I got Back Stabbed by an Agent(!)... your help welcome

[NotAllThere]

When you get shafted through a false accusation by an agent, you have to get your 2 cents in. Else you will never be invited back.

Depends how much you value your pride.

The "shafting" costs your pride, plus, possibly one contract. Your 2 cents has cost you certainly one contract, plus possibly many more. And most people who've followed this will still think you're a pillock. So where's the pride then?

silly

[TheBigYinJames]

When you get shafted through a false accusation by an agent, you have to get your 2 cents in. Else you will never be invited back.

As a latecomer to the thread can I make a couple of observations?

Your biggest mistake was trying to drag the end client into this before you had a working relationship with them. Imagine it if you were the client- you phoned up Big Plumbing Company, and they said one of their subcontractors Shanti could fix your boiler for you. You'd be happy and ready to go. Next thing you know the subcontractor Shanti (whom you don't know) is dragging you into a T&C dispute with Big Plumbing Company. You don't need it, you don't care about the internal arrangements of the subcontract. You just want your boiler fixed. Not only do you not want the subcontractor Shanti, now you don't want to use Big Plumbing Company. The subcontractor has gotten on everybody's blacklist. In order to save their reputation, Big Plumbing Company distances themself from subcontractor - by any legal or unofficial means possible - this is not slander, this is good business practice. Nobody has libelled or slandered anybody. Everybody just wants to take the line of least resistence.

I can't believe you got into a spat with the agent BEFORE the contract was signed. Before it's signed, nothing is binding. If they put in a term you don't like, you have the usual choice, eat it up, negotiate it, or walk. It's nothing personal. It's all to do with how much you need the job and how much they need you. There is no argument - they either negotiate or they don't. It's purely a business decision - no emotion need come into play, certainly no hostility. In private, you may curse them for being inflexible with you, but that's business - if they needed you more, they'd have negotiated, but they didn't. That's supply and demand. You make your business decision, then accept or decline graciously, and hope to work with them again in future. If you want to have a finger in both pies, email the end client and say that you really wanted to work with them, but unfortunately no suitable terms could be arranged with the agent. And leave it there. Either the agent or the end client will remember you in a good light if things change. Goodwill is maintained on all sides.

What do you hope to achieve out of this? Revenge is nice, but not worth losing your livliehood over. And that's what you risk doing by trying to take them to court. Not only that, even if you do win, you probably won't ever work in this industry again.

When it happened, you had the choice of:

1. Accepting the terms you didn't like and trying to renegotiate at renewal time when you then had a working relationship with the end client
2. Declining the offer, with the faint hope that they'd back down, but you were prepared to hold out for another contract with terms that suited you

Now, by your un-businesslike actions you have the choice of:

1. Taking them to court on a very risky proposition which you most likely won't win even if you are legally in the right. You will never work in the industry again.
2. Walking away quietly, emailing the agent and end client, apologising for any bother (you don't have to MEAN it) and hoping you can work together in future, and hope you aren't already on anybody's blacklist.

I know which one I'd do.

[NewWorld123]

1. Taking them to court on a very risky proposition which you most likely won't win even if you are legally in the right. You will never work in the industry again.

Does it mean that:

(1) Anyone going to court seeking justice (on a contract dispute) would never work in the industry again? How? Will the contractor be blacklisted?

(2) Regardless of the injustice done, walking away, is the best option..?

[TheBigYinJames]

Does it mean that:

(1) Anyone going to court seeking justice (on a contract dispute) would never work in the industry again? How? Will the contractor be blacklisted?

(2) Regardless of the injustice done, walking away, is the best option..?

Yes to both, in this case.

There may not be an official blacklist, but the world of IT contracting is a smaller place than you would imagine. Agents move between agencies, people know people. If the client is big, you've just cut off a large fraction of your future potential client-base. As a freelancer, you trade on your reputation, and keeping that spotless should be your primary concern, not some sort of grudge.

As to "regardless of the injustice done" I don't really see how any injustice has been done. The agency offered terms. They may have offered the end client different terms, and in so doing so mis-represented what the contractor was willing to actually do. That's their risk, the risk that the contractor would turn around and say no way. But it's all business, it's not backhanded. All parties were free to walk away from the deal up to the point of contract signature. Nobody was co-erced.

Walking away is the best option in this case on a purely cost-revenue-basis. And cost revenue basis is how everybody should run their business if they want it to last a long time and keep the bucks coming in.

[wizard1974uk]

Does it mean that:

(1) Anyone going to court seeking justice (on a contract dispute) would never work in the industry again? How? Will the contractor be blacklisted?

(2) Regardless of the injustice done, walking away, is the best option..?

There was no injustice done, contract wasn't signed, client withdrew the offer.

What shanti does not seem to grasp is that the contract was between himself and the agency and nothing to do with the client.

The withdrawal of the contract is a matter to be resolved between the client and the agency, the agency can pass on his disappointment to the client if they so wish, it is down to the agency to deal with the client not for shanti to go straight to client and cause a big stink.

If a prospective contractor came to me with a beef about the agency I had hired to find me some one,I'd tell the contractor, firmly but politely to take up any grievances with the agency.

Or in this case, the stink caused, I would withdraw the offer and kick the agency to the kerb as well. Not taking the risk that the next contractor offered up by the agency would do the same.

[NotAllThere]

If a prospective contractor came to me with a beef about the agency I had hired to find me some one,I'd tell the contractor, firmly but politely to take up any grievances with the agency.

In the first instance I'd do that. But having gone to all the trouble of selecting a suitable candidate, if I felt the agency was being unreasonable, I'd also tell the agency to get their act together. In the same way we as contractors generally feel we are working for the client, the clients often feel that we are working for them. The agency is just an annoyance, usually imposed by the purchasing department.

Obviously this doesn't apply in sectors where contractors are switchable commodities.

[TheBigYinJames]

Obviously this doesn't apply in sectors where contractors are switchable commodities.

Not just sectors, most of IT contracting is in a bear market at the moment. Of all the times not to p off agents and client, this is it.

One other thing to note that Shanti said, which possibly explains a lot:

"I have the suspicion that they are trying to oust me by canvassing bad references"

How many bad references are they expecting? Sure, there's always the odd one contract where perhaps the boss was annoyed you didn't renew, or was otherwise less than happy with your performance, but there shouldn't be many, and the good ones should heavily outweigh the bad ones, or what on earth are you doing in this industry?

[shanti]

ta..

As a latecomer to the thread can I make a couple of observations?

Your biggest mistake was trying to drag the end client into this before you had a working relationship with them. Imagine it if you were the client- you phoned up Big Plumbing Company, and they said one of their subcontractors Shanti could fix your boiler for you. You'd be happy and ready to go. Next thing you know the subcontractor Shanti (whom you don't know) is dragging you into a T&C dispute with Big Plumbing Company. You don't need it, you don't care about the internal arrangements of the subcontract. You just want your boiler fixed. Not only do you not want the subcontractor Shanti, now you don't want to use Big Plumbing Company. The subcontractor has gotten on everybody's blacklist. In order to save their reputation, Big Plumbing Company distances themself from subcontractor - by any legal or unofficial means possible - this is not slander, this is good business practice. Nobody has libelled or slandered anybody. Everybody just wants to take the line of least resistence.

I can't believe you got into a spat with the agent BEFORE the contract was signed. Before it's signed, nothing is binding. If they put in a term you don't like, you have the usual choice, eat it up, negotiate it, or walk. It's nothing personal. It's all to do with how much you need the job and how much they need you. There is no argument - they either negotiate or they don't. It's purely a business decision - no emotion need come into play, certainly no hostility. In private, you may curse them for being inflexible with you, but that's business - if they needed you more, they'd have negotiated, but they didn't. That's supply and demand. You make your business decision, then accept or decline graciously, and hope to work with them again in future. If you want to have a finger in both pies, email the end client and say that you really wanted to work with them, but unfortunately no suitable terms could be arranged with the agent. And leave it there. Either the agent or the end client will remember you in a good light if things change. Goodwill is maintained on all sides.

What do you hope to achieve out of this? Revenge is nice, but not worth losing your livliehood over. And that's what you risk doing by trying to take them to court. Not only that, even if you do win, you probably won't ever work in this industry again.

When it happened, you had the choice of:

1. Accepting the terms you didn't like and trying to renegotiate at renewal time when you then had a working relationship with the end client
2. Declining the offer, with the faint hope that they'd back down, but you were prepared to hold out for another contract with terms that suited you

Now, by your un-businesslike actions you have the choice of:

1. Taking them to court on a very risky proposition which you most likely won't win even if you are legally in the right. You will never work in the industry again.
2. Walking away quietly, emailing the agent and end client, apologising for any bother (you don't have to MEAN it) and hoping you can work together in future, and hope you aren't already on anybody's blacklist.

I know which one I'd do.

Good post. The analogy is a little floored as the the end client conducted the interview and is clearly concerned about having the right person. Your are right; the best method is to get a working relationship with the client first. Problem is, most agents tie you up for a year and put all kinds of restriction clauses upfront - you have to sign up to them before you get a look-in (you can sign a new contract later to over-rule the last - but its never that easy).

I wouldn't be doing the end client a favour just walking away. They would end up with the cheapest, naffiest contractors - as they have given too much control to the agent.

The spat with the agency was due to their terms. They were not willing to be flexible. They needed to justify killing the contractor offer to the client - saying that the contractor is not accepting their silly terms it not going to reflect on them well. The only way out was to have unaccountable verbal conversations with referees and report back negatively. The agency requests for verbal references came suddenly and increased once the terms disagreement started -also around this time, they re-advertised the role.

The agency also suggested going back to the client and asking for more money to sweeten it. I said "No" - it was another set up.

Issue I have:
Is the client manager decided to egg me along a couple of weeks ago in a conversation and stated that I should stick with the negotiations, when I mentioned the challenges to him. I also have some emails from some of his workers about logistics previously - so we had some contact. The manager then killed the contract when the agent went out their way to to put the knife in through one meeting in which they made their false accusations about my dissatisfaction with the contract.

Moving forward:
I have sent a letter in with the chronology of what happened to the client. Other than sending it in, I wonder if I can make the client think again about killing the offer? I know the relationship is with the agency, however I would be working on the client site, I would be guided by the client, I was interviewed by the client and therefore the relationship would have been with them as well (the agency is just an employment business). I also took the advice of the client to continue negotiating (and wasted weeks!).

Can the client be made to subtly feel like they are on the hook for withdrawing the offer - and therefore its in their interest to get it on track?? It is clear as day - that the offer was withdrawn by the client due to the agents misrepresentations - doesn't the client have a duty of care?

[DiscoStu]

Good post. The analogy is a little floored as the the end client conducted the interview and is clearly concerned about having the right person. Your are right; the best method is to get a working relationship with the client first. Problem is, most agents tie you up for a year and put all kinds of restriction clauses upfront - you have to sign up to them before you get a look-in (you can sign a new contract later to over-rule the last - but its never that easy).

I wouldn't be doing the end client a favour just walking away. They would end up with the cheapest, naffiest contractors - as they have given too much control to the agent.

The spat with the agency was due to their terms. They were not willing to be flexible. They needed to justify killing the contractor offer to the client - saying that the contractor is not accepting their silly terms it not going to reflect on them well. The only way out was to have unaccountable verbal conversations with referees and report back negatively. The agency requests for verbal references came suddenly and increased once the terms disagreement started -also around this time, they re-advertised the role.

The agency also suggested going back to the client and asking for more money to sweeten it. I said "No" - it was another set up.

Issue I have:
Is the client manager decided to egg me along a couple of weeks ago in a conversation and stated that I should stick with the negotiations, when I mentioned the challenges to him. I also have some emails from some of his workers about logistics previously - so we had some contact. The manager then killed the contract when the agent went out their way to to put the knife in through one meeting in which they made their false accusations about my dissatisfaction with the contract.

Moving forward:
I have sent a letter in with the chronology of what happened to the client. Other than sending it in, I wonder if I can make the client think again about killing the offer? I know the relationship is with the agency, however I would be working on the client site, I would be guided by the client, I was interviewed by the client and therefore the relationship would have been with them as well (the agency is just an employment business). I also took the advice of the client to continue negotiating (and wasted weeks!).

Can the client be made to subtly feel like they are on the hook for withdrawing the offer - and therefore its in their interest to get it on track?? It is clear as day - that the offer was withdrawn by the client due to the agents misrepresentations - doesn't the client have a duty of care?

Seriously, give it up. From what you've written in your previous posts you'll clearly have pissed both the agency and client off to the extent that neither will want anything to do with you.

Instead of continuing on this pointless crusade I suggest you do something more productive like searching Jobserve and applying for some new contracts.

[shanti]

ta..

Thanks. New contracts are being looked at as well.