So the way I see it agencies can operate in two models:
Margin: They find a person and take a cut whilst acting as the intermediary. So you get paid by the agency, and the margin is the difference between what they charge for you vs. what they pay you. Agencies are generally pretty useless and give not a fig whether the contract is IR35 safe because there's no comeback to them (at present). Clients equally clueless. They just need a person to do a thing.
Contingency: They find a person and take a one-off fee. You deal directly with the end-client as the agency has no/doesn't want any ongoing involvement. Much more the case for permie roles? Contracts clearly benefit from ongoing margin.
So there seems to be a gap here for a one-off finders fee for contractors.
Assumption: Client thinks contractors won't have contracts set up, so an intermediary handles this and makes the contractor sign up to their terms. Client gets consistency with a sense of more credibility than dealing with a one-man band. They also favour one level of indirection? Offloads potential disputes to a third party?
Solution?
* An "agency" that services the contract market but focuses on introduction only. You offer the contractor a variety of domain-specific templates for IR35-compliant agreements and do effective selling to convince the client these are just as good as any contract that an intermediary would provide.
* Contractor agrees directly with client terms that would be as resilient to HMRC investigations as possible, both in working arrangements and contract.
* Contractors get to negotiate terms directly although the goal would be to default to a mutually compatible arrangement that protects and satisfies both.
* Agency takes the finders fee, but isn't an intermediary, no ongoing involvement, no liability. Agency might also upsell something like timesheeting and payment logging services, on the assumption that client/contractor won't have anything set up themselves.
Feasible? Issues to overcome? Incorrect assumptions? Would clients be interested on the grounds that it would clearly reduce costs whilst being offered more direct control over IR35 concerns? Currently the client relies on the intermediary to be supplying a contract that won't cause issues down the line?
As usual, I've had another terrible experience with a hopelessly incompetent agency and I need some catharsis by thinking of better ways this could be done.
Margin: They find a person and take a cut whilst acting as the intermediary. So you get paid by the agency, and the margin is the difference between what they charge for you vs. what they pay you. Agencies are generally pretty useless and give not a fig whether the contract is IR35 safe because there's no comeback to them (at present). Clients equally clueless. They just need a person to do a thing.
Contingency: They find a person and take a one-off fee. You deal directly with the end-client as the agency has no/doesn't want any ongoing involvement. Much more the case for permie roles? Contracts clearly benefit from ongoing margin.
So there seems to be a gap here for a one-off finders fee for contractors.
Assumption: Client thinks contractors won't have contracts set up, so an intermediary handles this and makes the contractor sign up to their terms. Client gets consistency with a sense of more credibility than dealing with a one-man band. They also favour one level of indirection? Offloads potential disputes to a third party?
Solution?
* An "agency" that services the contract market but focuses on introduction only. You offer the contractor a variety of domain-specific templates for IR35-compliant agreements and do effective selling to convince the client these are just as good as any contract that an intermediary would provide.
* Contractor agrees directly with client terms that would be as resilient to HMRC investigations as possible, both in working arrangements and contract.
* Contractors get to negotiate terms directly although the goal would be to default to a mutually compatible arrangement that protects and satisfies both.
* Agency takes the finders fee, but isn't an intermediary, no ongoing involvement, no liability. Agency might also upsell something like timesheeting and payment logging services, on the assumption that client/contractor won't have anything set up themselves.
Feasible? Issues to overcome? Incorrect assumptions? Would clients be interested on the grounds that it would clearly reduce costs whilst being offered more direct control over IR35 concerns? Currently the client relies on the intermediary to be supplying a contract that won't cause issues down the line?
As usual, I've had another terrible experience with a hopelessly incompetent agency and I need some catharsis by thinking of better ways this could be done.
Comment