By Bruce Hurwitz on March 27, 2025
|
THE OPTIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR.
I must give credit where credit is due. The impetus for this article was a LinkedIn exchange I had with Shlomo Meisels (who, for the record, agreed that I might name him). He posted on LinkedIn, what I, and apparently others, interpreted to mean that he was a recruiter who charged job seekers to get them a job. That was not his intent. We actually met on a Zoom call, and, after listening to what he had to say, I surprised him by telling him that I was going to help him. His problem, I told him, was one of packaging. Just as a product sent in the wrong package will be damaged, so too will a message.
Recruiters do not charge job seekers to find them work. Career counselors do not charge job seekers to find them work. The reason his post caused an uproar was that he was promoting himself as a recruiter or career counselor. Not good. On the other hand, agents charge job seekers to find them work (see below). My suggestion was that he rebrand himself as an agent and form a separate company so he could avoid legal minefields (and, yes, I reiterated to him that I am not a lawyer).
As my readers know, I don't post without confirming my facts. I don't like to be wrong, and I certainly don't want to be wrong on LinkedIn. So, I researched three separate issues:
Can a Career Counselor Charge a Job Seeker to Get them a Job?
Absolutely not. The career counselor, of which I am one, helps the job seeker with their cover letter, resume, interviewing skills, networking, filtering job postings, etc., etc., etc. But they/we do not guarantee that they will find their client, the job seeker, employment. That, in fact, is their job.
Can a Recruiter Charge a Job Seeker for Getting them a Job?
Absolutely not. The recruiter, of which I am also one, does not work for the job seeker but rather for the employer. They get paid by the employer, not the job seeker. It's their/our job to find qualified candidates for the employer, not to find a job for the job seeker.
All pretty obvious and so well documented that I don't need to provide links to corroborating sources (which some readers complain I do too much).
But then I remembered the last baseball game I watched (the final of Spring Training). That got me thinking: Agents, as I understand it, get paid by their clients, not by the teams. In our context, the job seeker pays the agent to convince the employer to hire them. (That's actually not accurate. The only one who can convince an employer to hire someone is the job seeker. I should have written "interview them." Why didn't I? This was a better way to make my point.)
So why can't Vladimir Smith be like Vladimir Guerrero, Jr. (as a Blue Jays fan I had to include him, and, by the way, the Blue Jays won that game I was watching, finishing at the top of the Grapefruit League - which, I know means absolutely nothing for the upcoming season, but still after last year I need something)? Or Aaron Smith be like Aaron Judge? Or Mookie Roe be like Mookie Betts? Turns out, they can.
This is not something for someone looking for an entry- or low-level position. This will only work for senior and executive managers. In fact, "manager" is the wrong word. It will only work for Leaders with a capital L. Allow me to introduce you to something relatively new which is perfectly legal (again, not a lawyer) and which I only heard about because of the subsequent research I did following my exchange with Mr. Meisels:
Reverse Recruiting
I tried to find a legit article on reverse recruiting, but failed. Everything I found was written by a reverse recruiting agency/company. By definition, not legit sources. So let me explain the pros and cons as I understand them:
First, a definition: Reverse recruiting is when the job seeker pays the Reverse Recruiter (RR) to represent them to employers. (Think sports agent.) This is what I believe they should do:
They should do the heavy lifting. They should find the employer. (Most jobs, as we all know, are not advertised. The RR should be going after the "hidden" opportunities; the job seeker can respond to ads.) They should contact the employer to introduce the job seeker. They should discuss the role to make sure it's a match for their client. They should write a resume for the job seeker. They should write the cover letter. But, instead of the cover letter coming from the job seeker, it should come from the RR, singing the praises of their client. If relevant, they should complete the online application. They should arrange for an interview. They should prepare the client thoroughly. Anything less, by way of services, and all the job seeker requires is a career counselor.
Of course, the one thing they cannot do for their client is to actually interview for the job. That, the client, the job seeker, has to do themselves.
Now comes the hard part: The job seeker has to live up to the hype their RR told the employer. They have to know exactly what the RR said so that they do not contradict them. And that can be a problem. Honest, good, decent people can honestly forget what they said in a meeting. If you have ever listened to a Congressional hearing, the, for sake of argument, senators tell the witnesses they said one thing and the witnesses swear they did not say that. And I am not referring to something they said months, weeks or days ago, but rather minutes or seconds ago! (As I warn my career counseling clients, it is not what you say in a job interview that matters, but what the interviewer hears!) So how can the job seeker be certain how to answer a question? Maybe, originally, the RR did not understand them when they explained about a project on which they had worked or a problem they had solved so they incorrectly explained it to the employer. The correction by the job seeker raises too many red flags.
And then, as we are dealing with high-level positions, no doubt some form of negotiation will be involved in the new hire's responsibilities. When getting down to the contract, the job seeker can't very well say, "My RR will deal with that." It will not, as the saying goes, "play well in Peoria." The employer will want to see how the job seeker negotiates, not how the RR negotiates. (To be fair, as a recruiter, I have finalized agreements between my clients and candidates, but I would not exactly call that negotiating.)
But what's most important is the fact that the truly good candidates don't need RRs, Rs, or, dare I say it, CCs (Career Counselors). They are known in their industry. They are wanted in their industry. And when an employer is looking for new leadership, they pick up the phone and start the time-honored process of poaching. No intermediaries required. As I have written in the past (you'll just have to believe me; I have published over 450 articles and can't find this one!), it is better to be the hunted than the hunter.
There are two final topics that need to be raised:
Payment
Payment is difficult because this is so new that I honestly do not know what is appropriate. On the one hand, the RR is working and should be paid for their time. So perhaps a retainer, equal to two weeks' pay - what the job seeker is currently or was last earning, may be fair, with the final fee being equal to 10% of their new base salary.
On the other hand, perhaps a 10 or 15 percent flat fee, such as sports agents receive, is appropriate, with the RR proving their worth before they are paid. The flat fee is also preferable because of the issue of time. Does the RR give a guarantee that after a certain number of months they will secure employment for their client? Do they guarantee that they will secure a minimum number of interviews? Do they guarantee how many employers they will contact? And, by "contact," I don't mean sending out emails, I mean having real conversations with them. To return to my sports analogy, they have to call all 30 teams, not just the low hanging fruit. As noted above, the job seeker can do that themselves. The RR should be finding the "hidden" openings. Also, if they do so, guaranteeing a certain amount of time devoted to the client is just silly. How can that be verified? And, what if they don't produce? After all, the job seeker is paying for results, not effort. If paid a retainer, do they have to refund all or part of it? And for how long will the relationship last? To use myself as an example, I charge a flat fee for six-months support and another fee for unlimited support. Simple. Uncomplicated.
I think it comes from politics, and I don't remember who said it, but they were correct: If you have to explain it, you are already losing. There are too many questions with reverse recruiting for my liking.
Licensing/Registration
Finally, as I understand it, sports agents are licensed by the government (state) and certified by the league (MLB, NFL, NHL, etc.) in which they operate. Perhaps the same should be required for RRs. They should be licensed /registered by the state where they are based (and those in which they work?) and required to have professional insurance (think "bonding"). There are enough scam artists trying to fleece job seekers; we don't need any more! (And, just to be clear, I do not think that RRs are scam artists, I just worry that the scam artists will start coming through the floorboards. I want to prevent that, as I am certain the legit RRs do as well.)
To tie the bow, or, if you prefer, to come full circle, whatever you do, make certain you have the correct packaging. It's the best way to avoid misunderstandings.
|