Is it ever ethical to charge the job seeker?

There has been a spate of articles recently about TheLadders – specifically, how the site is a bad deal for job seekers. To wit:

when I see the new commercials for The Ladders, I want to puke on my shoes…the jobs on The Ladders can be found on sites like LinkUp, Monster, and freakin Craigslist. - Laurie Ruettimann

Or how about this?

What does TheLadders do to enhance anyone’s job hunting prospects — especially C-level executives? Virtually nothing, nada, zippo, zilch. This most flagrant faker among the job boards, which pretends to be exclusive and “$100k+”, is the source of hires less than 0.07% (yes, that’s percent) of the time, among employers polled. (Source: CareerXroads survey, p. 19) - Nick Corcodilos

What’s the problem? Isn’t TheLadders (or, for that matter, JobFox) just like Monster or CareerBuilder?

Well…no.

Traditional job sites make most of their money by charging employers – for job postings, resume database access, site advertising, custom emails, and other types of services. In essence, they sell access to the job seeker. That’s why these sites spend a lot of time promoting and advertising themselves – they need the job seekers to keep their employers happy.

TheLadders and other ‘candidate-pay’ sites are different – they turn this revenue model on its head. They charge the job seekers to access the jobs and employers. Seems like a hard sell when the majority of sites offer job and employer access at no charge, right? The candidate-pay sites claim that their jobs are not available elsewhere. Sometimes they will offer additional services as part of the ‘membership’ fee. (Of course, that doesn’t mean they don’t charge employers – they usually do, just not for job postings).

The ultimate ‘promise’ made by candidate-pay sites, then, is access – you’ll be able to reach jobs and employers that you simply can’t reach elsewhere.

So what is the case made against TheLadders by Nick and Laurie? Simple – false advertising. In fact, you can find most of the jobs elsewhere. Also, TheLadders makes an additional claim – ‘only $100K jobs’. As someone who has subscribed to the site in the past, I can tell you that – at least during that time period – this claim simply isn’t correct. I found numerous jobs under $100K (as has Nick and many others).

Enough about TheLadders. This raises a bigger question: is it ever ethical to charge the job seeker for access to jobs and employers?

Yes. If the site is truly offering something of real value to the job seeker, then I think it isreasonable to charge. Note my qualification: “something of real value”. For example, perhaps the site screens each job posting it allows on the site, verifying the company, offer, and qualifications. Or perhaps it provides a private forum where job seekers and employers can interact. Maybe the candidate gets discounts on insurance, services, and the like. What is offered will depend on the seeker audience.

As a job seeker, I have used sites that really did deliver value for the money I paid them. And, as I mentioned above, I have used sites that didn’t deliver value. I promptly cancelled the latter.

So, kudos to Laurie and Nick for telling job seekers about sites that don’t deliver on their promises. And kudos to the sites that do deliver on their promises.

Comment by Lesley Hardy on January 26, 2011 at 1:29pm: While I hate to disagree with you, I do get your point about specialists, although if you were to be dying you happily pay them and they are extremely well trained.

Our industry isnt necessarily about being altruistic for candidates, we know this. We only want to work with people that suit our agenda. Making everyone pay sets up an expectation. We manage that well with clients. Would we manage it so well for candidates? Think of your huge untapped databases....I dont morally think its right.

Just a view ......

Comment by Sandra McCartt on January 26, 2011 at 2:31pm: I wasn't suggesting that specialists were not well trained and certainly worth what we are paying them.

That's why we do pay them. My point was that most professional services offered are the result of some kind of misfortune of others. I am not advocating charging candidates for what i do. I don't.

As a recruiter, i am a specialist in finding candidates for my clients. My client may have the misfortune of having lost a valuable employee or the misfortune of not having anyone capable of doing a job so they need one or twelve.

I make it a point to tell candidates that they should not pay any recruiter to find them a job. There is no reason that i can think of to pay to post a resume or to see job listings. If a candiate asks me about using a career consultant i suggest to them that before they write a check they find out how successful the consultant has been and talk with previous clients to get their feedback. I refer to resume writers if someone is totally at a loss but i prescreen the people to whom i refer candidates. As in any service there are good ones and bad ones.

If any employment agency is charging candidates to help them find a job it should be a charge based on successful placement of the candidate. ie; contingent and they should be licensed by the state in which they do business.

Comment by Wayne E. Cozad, II on January 26, 2011 at 11:50pm: Last week after being a founding member recruiter of The Ladders my membership was revoked based on the fact that I sent an email (a single email which I send to all candidates that apply to one of my jobs promoting Barb Brnuo's eBook, "Don't interview... Audition", along with some other good advice) to which one of their candidates complained. Without discussion and without any investigation, I was thrown off the site. The Ladders was built on the backs of recruiters like me who posted jobs on their site for free (when they had no candidates to pay them) and as they grew they then decided to not only charge candidates to view my jobs, but me as well for the opportunity to post them. This pissed me off a few years ago but I stayed with them.

Then, after spending countless hours on the phone with them last year giving them free consulting advice on their new "follow" feature trying to keep it from becoming a spamming machine I find it ironic that I get thrown off for spamming when their very own system spams candidates everyday. I also have a problem with the servies they sell to candidates such as resume writing services that are not very good. (At least the ones I saw, I would never have paid for!)

All in all, if I was a candidate, I certainly would not be paying The Ladders or anyone else to see the same jobs that I always post on my own website and many other free job boards! If you know how to search the web and do your home work you can find all the best jobs without having to pay anyone!

Comment by Chuck Klein on February 10, 2011 at 1:53pm: Can some of you comment on Execunet? From both an employer/recruiter perspective as well as from candidates? They charge both candidates as well as employers and recruiters.

Comment by Paul Basile on February 10, 2011 at 3:29pm: I think Execunet - in this world of job boards and professional recruiters - is not bad. The quality of executive jobs is pretty good; they are serious. Still, I don't find them or anything like them to be the bes way to get people and jobs together.

Comment by Chuck Klein on February 11, 2011 at 2:35am: I've used Execunet for several years - although finding I don't spend much time there. Still, we made a placement from an Execunet contact last year that I'm not sure we would have found via other sources. We have used it for networking into new areas where we lacked a strong network - with some success. Curious what others have to say?

Comment