Third party recruiters dealing exclusively in contracts are more likely to side with the employee. Those dealing exclusively in long-term employment will be more likely to side with the employer.

This is because of how their compensation is structured. The contract guy is going to start getting paid immediately. The employer guy is going to get paid when the employee has vested a certain amount of time with the company.

Ya, agree.

They get paid by the company though. So if I had to pick between the company and the candidate I'd say they're more aligned with the company.

You're definitely right though that they aren't really aligned with the company either.

Yes, but their contract and fiduciary duty rests with the employer, not the candidate. They are paid by the company to find an employee, not the other way around.

Many third-party recruiters are simply matchmakers, not retained agents of a company. Sure, they still get paid by the companies for matching employees, but their motivation is still to make matches, not get either the employer or the employee the best deal.

> fiduciary duty

I think you are misusing that word. A third-party recruiter does not have a fiduciary duty to the company with the role unless they have been empowered to make the hiring decision themselves. I don't know of any agencies with such power.