Please confirm that you are happy to be represented by XYZ for the role...

[SueEllen]

I don't think so. If you reply to an e-mail with that then 3 days later an agent rings and you explain you were put forward 3 days ago but gave them 2 days to get back to you or they lost exclusivity, and that agent puts you forward instead, if the original agency kicks off later on you can show them where to stick it. If they kick off without you sending an e-mail they'll just create a big enough tulipstorm that no-one wants to handle it.

Sure they might try to do that anyway but I reckon it gives you some recourse - especially since the 2nd agent would likely say to the client/1st agent that their exclusivity expired and you can forward them the e-mail.

Never trust an agent but at least in this scenario you are pitting agent against agent cos they all want their cut

Problem with the 48 hours is some clients take over a week to give feedback.
In other cases the 48 hours means you have lost the contract.

So you need to tell the next agent to check regardless.

[NibblyPig]

And to be fair the 48 hours are meaningless....

I don't think so. If you reply to an e-mail with that then 3 days later an agent rings and you explain you were put forward 3 days ago but gave them 2 days to get back to you or they lost exclusivity, and that agent puts you forward instead, if the original agency kicks off later on you can show them where to stick it. If they kick off without you sending an e-mail they'll just create a big enough tulipstorm that no-one wants to handle it.

Sure they might try to do that anyway but I reckon it gives you some recourse - especially since the 2nd agent would likely say to the client/1st agent that their exclusivity expired and you can forward them the e-mail.

Never trust an agent but at least in this scenario you are pitting agent against agent cos they all want their cut

[jmo21]

Ah, once you include the word some, yes indeed.

Just off to get may Pedant cap

[MrMarkyMark]

That would come under "some combination of" would it not?

Ah, once you include the word some, yes indeed.

Just off to get may Pedant cap

[jmo21]

Good point.

However, it can be enough for good just to relate to your skills.
I have had a few roles where I have negotiated a higher rate than advertised.
The clients have agreed as they realise they are getting someone very experienced.

That would come under "some combination of" would it not?

[MrMarkyMark]

should they be using their "keep this bloke we don't think is quite good* enough to be put forward off the market just in case he is good and gets the role" trick.

(*where "good" means a combination of your skills, and rate being advantageous to both the agent and the client)

Good point.

However, it can be enough for good just to relate to your skills.
I have had a few roles where I have negotiated a higher rate than advertised.
The clients have agreed as they realise they are getting someone very experienced.

Obviously, there is always the other side of the coin, where there is no chance of getting any extra budget and you will have to walk away.

[jmo21]

But if they bulltulip saying yes when they are not, what recourse do you have? Nice to have but no tangible advantage in real terms.

And to be fair the 48 hours are meaningless....

While it give you nothing firm, what I think it does put across is that you are well versed in agencies tricks and they aren't keeping you off the market for the role should they be using their "keep this bloke we don't think is quite good* enough to be put forward off the market just in case he is good and gets the role" trick.

(*where "good" means a combination of your skills, and rate being advantageous to both the agent and the client)

[SueEllen]

But if they bulltulip saying yes when they are not, what recourse do you have? Nice to have but no tangible advantage in real terms.

And to be fair the 48 hours are meaningless....

[m0n1k3r]

Compulsory question

Hi guys
How do you deal with the request from the agent that wants you to write an email stating they will be representing you for a contract?

I've done it, but I've always felt uneasy about doing it.

I am wondering how others deal with when it arises? Do you just do it? Or do you do something else instead?

They have to ask for, and receive permission from you under the agency regulations before they are allowed to introduce you. However if you read the regulations, clause 2 state that it is only for employment agencies (they find staff to be employed by the client) and employment businesses (they find staff to be employed by them and hired out to the client and be under the control of the client).

Agencies always take the braces and belt approach to everything in order to cover their own *ss, but I would argue that it doesn't apply for the vast majority of senior professional services contractors (and that includes IT).

1. 'Employed' is nowadays defined in law. If you run your own limited company, you are employed by it, not by them and not by the client, or else you would be able to claim employment or temp worker benefits from them, which you can't. In the vast majority of cases, you are simply under a B2B contract for services to provide certain specialist services and outcomes to them.

2. Most senior professional services contractors are not under the 'control' of the client.

In fact, setting themselves out to be operating as an employment business when they are not is misrepresentation.

But good luck trying to argue this with them.

[strawberrysmoothie]

Guys thank you so much.

I really appreciate this.

I am curious, is this something might be a forum sticky topic?

Once again. Cheers chaps