senior-level.<p>As a hiring manager, part of your job is to recruiter-wrangle. A stubborn and neckbeary document like this does not make you inviting to work with.
Has anyone checked this company's website job section? They have a 'Ninja' position advertised as <i>'(Note: this isn't a development ninja, coding ninja, design ninja. This is a role for an actual Ninja)'</i> :)
If you actually want to get good candidates from recruiters then 15% is low, recruiters are naturally going to send candidates to the companies that will pay them more first. At 15% you're basically going to get the dregs that other companies don't want.
The problem with posting a "list of rules for working with me" is that the only people who will read it are more diligent and thoughtful recruiters. It will only filter out people who a) bother to read it and b) have enough sense to read and consider your terms. The logical result is that your overall number of high quality recruiters might decrease, while the number of low quality recruiters will remain the same.
"Do not try poach our staff" hmm sounds a lovely place to work NOT<p>Gives a very entitled vibe if your to buzy/lazy to recruit your self you have to take whats on offer.<p>You may not have meant this way but that doesn't give a good vibe for those who might want to come and work for you.
Terms seem pretty fair. Any recruiter that can live by those, is being unreasonable.<p>The startup I joined, Hired, just started offering 1% per month instead of 15% upfront. It better ties our output (you having an employee that is successful) to our fee, which I think is a win for all.<p>Should make it a little easier on startups where there isn't cash flow and other tech companies that just don't do contingency fees.<p>Just went live today - <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2013/10/30/hired-com-has-built-what-every-tech-company-wants-a-pipeline-of-top-technical-talent/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2013/10/30/hired-com-has...</a>
The whole recruitment industry has been poisoned. So many liars and fraudsters that anyone left trying to do things right is surely overshadowed.<p>I've never actually met or dealt with a non-sleazy recruitment agent, so I don't actually know what they would actually do for me (either as a company or a candidate).<p>My note to recruiters is: go away and leave us alone. It's worth our time doing our own job advertising and candidate selection!
I've been lucky to work in Australia, east & west coast USA and the UK. In that time I have witnessed the similarities and differences between hiring practices and to be honest I feel that a lot of what we experience is deserved. We as problem solvers have just not bothered with solving the one problem we as an industry ubiquitously hate the most: IT recruitment agents.<p>We continue to buy into an antiquated paradigm of job descriptions and CV's. In my opinion these artefacts hurt our industry more than help us. We are so much better than this (and I don't think that answer is portfolio work as not all programmers work with public facing products - which is a cohort i think HN can sometimes overrepresent).<p>I've been working on a startup to hopefully change the way all this works. Modelling how to address how different types of developers seek opportunities, whether we are in work or out and tying that into how different types of hiring manager (and their teams) meet us. If we do it right it won't be too long before the era of 15-30% 'placement fees' are back to being a much more manageable cost.<p>Sorry for ranting; I don't speak on HN much.
<i>When sending us a CV, please include the candidate's salary expectations and availability</i><p>This kind of thing is only fair if the company specifies a salary range in advance. At least OP's company is practicing what they preach.<p><a href="http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/2013-January/008357.html" rel="nofollow">http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/2013-January/0...</a>
I find a lot of this somewhat objectionable, but find one piece particularly objectionable:<p>> Do not send PHP developers for a Rails position.<p>Possibly this company is placing the engineer on-site at a client location, or something like that. But generally, I think a label like "PHP developer" and "Rails position" really silos the talent/job market and is not good for our industry.
I wrote a post about the different services popping up (aimed at designers mostly, some at devs too) trying to solve the recruiter problem. Might be useful to some<p><a href="http://www.mobileinc.co.uk/2013/04/designers-making-moves-to-disrupt-recruitment-agencies/" rel="nofollow">http://www.mobileinc.co.uk/2013/04/designers-making-moves-to...</a>
In my impression, the solution would be to create a marketplace website, in which employers and recruiters register/join, and which will automatically enforce the rules desired. From there, you can insist that all recruitment communication must go through the marketplace site. My experience is that marketplace software is tremendously efficient at social engineering ;-)