Morgan McKinley cut my rate 3 times after Microsoft made an offer

[TheFaQQer]

You have a logic problem here, don't you think?

I'll rephrase - if you don't know whether they have done anything illegal or not, how do you know whether it's worth pursuing or not?

If they haven't done anything illegal (and you seem to be unsure yourself), then you need to work that out. If they haven't, then you are wasting your time; if they have then you need to put together a case and fight it.

[Frank Big Bird]

I'll rephrase - if you don't know whether they have done anything illegal or not, how do you know whether it's worth pursuing or not?

If they haven't done anything illegal (and you seem to be unsure yourself), then you need to work that out. If they haven't, then you are wasting your time; if they have then you need to put together a case and fight it.

What I have been asking in this forum is advice about the case: is this false advertising? is this legal under employment regulations?

What I am getting most of the time is about how I should live my life and I thought that this is not a lifestyle forum?

[TestMangler]

What I have been asking in this forum is advice about the case: is this false advertising? is this legal under employment regulations?

You don't seem to understand the key point here. This has nothing to do with Employment Regulation (as you call it). It was a contract vacancy. If you don't learn the difference, you're doomed to failure in whatever you do !


What I am getting most of the time is about how I should live my life and I thought that this is not a lifestyle forum?

Because you repeatedly make reference to 'Employment Regulation, which has no bearing on your original complaint !

Forget for a moment that your complaint has anything to do with IT.

Imagine you are tendering to build a wall.

You see an advert "Person required to build a wall. Will pay £50 per brick"

You respond and the advertiser tells you that you've got the job. Then tells you that the client has changed their mind and will pay you £40 a brick. You agree. the advertiser tells you that they will now only pay £30 a brick. You either accept it or walk away.

Think of it as a business negotiation that was never concluded because terms could not be agreed.

Employment Regulation (sic) has nothing to do with it.

[TheFaQQer]

What I have been asking in this forum is advice about the case: is this false advertising?

If you are after a definitive legal opinion, then you need to consult a solicitor, not a bunch of strangers on the Internet who aren't telling you what you want to hear.

is this legal under employment regulations?

What employment regulations are you referring to? If the advertisement was for a contract position, then I don't see how employment law could possibly come into it.

As a guess, I'd suggest that any judge would rule that the placement of the listing online was merely an invitation to tender, and your company was able to provide that tender. At a later date, the specifications of the tender changed, but you are expecting the advertiser to be held to that original document.

If the judge ruled that the placing of the role description was an invitation to tender, then the company placing the invitation is free to accept or reject any tenders made. They are also free to negotiate the terms of the contract and you are free to reject those.

IANAL.

[BlasterBates]

It appears that your salary requirements were not properly transmitted and were above the threshold for this position. This should have been vetted prior to scheduling the interview.

Sorry for that. The recruiting company in the UK made two errors: salary requirements were not checked and wrong time. I sincerely apologize.

This sounds like a misunderstanding.

i.e. PM talks to recruiter agree on a rate, after the interview and then the contracts dept stomps all over the rate and says no way Jose.

So Microsoft are now suggesting McKinley should have verified it with the contracts dept.

Personally I would just move on. I doubt that many agents would have "vetted" the rate, they would have simply taken the PM's word.

[Scruff]

There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See

[TestMangler]

There Are None So Blind
As Those Who Will Not See

Especially when they don't see the capital letters at the start of each word.......

[northernladuk]

Especially when they don't see the capital letters at the start of each word.......

Or..
People just see what they want to see

I don't think capitals make much different TBH
Sometimes people put them in sometimes they don't.

Anyway...

That's not really the issue here.
Whatever his problem is it's not capitals.
I am sure he will get there.
Time will only tell...

[Frank Big Bird]

Is this regulation still in effect in this country?

'The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003'

[Scruff]

You still don't get it, do you? I think that it's about time this moves to General...?