Agency Lies

[Boo]

Because you are wrong. The contract is the reality, not your musings.

But you are so careful to avoid dealing with my point that I feel that you must have no answer ?

Boo

[Old Greg]

But you are so careful to avoid dealing with my point that I feel that you must have no answer ?

Boo

One point appears to be that because there are circumstances in which a contractor contracts with an end client, then in the circumstances when an agent is involved the agent does not add value. This does not follow logically.

A second point appears to be that because an agent cannot contact with a client without a contractor, then the agent is taking a cut of the contractor's fee, regardless of what the contract says. This also does not follow and shows a lack of understanding of business to business relationships.

[Taita]

Did you get your pen back?

So that's where I got the Shaeffer from. Now I remember....

[Wanderer]

As Dodgy Agent rightly says, you are taking a percentage of the agency's daily rate, not the other way round.

An agent would say that though, wouldn't they? I don't subscribe to this point of view.

I really can't get my head around it how some people think that the agency can rape the client and contractor alike and that's just the way it is. As boo points out the relationship between the contractor and the client can and does still exist without an agency. The client has a certain pot of money to pay out and as a business man, I'm looking to get as much of that pot as I can.

However, I think that Boo is a bit harsh because agencies do have some value in that they provide a job finding service and payment factoring. However, the bottom line is that they are a middle man and as a business man I'm always trying to cut that middle man out. Sometimes I can't and I have to deal with agencies or consultancies but where I can I will try to go direct to the client. I want to know what their margin is and if it's a big one then I'm going to want a piece of that. It's just good business.

[Boo]

One point appears to be that because there are circumstances in which a contractor contracts with an end client, then in the circumstances when an agent is involved the agent does not add value. This does not follow logically.

That was not my point. It can be put very simply : the agent provides no value to the client.

A second point appears to be that because an agent cannot contact with a client without a contractor, then the agent is taking a cut of the contractor's fee, regardless of what the contract says. This also does not follow and shows a lack of understanding of business to business relationships.

It does exactly follow that if the agency cannot obtain a contract without the contractor but the contractor can obtain a contract without the agency that the agency is taking a cut of the contractor's money.

You need only to consider the case of eg a literary agent to see that this is the case.

The fact that agencies are rightly scared they won't be paid (for good and sufficient reasons, see above) causing their contracts to falsify the situation by pretending that the agency is supplying the services (they are patently not) instead of the contractor supplying the services (they patently are) does not change the fact that the client would only be willing to pay at all because of the value the contractor provides.

So really, it seems to me that is is you who does not understand the position here, not me who does not understand B2B relationships : The fact that a set of contracts say that the agency earns all the money and pays the contractor a percentage of that does not make it true.

A more interesting question is to enquire as to the reasons clients use agencies at all ? The answer is because the agencies provide kickbacks to the HR and other senior managers not otherwise directly involved in the sourcing process. This means, in effect, that the agencies say to the clients "I will give you a proportion of this person's earnings if you allow me to act as an intermediary in the recruitment process. A fundamentally corrupt position, and another reason why it is easy to see that the agency provides no value.

But threads on these forums that mention this fact have a marked tendency to be shut down with no cause given...

Boo

[ITPRO2]

An agent would say that though, wouldn't they? I don't subscribe to this point of view.

I really can't get my head around it how some people think that the agency can rape the client and contractor alike and that's just the way it is. As boo points out the relationship between the contractor and the client can and does still exist without an agency. The client has a certain pot of money to pay out and as a business man, I'm looking to get as much of that pot as I can.

However, I think that Boo is a bit harsh because agencies do have some value in that they provide a job finding service and payment factoring. However, the bottom line is that they are a middle man and as a business man I'm always trying to cut that middle man out. Sometimes I can't and I have to deal with agencies or consultancies but where I can I will try to go direct to the client. I want to know what their margin is and if it's a big one then I'm going to want a piece of that. It's just good business.

I totally agree with this. However, the agent value is very questionable. I hardly think 10% of my day rate is worth a basic payrole service and the agent "finding" me on linkedin.

Cutting the middleman out is the way to go. Like you said, the client only has a certain size pot. Reducing my overhead by negotiating with the agent, or cutting them out completely, serves to maximise my return. This is good business sense.

[Taita]

That was not my point. It can be put very simply : the agent provides no value to the client.


A more interesting question is to enquire as to the reasons clients use agencies at all ? The answer is because the agencies provide kickbacks to the HR and other senior managers not otherwise directly involved in the sourcing process. This means, in effect, that the agencies say to the clients "I will give you a proportion of this person's earnings if you allow me to act as an intermediary in the recruitment process. A fundamentally corrupt position, and another reason why it is easy to see that the agency provides no value.


Boo

I think you would find it very difficult to demonstrate that kick backs from agencies are rife in the UK contracting industry but I am sure many of us here would love to see some of your evidence. If you have any credible proof, why not 'out ' the perps and strike a righteous blow for the contracting fraternity?

The truth is that for the average corporate entity it is easier to find and engage contractors through agencies than it is to do it direct and the company is prepared to pay a little more to avoid extra hassle. Furthermore, the middle man provides a buffer against the strictures of employment law allowing greater flexibility of worker deployment.

[Boo]

I think you would find it very difficult to demonstrate that kick backs from agencies are rife in the UK contracting industry

Why do you make that point ? Are you a rec con ?

The truth is that for the average corporate entity it is easier to find and engage contractors through agencies than it is to do it direct and the company is prepared to pay a little more to avoid extra hassle. Furthermore, the middle man provides a buffer against the strictures of employment law allowing greater flexibility of worker deployment.

Agencies charge 30% of the first year's salary for permies and anything from 15-30% or more of a contractor. If you are saying that figure can remotely be justified as "avoiding a little hassle" then you are a rec con and I claim my £5.

Boo

[Taita]

Why do you make that point ? Are you a rec con ?


Agencies charge 30% of the first year's salary for permies and anything from 15-30% or more of a contractor. If you are saying that figure can remotely be justified as "avoiding a little hassle" then you are a rec con and I claim my £5.

Boo

Why then are the vast majority of permies and contractors engaged through agencies? Have the end users got money to burn and are they stupid?

Perhaps I should be a 'rec con'. From what you say it has got to be easier than being an IT'er.:

[Boo]

Why then are the vast majority of permies and contractors engaged through agencies? Have the end users got money to burn and are they stupid?

IMO the process is corrupt, nobody is stupid.

Perhaps I should be a 'rec con'. From what you say it has got to be easier than being an IT'er.:

So what do you do for a living, Taita ?

Boo2