Direct v Agency

[anthony]

Run a full credit check of the company as well. If they go bust you will be at the bottom of people receiving money (if any at all)

Hmm good point. Any tips on somewhere you can get good credit checks from?

[BlasterBates]

Agencies on the whole pay on time. It's actually part of what they're about, smoothing out the payments between the client and the contractor i.e. if they don't pay they get stick from the contractors and the clients. However going direct most companies delay paying. It's not disorganisation it's the duty of the purchasing dept to delay payment as much as they possibly can, and individual contractors are top of the list for delaying. It's done to reduce their working capital.

It's the key disadvantage of going direct.

[SarahL2012]

I always try for 7 day payment terms but many companies are 30 non negotiable.

[Avalonia]

People always seem to be bragging on here about their "war chests " , they should be enough to see you through longer payment terms. There really is no downside to going direct .

[tomtomagain]

There really is no downside to going direct .

You seem to be assuming that the Client-->Agency-->Contractor model is meant to benefit the contractor.

Primarily it exists because it is of benefit to the client.

[yasockie]

You seem to be assuming that the Client-->Agency-->Contractor model is meant to benefit the contractor.

Primarily it exists because it is of benefit to the client.

True, it is a little less hassle to the client sometimes, but they may not be getting the same quality of candidates etc.
It mostly exists to benefit the agents.
They milk the client for anywhere up to 50% of the daily rate for months and years in exchange for forwarding a CV in word format, with the name and contact details stripped of (which the contractor usually has to do).

[BolshieBastard]

People always seem to be bragging on here about their "war chests " , they should be enough to see you through longer payment terms. There really is no downside to going direct .

Many, in fact, I'd say the majority of clients do not want the hassle of direct contractors. They'd rather outsource all the admin to an agency.

Id also say there have been plenty of horror stories on here of contractors going direct and having difficulty getting paid. Having a war chest doesnt isolate you from the worry of not getting paid in full. It only acts as a buffer against delayed payment which can be something totally different.

[tomtomagain]

It mostly exists to benefit the agents.

It exists to benefit the clients. If the clients were very unhappy about agents, then they wouldn't use them.

If the contractors were unhappy about agents they would go about finding contracts themselves and going direct. But most contractors wouldn't want to spend several hundred hours a year on the phone calling potential companies and asking if they could speak to the person in charge of IT recruitment.

It's very easy to claim that agents "do nothing" or are just "pimps" but that is just looking at the market from a very narrow point of view. That of the supplier.

They milk the client for anywhere up to 50% of the daily rate for months and years in exchange for forwarding a CV in word format, with the name and contact details stripped of (which the contractor usually has to do).

But they also advertise for CV's and roles, sift out hundreds of dodgy CV's, make thousands of calls to both clients and contractors that lead to nothing.

[colinrobinson]

careful if its an existing client

So I may be in a position to go direct with a client in the new year. Just wondering what others experience in this was like. Is direct "better" than agencies? What should I be looking out for etc etc
Many thanks all.

If its an existing client you secured via an agency contract check your contract terms, you may be prohibited from doing this in the contract terms.

if your ok on this point suggest payment on a monthly subscription basis. you are providing a service after all, once the subscription is in the payment cycle once your done...

[colinrobinson]

really

You seem to be assuming that the Client-->Agency-->Contractor model is meant to benefit the contractor.

Primarily it exists because it is of benefit to the client.

In the good old days we used to have to place advertising in the broadsheets along the lines of contractor for hire, set up direct relationships with customers, credit check them take on the risk of working for em and wait endlessly for payment sometimes using credit factoring & courts to obtain payment. then agencies appeared offering to do this for us for a fee of course

thats why i don't mind paying a reasonable agency cut (its cheaper than the old alternative)