Terms Not Mirrored - Muppets

[Turion]

He isn't walking out on the job, he has fulfilled his contractual obligation and is in the right. The problem is the agency's, who have signed a contract that they cannot fulfil.

Perfect time to whack up your rate IMHO, teach the flipers to not check their contracts before they sign them

Here we go again:

Hopefully you understood the first paragraph (that was the serious bit). Now the 2nd paragraph was written more in jest (the lighthearted bit)

Hope that helps. If you still haven't got it, try this

[malvolio]

Hopefully you understood the first paragraph (that was the serious bit). Now the 2nd paragraph was written more in jest (the lighthearted bit)

Hope that helps. If you still haven't got it, try this

No it doesn't. Your second paragraph was not immediately perceivable as a joke. What is more, the more people realise that they are merely a different kind of plumber, commercially, the less they will think they have some God-given right to income and have to put in some effort towards earning it. The clients don't care in the slightest what we call ourselves or how we work or how we pay our taxes, and the sooner Joe Contractor realises that the better.

[TheFaQQer]

If the agency decides not to pay your last invoice you take standard debt recovery procedures. As you have an email as written evidence of the differences if they choose to go to court they will lose.

Plus, if you didn't opt out, they have to pay you for the work completed anyway.

Time to fleece the agency, methinks.

[Emily]

Your contract is with the Agency, the Agency and the Client will just have to sort the issue out while you go on your way.

It's simple really, why over complicate the matter and start 'pimp' bashing?!

[TheFaQQer]

why over complicate the matter and start 'pimp' bashing?!

Because there's a good opportunity to fleece the agency for some more money, and it's nice to have the boot on the other foot for once?

[Emily]

Because there's a good opportunity to fleece the agency for some more money, and it's nice to have the boot on the other foot for once?

I understand it if the agency has done wrong but it doesn't seem they have on this one. Also, you do understnad that a lot of agencies work on tiny tiny margins and the commissions for the consultants aren't necessarily as big as you think they are? I used to work in an agency and there 2 house accounts were at 5.6% and 6.5%, and because most of the time they are set margins (as these two examples were) it is in the consultants interest to get you more money!

Of course there are the rogue wide boys who everyone hates, but I just wanted to stick up for agencies generally. In doing so I understand I am likely to face a tirrade of abuse for my views.

[TheFaQQer]

I understand it if the agency has done wrong but it doesn't seem they have on this one. Also, you do understnad that a lot of agencies work on tiny tiny margins and the commissions for the consultants aren't necessarily as big as you think they are? I used to work in an agency and there 2 house accounts were at 5.6% and 6.5%, and because most of the time they are set margins (as these two examples were) it is in the consultants interest to get you more money!

Of course there are the rogue wide boys who everyone hates, but I just wanted to stick up for agencies generally. In doing so I understand I am likely to face a tirrade of abuse for my views.

The agency has done no wrong regarding the contract with SP, but they have messed up with the client. There is a chance to get some more money out of the agency, therefore you are only fulfilling your obligations as a company director in seeking to maximise profit.

My heart bleeds for all agencies out there - the one I'm currently through are on 9.9% and cut it to get me a better rate than the client wanted to pay, so I do appreciate that there are some good ones out there.

[Emily]

Could have been a client cock up.

Indeed I see no wrong in trying to make more money, that's what is business is about (hence agencies try for higher margins and contractors contract), but as we women often say - 'it's not what you said, it's how you said it!'

[Ardesco]

I understand it if the agency has done wrong but it doesn't seem they have on this one. Also, you do understnad that a lot of agencies work on tiny tiny margins and the commissions for the consultants aren't necessarily as big as you think they are? I used to work in an agency and there 2 house accounts were at 5.6% and 6.5%, and because most of the time they are set margins (as these two examples were) it is in the consultants interest to get you more money!

Of course there are the rogue wide boys who everyone hates, but I just wanted to stick up for agencies generally. In doing so I understand I am likely to face a tirrade of abuse for my views.

The problem is that cock ups like this do effect us as evidenced by the special commissioner Hellier's findings in the recent IR35 cases that were lost. The HMRC is trying to look at the contract between the agency and the end client rather than the contract between the client and the agency. Mistakes like this could potentially bring Sockpuppet into an IR35 caught position where he previously could have been safe.

Agencies really need to up their game in this area and if punishing them is the way do do it then by all means punish them. They may have made a simple mistake in this occasion, but if Sockpuppet takes advantage of it they should learn from their mistake and make damn well sure they do't do it again.

At the end of the day they are supposed to be professionals. This does not make them look like professionals!! Finally, it can't be just a client cock up if the agency signed the contract.....

[Sockpuppet]

Well they cocked up again last night.

I am finishing in 5 days (next Friday) new contract starts the Monday after.

They sent me a form asking stuff such as:

What is your DOB
Do you object to a credit check? Would you pass a credit check?
Do you object to a medical? Would you pass a medical?

WTF?

It went in the bin.