S3 put the "con" into contract...

**Mordac** · 21 October 2006, 14:43

It is true though.

**TheMonkey** · 23 October 2006, 19:49

No no no - it is true. I have proof!

**Mike Telecoms** · 24 October 2006, 07:36

Can you elaborate? I am potentially about to get a contract with an Agency in the S3 Group (starts with the letter H) and was wondering what problems you found.

**tim123** · 24 October 2006, 09:08

Originally posted by Mike Telecoms

Can you elaborate? I am potentially about to get a contract with an Agency in the S3 Group (starts with the letter H) and was wondering what problems you found.

I've never got this far with them as all the problems are long before this.

1) criminally high margins (a min of 25% but preferably over 30) and laughable rates (27.5 to 32, when everyone else is offering 35 to 40). I think these two are connected.

2) They never actually got back to me about a job, despite advertising an immediate start required, interview slots for tomorrow and a near 100% match for my skills. Not sure whether this was because the job was fictional or because they sussed that I wasn't going to take it at a rate that gave them their *required* margin.

YMMV

tim

**Mordac** · 24 October 2006, 09:24

If you mean Hoaxley (for that is how they are known) then I agree with Tim 100%. I've found that life is just a whole lot easier if I ignore them altogether. Even if I did manage to secure a contract through them (and I find that unlikely, as they would always prefer to put forward someone cheaper for them) it wouldn't be worth the aggro, plus I wouldn't have anyone left willing to give references after Hoaxley have had their way.

**Mike Telecoms** · 24 October 2006, 10:37

I have secured the contract and confirmed this with the company. So that is fine.

But what would be the best way to neg on contract?

I was thinking of Opting In? Would this be the best thing to do? I have read a lot on Opting In and Out and I still haven't been completely convinced either way.

**Mordac** · 24 October 2006, 10:49

For reasons I gave earlier, I've never gone far enough to find out whether they would negotiate contract terms. Their standard contract will almost certainly have you opted out, which is of course illegal, but Hoaxley and the rest of the S3 cowboys don't let minor matters such as illegality interfere with their business. Any IR35 improvements you might get them to make would almost certainly be negated by their client-side contract, which of course you will never see.

**tim123** · 24 October 2006, 11:39

Originally posted by Mordac

For reasons I gave earlier, I've never gone far enough to find out whether they would negotiate contract terms. Their standard contract will almost certainly have you opted out, which is of course illegal, but Hoaxley and the rest of the S3 cowboys don't let minor matters such as illegality interfere with their business. Any IR35 improvements you might get them to make would almost certainly be negated by their client-side contract, which of course you will never see.

IME they are far from alone in these practices.

My current agent, who seem to be fair in every other respect, steam-rollered me into being opted out, when I'd rather not be for this particular client.

And I'm sure many others do not have back-to-back contracts, especially wrt substitution.

tim

**boredsenseless** · 27 October 2006, 11:04

Originally posted by Mordac

For reasons I gave earlier, I've never gone far enough to find out whether they would negotiate contract terms. Their standard contract will almost certainly have you opted out, which is of course illegal, but Hoaxley and the rest of the S3 cowboys don't let minor matters such as illegality interfere with their business. Any IR35 improvements you might get them to make would almost certainly be negated by their client-side contract, which of course you will never see.

I would refer you to the standard advise regarding S3 on this site which is allegedly to avoid them even with someone else's stick

S3 put the "con" into contract...