Re:Ask HN: Do You Ever Sign 'Exclusive Representation' Agree...
by brudgers on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @09:32PM
(#15804043)
In the US, this would be non-standard in the sense that the specific practice is not common. On the other hand, recruiters positioning themselves between a candidate and a job are rather common.
To make a hand waving generalization there are three types of recruiter. A retained recruiter gets paid to search and gets paid whether or not anyone gets hired (in-house recruiters more or less are equivalent). Retained recruiters are great to work with because they have no incentive to waste your time. Next down the pecking order are recruiters who have a contract in place that pays when a candidate they bring is hired. This means they have an established working relationship with the employer backed up by a contract. They have some incentive to throw candidates "at the wall and see what sticks" but it is balanced by the need not to waste too much of the employer's time.
The last category of recruiters have no established relationship with the employer. They typically find jobs by searching the internet/job sites/etc. They find candidates the same way. Their entire model is based on throwing candidates at jobs and hoping that the company likes the candidate so much that the company will pay them a recruitment fee. If the company won't pay, the candidate won't get the job no matter how well suited. All it takes is an internet connection and a phone. Volume matters, quality doesn't. There is zero incentive to avoid wasting a candidate's time. There is a high incentive toward putting as little effort behind each candidate as possible.
That seems like the category of recruiter here. The only reason that a recruiter would want an exclusive agreement with the candidate is because the candidate has a non-trivial chance of finding, applying, and getting the job without the recruiter.
Personally, I would never sign such an agreement. It simply is not in your interests and it smells like a scam. [1] Once signed the recruiter can sue you and irrespective of merit, your best option will probably be paying to make it go away. But if you have any inclination to sign it, pay an attorney to look it over.
Good luck.
[1] Particularly since it appears to be culturally targeted.
To make a hand waving generalization there are three types of recruiter. A retained recruiter gets paid to search and gets paid whether or not anyone gets hired (in-house recruiters more or less are equivalent). Retained recruiters are great to work with because they have no incentive to waste your time. Next down the pecking order are recruiters who have a contract in place that pays when a candidate they bring is hired. This means they have an established working relationship with the employer backed up by a contract. They have some incentive to throw candidates "at the wall and see what sticks" but it is balanced by the need not to waste too much of the employer's time.
The last category of recruiters have no established relationship with the employer. They typically find jobs by searching the internet/job sites/etc. They find candidates the same way. Their entire model is based on throwing candidates at jobs and hoping that the company likes the candidate so much that the company will pay them a recruitment fee. If the company won't pay, the candidate won't get the job no matter how well suited. All it takes is an internet connection and a phone. Volume matters, quality doesn't. There is zero incentive to avoid wasting a candidate's time. There is a high incentive toward putting as little effort behind each candidate as possible.
That seems like the category of recruiter here. The only reason that a recruiter would want an exclusive agreement with the candidate is because the candidate has a non-trivial chance of finding, applying, and getting the job without the recruiter.
Personally, I would never sign such an agreement. It simply is not in your interests and it smells like a scam. [1] Once signed the recruiter can sue you and irrespective of merit, your best option will probably be paying to make it go away. But if you have any inclination to sign it, pay an attorney to look it over.
Good luck.
[1] Particularly since it appears to be culturally targeted.