Agency not happy with my linkedin status

[simes]

I might be missing the point here, but the agent is telling the contractor to remove his Available sign on LinkedIn for and during the purposes of an interview?

Perversely, if the client were to see the contractor's LinkedIn status as Not Available, might that too cause an issue.

Sorry, I must be missing the point in all this. <scratch head emoji thing>

[Old Greg]

I might be missing the point here, but the agent is telling the contractor to remove his Available sign on LinkedIn for and during the purposes of an interview?

Perversely, if the client were to see the contractor's LinkedIn status as Not Available, might that too cause an issue.

Sorry, I must be missing the point in all this. <scratch head emoji thing>

Is there a 'Not available' status?

[WordIsBond]

Honestly, this isn't difficult. If you want the contract, work with the gatekeeper. If you are willing to risk not getting it, either because you don't need it or the gatekeeper's requirements are too onerous for you to go along with, then risk not getting it.

You're in business, presumably. Make a cost/benefit/risk analysis and make your decision.

What is it going to cost you to change your status? Nothing initially. There's a risk that it sets a bad precedent with this particular agent. As far as I can see, that's the only cost.

What is it going to cost you to not change your status? There's a risk it means you won't get a contract that would have been a good one to have, just because you didn't want to go along with a meaningless but perhaps also harmless request. The risk is it sets a bad precedent with this particular agent that they won't call you for contracts any longer.

Seems to me the latter risk is more important, unless you really didn't want the contract that much in the first place. But you'll have to make your own risk assessment and cost/benefit assessment. The guy who is on the bench and has seen his reserve dropping is likely to view this one differently from the guy who is trying to decide whether to take the next contract or go lie in the sun in the Florida for two months. There is no right answer, it depends on your business.

In business, as a general rule, the guy who is paying the money calls the shots. In this case, the agent is a gatekeeper to the guy who is paying the money, so it transitions to him. He simply doesn't have to put you forward for this contract. If you want him to, you have to play by his rules. There are other contractors out there and one of them will play by his rules, and might even be better than you. The agent doesn't need you, you need him, if you want this contract. Remember that if you decide not to play along. But there's no right or wrong answer here, the only answer is what makes sense for your business at this point in time. Most of the time, I'd say that means go along, but not always.

But it really isn't anything to complain about, either. It's the way the agent is doing business on this contract, for some reason. Take it or leave it. Business is full of "take it or leave it" propositions.

[northernladuk]

Honestly, this isn't difficult. If you want the contract, work with the gatekeeper. If you are willing to risk not getting it, either because you don't need it or the gatekeeper's requirements are too onerous for you to go along with, then risk not getting it.

WWIBS but didn't really need to go much further than this.

[WordIsBond]

WWIBS but didn't really need to go much further than this.

Yeah, but given a choice between saying more than needed or less than needed you know which direction I'll always err.

[Agent]

Honestly, this isn't difficult. If you want the contract, work with the gatekeeper. If you are willing to risk not getting it, either because you don't need it or the gatekeeper's requirements are too onerous for you to go along with, then risk not getting it.

You're in business, presumably. Make a cost/benefit/risk analysis and make your decision.

What is it going to cost you to change your status? Nothing initially. There's a risk that it sets a bad precedent with this particular agent. As far as I can see, that's the only cost.

What is it going to cost you to not change your status? There's a risk it means you won't get a contract that would have been a good one to have, just because you didn't want to go along with a meaningless but perhaps also harmless request. The risk is it sets a bad precedent with this particular agent that they won't call you for contracts any longer.

Seems to me the latter risk is more important, unless you really didn't want the contract that much in the first place. But you'll have to make your own risk assessment and cost/benefit assessment. The guy who is on the bench and has seen his reserve dropping is likely to view this one differently from the guy who is trying to decide whether to take the next contract or go lie in the sun in the Florida for two months. There is no right answer, it depends on your business.

In business, as a general rule, the guy who is paying the money calls the shots. In this case, the agent is a gatekeeper to the guy who is paying the money, so it transitions to him. He simply doesn't have to put you forward for this contract. If you want him to, you have to play by his rules. There are other contractors out there and one of them will play by his rules, and might even be better than you. The agent doesn't need you, you need him, if you want this contract. Remember that if you decide not to play along. But there's no right or wrong answer here, the only answer is what makes sense for your business at this point in time. Most of the time, I'd say that means go along, but not always.

But it really isn't anything to complain about, either. It's the way the agent is doing business on this contract, for some reason. Take it or leave it. Business is full of "take it or leave it" propositions.

Nailed it.

[Agent]

No your comment is ill-informed.

What differs contractors from employees is we are allowed to work for multiple clients at the same time without having to ask anyone's permission, and we don't hand over intellectual property for those other projects to the specific client they aren't for.

There as when I was permanent I had to ask my employer permission to work for someone else, and one stated any projects I worked on in my free time was their intellectual property. I was able to get that removed when I pointed out they used open sourced software and who did they think worked on it, but if you work for some software houses that get patents you can't.

However any contractor who has done it, like I have, is aware of a few commonsense ground rules which prevent you getting sued for breach of contract. Preferably choose clients in different industry areas, and if they aren't make sure they are in sectors where you can't easily be accused of sharing confidential information. Also make sure the clients are aware you have other clients - this is of course easier if you only work for that particular client 2 days a week.

You're missing the point, the comment I was reply to;

Originally Posted by Agent
"What if the client requires that you don't work on additional projects at the same time as theirs? This is not uncommon for a number of reasons."

REPLY
"That's not a contractor engagement then, you would in fact be 'employed'."

The above just isn't true and contractual tie-in to one client for a specific doesn't constitute being 'employed'.

[SueEllen]

You're missing the point, the comment I was reply to;

Originally Posted by Agent
"What if the client requires that you don't work on additional projects at the same time as theirs? This is not uncommon for a number of reasons."

REPLY
"That's not a contractor engagement then, you would in fact be 'employed'."

The above just isn't true and contractual tie-in to one client for a specific doesn't constitute being 'employed'.

I understood you perfectly and so did other posters. Stipulating that you can only work for that client means you are an employee and such is an IR35 failure.

[b0redom]

Although this thread has been done to death already, it might, of course, be that the agency are representing you as their employee to the client. "Yeah we have this great consultant we can air drop in to you." If the client looks you up on LinkedIn, which is becoming increasingly frequent, the agent is going to look a bit silly.

[billybiro]

Ive yet to meet a contractor that know more about recruitment, hiring and interviewing than a decent recruiter.

Isn't it a shame that there ain't no such thing?