Agency not happy with my linkedin status

[billybiro]

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>

If a client is prepared to expend the time and effort on hunting me down on LinkedIn such that they may see something regarding my availability status, I'd be seriously questioning why either of us would need an agent in the middle.

[billybiro]

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.

You're missing the point.

If all contractors told the agent that insists on a LinkedIn status change to foxtrot oscar, then this agent will never place a contractor with the client. Said client will get cheesed off and give the role to another
agency to fulfill. Ultimately this will be an agency that doesn't mess contractors around insisting they update their status and we all win. By standing together, we stop the agency shenanigans, we rise the tide and the rising tide lifts all boats. The clients need for the role doesn't go away, we just force it to be funnelled to us through sensible means.

The biggest problem is contractors who, as you seem to be suggesting, drop their trousers and immediately bend over as soon as the agent puts on his marigold's and reaches for the lube.

[Agent]

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.

Sorry but you're wrong.

By your definition, you're saying that employed people cannot work for more than one company, or what, they're self-employed? The logic can't work just one way.

You're right that a client can't insist on blank exclusivity as this is seen as inside IR35 but they can have clauses that prevent the contractor from working with the clients direct competitors, or if any other conflict of interests is created. That was what I was referring to with my comments.

[Agent]

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

Good one.

[Agent]

If a client is prepared to expend the time and effort on hunting me down on LinkedIn such that they may see something regarding my availability status, I'd be seriously questioning why either of us would need an agent in the middle.

Hunting you down on LinkedIn???

Most agents include a link to your LinkedIn profile within your CV. The client just clicks the link, it ain't rocket science.

[Agent]

You're missing the point.

If all contractors told the agent that insists on a LinkedIn status change to foxtrot oscar, then this agent will never place a contractor with the client. Said client will get cheesed off and give the role to another agency to fulfil. Ultimately this will be an agency that doesn't mess contractors around insisting they update their status and we all win. By standing together, we stop the agency shenanigans, we rise the tide and the rising tide lifts all boats. The clients need for the role doesn't go away, we just force it to be funnelled to us through sensible means.

The biggest problem is contractors who, as you seem to be suggesting, drop their trousers and immediately bend over as soon as the agent puts on his marigold's and reaches for the lube.

I bet you're one of those guys that is an expert in all fields.

...When your mate's getting divorced, you tell him "you don't need a lawyer mate, the law's a piece of piss, I'll tell you what to do"
...When you buy a car, "we don't need a mechanic to check it out, I've been driving cars all my life"
...When you sell your house "fu*k paying an estate agent, what do we need that for"
...When your massive verruca just won't go away "I don't need to get it checked out, what are they gonna do anyway"

The world is full of people that recognise no value in others, that think they always know best despite having little or no expertise in certain fields.

Your view of recruitment and agencies is exactly this, you clearly have zero experience actually doing recruitment as a profession and yet you can preach about the lack of need for recruiters and of how little use they are. I have no idea what you do for work but I can guarantee that you always undervalue those around you, you'll think that most of the team are useless and that you could do a better job than all of them combined. I've no doubt that you dislike the clients you work for just as much as the agencies that find you the contracts.

It only takes a quick google to find out the value of the recruitment industry and when you bother to check and see that there has never been more of a need, you'll realise more ignorant your comments are.

[WordIsBond]

You're missing the point.

If all contractors told the agent that insists on a LinkedIn status change to foxtrot oscar, then this agent will never place a contractor with the client. Said client will get cheesed off and give the role to another agency to fulfill. Ultimately this will be an agency that doesn't mess contractors around insisting they update their status and we all win. By standing together, we stop the agency shenanigans, we rise the tide and the rising tide lifts all boats. The clients need for the role doesn't go away, we just force it to be funnelled to us through sensible means.

The biggest problem is contractors who, as you seem to be suggesting, drop their trousers and immediately bend over as soon as the agent puts on his marigold's and reaches for the lube.

When you discover the world in which "all contractors" will play by your rules to make the agent change his behaviour, send me a pm. Until then, I'll assume some contractors out there (who need the role) will go along. It will probably be less painful to change their LinkedIn status than to bend over and drop their trousers, but some guys may be hungry enough they'd even do that.

There's some guy out there who needs to feed his family. He'd change his status AND do the job for £25-50 a day less than you. I'm not telling that guy that "contractor solidarity to rein in vile agents" requires him to risk his shot at this role -- if he doesn't cooperate, the next guy will shrug, change his status for a day or two, and cruise into a nice contract.

Stick to your principles all you want but you aren't an employee anymore and no client, agent, or competitor cares about your LinkedIn rights. You are a businessman now and the next businessman will calmly undercut you to get the business, while you're in your bully pulpit preaching, "Can't we all stick together and put the agents in their place?"

Rising tide? You've got to be kidding me. Another basic economics failure. This is business. Supply and demand guarantees the tide will fall as low as possible. The only rising tide here is if enough contractors cut their own throats with your kind of thinking to drive them back to permiedom, reducing the supply of contractors. THAT will bring a rising tide, but then the higher demand will mean higher rates, drawing more contractors out of permiedom to hit a new equilibrium. This tide may ebb and flow but it's only rising if demand increases or supply decreases.

[SueEllen]

Sorry but you're wrong.

By your definition, you're saying that employed people cannot work for more than one company, or what, they're self-employed? The logic can't work just one way.

You're right that a client can't insist on blank exclusivity as this is seen as inside IR35 but they can have clauses that prevent the contractor from working with the clients direct competitors, or if any other conflict of interests is created. That was what I was referring to with my comments.

Did you read my post on the fact as an employee you need to ask your employer's permission to work elsewhere?

As a contractor you have no need to do that.

Did you read my post where it stated that some employers insist anything you create while working for them - and it can be in your spare time - is their intellectual property?

As a contractor they only own the stuff you create for them.

Not one of my contracts have ever had in it I'm not allowed to work for competitors during and after the end of the contract. However a couple of my permanent employment contacts have had that in.

The reason above is why another poster told you that you were talking tulip about the contract market.

[Agent]

Did you read my post on the fact as an employee you need to ask your employer's permission to work elsewhere?

As a contractor you have no need to do that.

Did you read my post where it stated that some employers insist anything you create while working for them - and it can be in your spare time - is their intellectual property?

As a contractor they only own the stuff you create for them.

Not one of my contracts have ever had in it I'm not allowed to work for competitors during and after the end of the contract. However a couple of my permanent employment contacts have had that in.

The reason above is why another poster told you that you were talking tulip about the contract market.

I started reading it but it seemed off point so I read half of it and made a comment to provoke a response.

[SueEllen]

I started reading it but it seemed off point so I read half of it and made a comment to provoke a response.

Typical agent - details about legalities pass over your head as they are too hard for you to understand.