SThree doing well !!

[oraclesmith]

As a matter of interest, the SThree Group consists of the following limited companies:-

SThree Management Services
Computer Futures Solutions
Progressive Computer Recruitment
Pathway Resourcing
Real IT Resourcing
Jobboard Enterprises
Peoplequest
Orgtel
New Wave Resourcing
M G Resourcing
Huxley Associates
IR Solutions
Conexus Recruitment Consultants
Progressive Computer Recruitment International
Huxley Banking and Finance
Banking People
Tactical Resourcing
Staff Search Group Limited
Strategic Resource Group
Madison Black
Huxley International
Solutions in Staffing & Software
JP Gray Ltd
All the Jobs

[Lucy]

Frank and Jesse?

Bert and Ernie, more like. On second thoughts, they are funny at least.

[abc]

Going off the subject a bit

I'm sure everyone here will be so pleased to know that SThree are top of the Footsie gainers this morning, up over 4% so far.

1 week 435.00p +0.75p +0.17%
1 month 373.00p +62.75p +16.82%
3 months 379.50p +56.25p +14.82%
6 months 330.00p +105.75p +32.05%
1 year 277.50p +158.25p +57.03%

Maybe I'll have me some of them shares.

I'm looking for a new gig at the moment and I don't want to use a member Company from SThree. Do you know of an "easy" way to keep track of the (possibly changing) Company names that are in the Group? The Group itself is STHREE PLC (03805979) I guess? Could the answer be to just order the lastest set of reports from Co. House?

Note that the Group itself has changed name three times since 1999, so the same sort of thing might be happen with other Companies - especially the smaller ones.

On their web site they say this:
"SThree currently operates 12 brands, the
3 largest being Computer Futures, Progressive and Huxley Associates
, and has 30 offices in the UK and 9
offices in mainland Europe, in Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Germany and
Ireland."

..So they don't seem to want to give out the full list there.

I hear a lot from Pathway or Pathway Resourcing as well.

Maybe this is because some of their clients might see it and realise that they are dealing with several SThree Companies, in a situation that might be in danger of moving towards a "Cartel-like" setup, rather than having a true set of independent suppliers competing against one another, as the client would probably wish.

[oraclesmith]

At the end of their annual report.

[Back In Business]

Bert and Ernie, more like. On second thoughts, they are funny at least.

Ben and Jerry?

[abc]

At the end of their annual report.

Ta

[senditback]

I'm looking for a new gig at the moment and I don't want to use a member Company from SThree .

What is the major hang up about getting a contract off them? is a contract not just a contract in your eyes? I personally think you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face with that approach

[chicane]

I'm currently on contract with an XX agency - the hourly rate is reasonable (as is the margin), the agent is efficient and responsive, and I've had no probs getting paid (aside from the need to provide a fair bit of company-related paperwork at the outset).

Having said all this, I've spoken to other agents within the same company who've come across as little more than money-grabbing sleazebags.

I think it's a tad unfair to tar everyone within this massive organisation with the same brush - as with the recruitment industry in general, there seems to be a mixture of good eggs and bad eggs - regardless of the ratio between the two.

[oraclesmith]

It's not the people, it's the company policy that is the issue. They seem to have a policy of encouraging (or at least allowing) recruiters to minimize the outgoings to the worker whilst maximising the fee to the client - neither of which is healthy for the client-contractor relationship. Clearly this policy of going for high margin work is going to cause less than professional conduct amongst the recruiters but great profits for the company and the staff. At least that's my impression of them, anyhow. I guess the permanent side is better because the salary you're being paid comes direct from the employer.

[chicane]

it's the company policy that is the issue. They seem to have a policy of encouraging (or at least allowing) recruiters to minimize the outgoings to the worker

At the risk of generalising, is this "company policy" not the whole purpose of business? You obtain a series of products/services at the lowest prices you can, and sell a product/service derived from those at the highest price you can.

If anything, I would accuse S3 of nothing worse than being good businessmen/women. If they were as bad as everybody says, they would no longer be in business. I don't see anybody suggesting that the Marks and Spencer practice of buying a load of cheap bread, tuna and salad, and selling it for £1.50 more than the independent sandwich shop down the road, is an unethical practice.

Without deliberately wishing to sound like Denny or DA, most of us are Limited Company owners at the end of the day, and should therefore conduct ourselves as such. Agents play games to maximise their earnings from us; we can play our own games to counter these tactics. Business often boils down to little more than a game - the most successful businessmen/women are those that learn to play this game.