Time to revisit the usual gripes with recruiter emails:

Who's Hiring?

I suppose recruiting firms have a vested interest in prospective employees not bypassing them and applying directly to the company. If that's the case, the recruiting firm needs to nail down the excusivity clause in the contract with their client.

Ambiguous descriptors like 'a bright software company' or 'industry leader' tell me nothing. "New Bay Area Startup" is about as descriptive as "that one company that does things"

Seriously. Who the &*$! is hiring?

What's The Pay?

Let's be honest, applying for a job and going through the interview process is work. It takes time, and can be nerve-wracking. Why would I go through all of that if the position pays less than I need or want?

This isn't about greed. It's about financial sense. If I currently make $100k, and you are offering me a job to relocate across the country, for $90k, chances are I can save both of us time by opting out early.

What About Relocation?

It states clearly on my résumé where I live. The recruiter knows where the job is. Somehow, I have to get from here to there, get out of a mortgage or a lease, pay for moving expenses and find a place to live.

Not even a mention of relocation expenses? Drop $10k off of that salary you won't tell me about.

Ultimately, It's About Need

I don't need the job the recruiter is offering. The recruiter needs to fill the position they have before they lose the contract.

That's their need, not mine.

James (@iamjameshunt) works on the Internet, spends his weekends developing new and interesting bits of software and his nights trying to make sense of research papers.

Currently exploring Kubernetes, as both a floor wax and a dessert topping.