Interview Expenses?

[Mr Maginka]

Well I had an interview but before agreeing asked for expenses which they agreed to pay. I felt no shame, if they want a fix to their problem they need to cough up. Oh and I got the job.

[Denny]

As you know, I don't normally reply on this forum but I feel strongly about this issue, and decided to demystify some of the pro-recruiter, anti contractor advice posted on this site.

-------

The question was whether it was reasonable to ask for interview expenses to be paid. The general view expressed above is that it isn't because: (a) it's a sale (b) we can claim these against our own business (c) the cost of the interview is far less than the value of the EB marketing your company. These are the main arguments and I will dispel them one by one:

First of all it would only be a sale if, in the event, we needed to get such sums reimbursed due to last minute cancellation by the end-client we could reclaim them with VAT added. This is a contentious issue and, during my claims for reinbursement, usually for very good reason, some end-clients who I tend to go through for the costs if it's not the EB who have refused in the first instance, in fact refuse to count it as a sale and will only pay it as an expense penny for penny spent with no VAT added. As far as some clients are concerned we are the sold goods so it is treated as an ex gratia payment of goodwill nothing more. Some end clients actually refuse to pay at all even if the interview is nothing like described and unsuitability for the role not ascertained well in advance. It's a business risk, but not treated as such, in other words, just as limited co contractors are not really viewed as proper businesses anyway by the industry (I asked two EBs recently, completely independently and both said we are nothing more than temps).

(b) is correct, we can deduct the cost from our end of year accounts. The questions is this: why should we when it's only worth 20% of the total cost of each cost involved?

(c) This is the most salient argument for the EBs paying them by default in my view. Firstly, the EBs are the suppliers to the end-client, therefore 'we' as contractors, are the 'sold services' in practice. If that were not the case, then what exactly are EBs selling and why do they have a sales model at all? Therefore, all the costs of 'distribution' etc. for our services should be met by the EB with costs reimbursed by the client, should that be agreed in their own contract with them. If we were nuts and bolts and not people that's exactly what would happen.

The second point is this: contractors have little say or control in what exactly they are attending. It might be called an 'interview' but is it? We have no control over the numbers being called for interview for the same role, so can't decide whether attending it is worth it or not, making risk assessment impossible very often. Even the same EB can put other candidates against you. Therefore, you are not in control, so why should we pay? Sometimes, the more reasonable option of offering a telephone interview at the end-client's expenses is possible, but some insist on face-to-face without contractors having any idea of how many others are up for the same role, whether the spec has changed or will be changed, even if the role is budgeted for and later dropped. I've lost count of how many 'free consultations' I've unwittingly attended or time wasting chats for a future possibility not at all near much less in the bag as a real interview for a live role being advertised, and due to the interview details being grossly misrepresented prior to me agreeing to attend them.

Therefore, the benefit of us attending is for the end-client and the EB who has a potential sale of our services to gain and, if not, the end client can see and benefit from our unofficial consultancy advice and generally see what a good egg we are being so carefully selected by the EB. This, of course, only benefits the end client and the EB not the mug who has attended and HAS PAID FOR THE PRIVILEGE. The benefit to us is not there until long after the interview when the contracts are signed, if indeed the role actually exists. Therefore, we should not pay the travel costs at all.

The third point is the warped perceptions contractors seem to have about the recruitment industry's role in 'marketing our business' presumably by sending our CVs across to the end-client saving us the hassle of ringing the clients up themselves and trying to win business that way - a more protracted and time consuming activity.

I fundamentally disagree with this perception. It is wrong. Completely wrong. I'll explain.

EBs who do not also operate as 'agencies' (placing FTEs or PTEs with their clients) rely wholly on contractors to make their business viable. If there were no contractors there would be no EB. Not the same the other way round. Contractors do not 'intrinsically' rely on EBs to offer their own specialist services. EBs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. True it can be hard to find work without EBs, but that is hardly the point. Recruitment for EBs dealing with contractors is about contractors as their offering, contracting is not about recruitment as their offering.

So.....when we send our CVs to the EB and CVs are then sourced to the end-client, those represented are in fact marketing the EB to the end-client not vica versa. It is our history, our expertise, our availability, our ability to the do the job that seals the deal between EB and end-client to make the EB their sale. Also, EBs rely on a huge databank of CVs to sell their businesses onto other buyers already established in the market or looking to enter it. Therefore, our CVs are used as 'valuation devices' to price their businesses, which we never received any payment for, I might add, despite us being businesses too. So the evidence clearly points to contractors marketing the EBs businesses, not vica versa.

Let's look at it the other way round to entrench my point: if contractors were using EBs to market their own services, saving them time from contacting the potential clients themselves, then we would be doing the following:

(a) paying for the service
(b) ensuring we are involved in the marketing campaigns they undertake and reaching agreement on approaches taken
(c) not allowing the EB to put other candidates up against us for roles they are sourced for us and for which they want to market us to.

EBs do none of the (a-c) above.

So. To conclude. If we are marketing the EB to their end-client, we are also offering the recruiter can make money from by sending us for interview in the first instance, it surely makes sense and is right and proper that they should pay for the travel expenses, if telephone interviews are not agreed to. At the very least, any interview that turns out not to be an interview in the proper sense should certainly be reimbursed as a matter of course, not quibbled over or disputed or even flatly refused.

Contractors are being treated as mugs, unfortunately, and some of the advice and perceptions offered up on this and other forums do little to help.

As someone said above: we are not job centre jobseekers, so we shouldn't pay for interview costs as if we are candidate job finders.

So why are we?

[DodgyAgent]

As you know, I don't normally reply on this forum but I feel strongly about this issue, and decided to demystify some of the pro-recruiter, anti contractor advice posted on this site.

?

You have certainly made up for your abscence with this post

[DiscoStu]

As you know, I don't normally reply on this forum but I feel strongly about this issue...

Any chance of an executive summary?

[TheFaQQer]

Any chance of an executive summary?

I think it says that we should get agents, sorry EBs to pay for our interview expenses.

Could be wrong, though.

[abc]

As you know, I don't normally reply on this forum but I feel strongly about this issue, and decided to demystify some of the pro-recruiter, anti contractor advice posted on this site.

-------

The question was whether it was reasonable to ask for interview expenses to be paid. The general view expressed above is that it isn't because: (a) it's a sale (b) we can claim these against our own business (c) the cost of the interview is far less than the value of the EB marketing your company. These are the main arguments and I will dispel them one by one:

First of all it would only be a sale if, in the event, we needed to get such sums reimbursed due to last minute cancellation by the end-client we could reclaim them with VAT added. This is a contentious issue and, during my claims for reinbursement, usually for very good reason, some end-clients who I tend to go through for the costs if it's not the EB who have refused in the first instance, in fact refuse to count it as a sale and will only pay it as an expense penny for penny spent with no VAT added. As far as some clients are concerned we are the sold goods so it is treated as an ex gratia payment of goodwill nothing more. Some end clients actually refuse to pay at all even if the interview is nothing like described and unsuitability for the role not ascertained well in advance. It's a business risk, but not treated as such, in other words, just as limited co contractors are not really viewed as proper businesses anyway by the industry (I asked two EBs recently, completely independently and both said we are nothing more than temps).

(b) is correct, we can deduct the cost from our end of year accounts. The questions is this: why should we when it's only worth 20% of the total cost of each cost involved?

(c) This is the most salient argument for the EBs paying them by default in my view. Firstly, the EBs are the suppliers to the end-client, therefore 'we' as contractors, are the 'sold services' in practice. If that were not the case, then what exactly are EBs selling and why do they have a sales model at all? Therefore, all the costs of 'distribution' etc. for our services should be met by the EB with costs reimbursed by the client, should that be agreed in their own contract with them. If we were nuts and bolts and not people that's exactly what would happen.

The second point is this: contractors have little say or control in what exactly they are attending. It might be called an 'interview' but is it? We have no control over the numbers being called for interview for the same role, so can't decide whether attending it is worth it or not, making risk assessment impossible very often. Even the same EB can put other candidates against you. Therefore, you are not in control, so why should we pay? Sometimes, the more reasonable option of offering a telephone interview at the end-client's expenses is possible, but some insist on face-to-face without contractors having any idea of how many others are up for the same role, whether the spec has changed or will be changed, even if the role is budgeted for and later dropped. I've lost count of how many 'free consultations' I've unwittingly attended or time wasting chats for a future possibility not at all near much less in the bag as a real interview for a live role being advertised, and due to the interview details being grossly misrepresented prior to me agreeing to attend them.

Therefore, the benefit of us attending is for the end-client and the EB who has a potential sale of our services to gain and, if not, the end client can see and benefit from our unofficial consultancy advice and generally see what a good egg we are being so carefully selected by the EB. This, of course, only benefits the end client and the EB not the mug who has attended and HAS PAID FOR THE PRIVILEGE. The benefit to us is not there until long after the interview when the contracts are signed, if indeed the role actually exists. Therefore, we should not pay the travel costs at all.

The third point is the warped perceptions contractors seem to have about the recruitment industry's role in 'marketing our business' presumably by sending our CVs across to the end-client saving us the hassle of ringing the clients up themselves and trying to win business that way - a more protracted and time consuming activity.

I fundamentally disagree with this perception. It is wrong. Completely wrong. I'll explain.

EBs who do not also operate as 'agencies' (placing FTEs or PTEs with their clients) rely wholly on contractors to make their business viable. If there were no contractors there would be no EB. Not the same the other way round. Contractors do not 'intrinsically' rely on EBs to offer their own specialist services. EBs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. True it can be hard to find work without EBs, but that is hardly the point. Recruitment for EBs dealing with contractors is about contractors as their offering, contracting is not about recruitment as their offering.

So.....when we send our CVs to the EB and CVs are then sourced to the end-client, those represented are in fact marketing the EB to the end-client not vica versa. It is our history, our expertise, our availability, our ability to the do the job that seals the deal between EB and end-client to make the EB their sale. Also, EBs rely on a huge databank of CVs to sell their businesses onto other buyers already established in the market or looking to enter it. Therefore, our CVs are used as 'valuation devices' to price their businesses, which we never received any payment for, I might add, despite us being businesses too. So the evidence clearly points to contractors marketing the EBs businesses, not vica versa.

Let's look at it the other way round to entrench my point: if contractors were using EBs to market their own services, saving them time from contacting the potential clients themselves, then we would be doing the following:

(a) paying for the service
(b) ensuring we are involved in the marketing campaigns they undertake and reaching agreement on approaches taken
(c) not allowing the EB to put other candidates up against us for roles they are sourced for us and for which they want to market us to.

EBs do none of the (a-c) above.

So. To conclude. If we are marketing the EB to their end-client, we are also offering the recruiter can make money from by sending us for interview in the first instance, it surely makes sense and is right and proper that they should pay for the travel expenses, if telephone interviews are not agreed to. At the very least, any interview that turns out not to be an interview in the proper sense should certainly be reimbursed as a matter of course, not quibbled over or disputed or even flatly refused.

Contractors are being treated as mugs, unfortunately, and some of the advice and perceptions offered up on this and other forums do little to help.

As someone said above: we are not job centre jobseekers, so we shouldn't pay for interview costs as if we are candidate job finders.

So why are we?

Note also that it has been reported on another thread that some agencies actually charge an "appearance fee" for a contractor. The contractor is not informed of this (at least I never have been).

So the agency takes this income, while the contractor on the other hand pays for the expense of getting to the interview.

So the next time an agent is trying to convince you that you would be a fool not to attend an interview, which you feel in your bones you are not suited for, remember that this financial aspect might be the reason why.

[dude69]

I think it says that we should get agents, sorry EBs to pay for our interview expenses.

Could be wrong, though.

You should definitely bill the agent when the w4nker send you to a job that they've already been told by the client has been filled.

Seriously.

We are hiring, had a candidate coming down from Newcastle, but decided the guy we had already met was good, and we wouldn't waste his time bringing him all the way down to London.

But will the recruiter listen? No, he's all 'well can he still come for the interview just in case'. NO.

Agents send candidates to shi t interviews, and should have to foot the bill.

[malvolio]

You should definitely bill the agent when the w4nker send you to a job that they've already been told by the client has been filled.

Seriously.

We are hiring, had a candidate coming down from Newcastle, but decided the guy we had already met was good, and we wouldn't waste his time bringing him all the way down to London.

But will the recruiter listen? No, he's all 'well can he still come for the interview just in case'. NO.

Agents send candidates to shi t interviews, and should have to foot the bill.

Agreed but that's a different case. The agency has cost your company money for no good reason. They know there is little or no expectation of a return on that money so it is entrely right they should pay for their own mistake (or stupidity, same thing really!).

Denny - welcome back. You're still wrong though. One day you'll work out the true relationship between contractor and EB...

[DodgyAgent]

[QUOTE=dude69;336811]You should definitely bill the agent when the w4nker send you to a job that they've already been told by the client has been filled.

Seriously.

We are hiring, had a candidate coming down from Newcastle, but decided the guy we had already met was good, and we wouldn't waste his time bringing him all the way down to London.

But will the recruiter listen? No, he's all 'well can he still come for the interview just in case'. NO.

Agents send

What defines a sh*t interview? one that turns you down?

[dude69]

[QUOTE=DodgyAgent;336996]

You should definitely bill the agent when the w4nker send you to a job that they've already been told by the client has been filled.

Seriously.

We are hiring, had a candidate coming down from Newcastle, but decided the guy we had already met was good, and we wouldn't waste his time bringing him all the way down to London.

But will the recruiter listen? No, he's all 'well can he still come for the interview just in case'. NO.

Agents send

What defines a sh*t interview? one that turns you down?

One where the agent has been told WE'VE FILLED THE POSITION ALREADY.