[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-10-13/it-isn...
This is in effect how you gauge what your talents are worth in the labor market. I’m glad offers get leaked for this reason
We pay well. I don’t alter my offers based on the others I hear about. We usually beat them anyway, but when we don’t, that’s too bad.
The only problem here is that they're claiming confidentiality which is obviously not true. Workers and their agents should be playing offers off each other.
I think it's the pipeline as well as selection: I work in finance and usually in smaller firms.
Could you explain what you mean by this? I don't quite understand the language.
So in this case, they don't actually care about finding good (or underpriced) candidates, they're just spamming a basic resume match.
By way of example from the other side of the fence - my LinkedIn profile asks recruiters to state that they've read my pre-requisites for a role when they contact me. 90% don't do that (and clearly haven't).
The kind of recruiter that doesn't bother to read the candidate's profile is "phoning it in"
I delete all of those - the remaining recruiters are generally ok, though they're often offering roles that are trivially discoverable to anyone actively job hunting.
// ...
INFORMAL work or perform without much effort, interest, or enthusiasm. "I think of my playing as committed—I can't remember ever phoning it in at any performance"
- lack of diversity in candidates. (not just virtue signaling. if all I see are nearly identical resumes, I assume the recruiter is just phoning it in.)
- candidates “just a little out of your price range” who are 30% over the top end of my budget.
- “confidentially” telling me what other offers a candidate has because then I know they are also leaking my offers to my competitors
- telling me every candidate is great
- telling me every candidate is a hot commodity like they are hotels.com