Or maybe certain professions have a limited number of openings, which tend to go to people with connections, and cooincidentally these professions deal with large amounts of money, so taking 1% commission on a hundred million dollar deal for very little work seems reasonable.
Sounds like it should be entirely commission based ? I don't think anyone sees an issue if you get a share of the amount you generated, but getting large salary without having achieved anything seems a bit unreasonable.
Point taken, but with the given numbers it wouldn't actually be that bad. If you interview thousands of candidates, then paying an amortized $100 per candidate is not too much. If that is what it costs to give people a good impression of your company, it might well be worth it.
Almost certainly a lot of that would be variable comp depending upon a bunch of things. And I could also imagine a $10m gig (especially with speculative equity) at a company with really exciting prospects could trump a $50m one for a stodgy company not going anywhere.
Follow the money. The other way of finding candidates — paying professional sourcers who do it for a living — costs an enormous amount of money, often 25% of the first year salary.
Paying your employees $5k or even $25k (in sfba) is a lot cheaper.
Do you think they have much incentive to make that extra $2k, while introducing more risk, and not spending time on the other openings they're working?
$1.2 million seems so low of a dollar amount, for an multi year effort. Isn't that just like... 1 engineer's salary? $150k/year, 1.5x multiplier to account for benefits and other expenses of hiring somebody.
reply