When my agency prepared my contract they indicated that I would be weekly paid, however I said that I'd prefer to be monthly, so they changed it. Having thought about it though, isn't it safer to go weekly? I mean, if an agency is 3 weeks late paying a weekly wage that's one thing, however if they're 3 months late paying a monthly wage, that's quite catastrophic isn't it? I'm starting to think I should have gone weekly, so that any delays with payments can be actioned sooner rather than later. Once again my first time paranoia is kicking in because i'm seeing nothing but bad things being written about the agency I'm with (though to be fair they've been nothing but great with me - 17% commission for a first time contract, always answer phone and are prompt and courteous with emails).
-
-
17% is way high.
Who are they? -
Monthly is quite common, but if you can persuade them to pay weekly that’s obviously good. Since the risk of them disappearing without paying you is less. Better to have the money in your bank rather than someone elses.Comment
-
I really struggle to understand why you refused a weekly pay in the first instance
17% would be quite high, however for a first contract, if it's just for 3 months that's fine - when (if) there is a renewal after 3 months, ask for a rise - if they say the client won't give a rise (likely after just 3 months), ask if they would take betwen 12 and 15% cut and therefore pass the difference to you.
If they still refuse, well, you can't do much about it, short of refusing but obviously you have to have other optionsComment
-
"I really struggle to understand why you refused a weekly pay in the first instance"
So do I. One of them things I suppose. I will try and renegotiate my rate after 3 months, as I know the rate the client is willing to pay. I was under the impression though that 17% wasn't too high for a first time contract, I did have to work out a month's notice aswell, which was kind of the reason I grabbed this contract with both hands (and it's at a great company too). I've heard people on here complaining about 30/40% commissions from agents, so I havan't done that badly have I?Comment
-
Additionally, if my agency and the client are happy to work with weekly pay, is there any reason why I can't get that part of the contract changed now its been signed? Or is that totally out of the question. Obviously I don't want to get a reputation as someone who doesn't honour contracts, but if everyone's happy it should be alright shouldn't it? Sorry for the seemingly obvious questions, as you know I'm a first timer.Comment
-
If it's only for 3 months, leave it as it is and get it changed to weekly at renewal. Not worth making yourself look stupid to the agent in my opinion.Comment
-
I agree with planetit - leave things as they are for the first 3 months. You'll be fine, I'm sure.
If the client then ask you if you'd be OK for an extension (and assuming you're OK to stay), say "yes but I have to talk to the agency" to you client. Ask your agent for the rise - they will probably start by telling you "we'll ask the client but it is doubtful they will agree to a rise". When they come back to you, if they say "well the client won't give you a rise yet", say that you understand but since it's a renewal and therefore the agency didn't have to do any work, ask them if they can reduce their rate (you can be cheeky and hint that you have other options - if you dare). They might and let you pocket the difference. Or they won't and then it's down to your negociating skills and your nerve.
but yes, 17% isn't outrageously high - it's just a bit higher than the average, that's all.Comment
-
Thanks for your help guys. I'll leave it as it is, as you say. As much as I appreciate that agencies are only out for themselves, I'm sure things aren't made any easier if contractors become unneccesarily awkward.Comment
-
My agency takes 7%.
What are they doing for 17%? Nothing I'd bet.Comment
Comment