Multiple applications for the same role

[expat]

You didn't say "Browse the offers and pick one", you said "Back out of arrangements being made on your behalf in favour of someone else". Different thing altogether. Like I said, go do your research, then bitch about fair trade.

Or put it another way. Sign a contract, turn up on Monday, on Tuesday you're off home becuase they found someone better and cheaper. By your terms, that's fair as well.

Sorry, I didn't say that. I never back out of agreements that I have made.

If I've ordered my Christmas turkey from Waitrose, I go and pick it up and pay for it. But if I've just popped in to see what they've got, I haven't made agreements yet, I could go and get my roast from Tesco.

Or put it another way. Agent calls on Monday to ask if I'm interested in a contract in Frankfurt next month. I say I might be. Another agent calls on Tuesday to ask if I'm interested in a contract in Frankfurt next month. Do I have to say, sorry I'm taken? Why can I not say, what have you got?

"Browse the offers" is exactly what I am talking about.

[Dow Jones]

Back to the topic

Been in touch with an agent about a potential contract in a few weeks when the project starts. They want me to email them confirming I want them to represent me for this vacancy, so no other agent can put me forward to the client.

Apparently the client is requesting this as they've had aggro in the past with the same contractor being put forward by multiple agencies.

Am I being paranoid when I think it's just the agent trying to stop me using other agencies, that may be offering the same role at a better rate in the next few weeks?

This means that you have agreed for this particular agent to represent you for that specific vacancy that exists at the time - it is not a carte blanche for the agent to use.
Before you do that, they have to provide you with a ref. no for the vacancy and obviously client/contract details. It is a 2-way binding thing, like a pre-contract. Nothing to stop the contractor looking elsewhere and nothing to stop the agent getting one or two others for the shortlist. At this stage, any discussed rate is not binding, as there is no signed contract.

[expat]

This means that you have agreed for this particular agent to represent you for that specific vacancy that exists at the time - it is not a carte blanche for the agent to use.
Before you do that, they have to provide you with a ref. no for the vacancy and obviously client/contract details. It is a 2-way binding thing, like a pre-contract. Nothing to stop the contractor looking elsewhere and nothing to stop the agent getting one or two others for the shortlist. At this stage, any discussed rate is not binding, as there is no signed contract.

That's right. You can agree that an agent can represent you for a particular role, that they can represent you exclusively for a particular role, that they can represent you in general, or even that they can have exclusive rights to represent you.

Or of course that they may not represent you for a particular role; or ever.

But that already begs a question, one which I am struggling to raise in the face of people who accept the agency world-view. Which of the following is true?
1. An agency represents a contractor to a client.
2. An agency engages a contractor, who contracts to the agency.

ISTM that in our business (unlike TV, for example), an agent is not really an agent (who presents us to the clients), but rather the agent is a main contractor, or even a sub-contractor; and we sub-contract to the agent. So the same ultimate client requirement via different agencies is a different contract. They therefore compete with each other, and we are free to choose between them.

Note: non of this condones dihonest dealing, or breaking one's word, far less one's contract.

[malvolio]

That's right. You can agree that an agent can represent you for a particular role, that they can represent you exclusively for a particular role, that they can represent you in general, or even that they can have exclusive rights to represent you.

Or of course that they may not represent you for a particular role; or ever.

But that already begs a question, one which I am struggling to raise in the face of people who accept the agency world-view. Which of the following is true?
1. An agency represents a contractor to a client.
2. An agency engages a contractor, who contracts to the agency.

ISTM that in our business (unlike TV, for example), an agent is not really an agent (who presents us to the clients), but rather the agent is a main contractor, or even a sub-contractor; and we sub-contract to the agent. So the same ultimate client requirement via different agencies is a different contract. They therefore compete with each other, and we are free to choose between them.

Note: non of this condones dihonest dealing, or breaking one's word, far less one's contract.

Neither is true. The agency is in business and you are his product. Very rarely will he have any interest in you other than as an income stream for a period of time.

There is a very good commercial case for having agencies represent us rather than the client, not least of which is it incentivises them to push you for work and it avoids the nonsense of them charging the client for the supply of services. The downside is we will have to pay them for the service instead. Plus S134c of course, but that can be finessed by the Opt Out which cancels the restriction on charging workseekers for finding work. And of course, IR35-caught workers wouldn't be eligible.

But it will never catch on...

[dude69]

Just had this.

Quite annoying.

Agent 1 calls me about job. Promises to send job spec through. Email received, minus spec.

Agent 2 calls me about job. Promises to send job spec through.

Receive job spec from agent 1.

Receive job spec from agent 2.

Email agent 2, about 10 minutes after receiving spec from him, to say 'Agent 1 got in touch first, they are representing me'

About 45 minutes later, Agent 2 calls me, sounding quite angry "I have already put you through to HR, I checked and they said they have not received your CV from Agent 1 yet - I got there first, you agreed to exclusive representation on this by me".

Don't really want to email Agent 1 back again to say "even though I told you you are representing me, Agent 2 says they are". Argh.

From what Agent 1 says, they are going to definitely call HR today as well.

Not much fun really.

[Hex]

Agent 2 shouldn't have put you forward without your agreement. I presume you hadn't agreed until you saw the spec?

Anyway, I would let them fight it out amongst themselves. I had similar once and Agent 2 got me an interview. I mentioned to the client about Agent 1 at the interview so that they knew up front and they said they'd not received my CV from Agent 1 and they were dealing with Agent 2.

I also told Agent 2 that Agent 1 had supposedly put me forward as soon as I realised it was the same gig.

[dude69]

Agent 2 shouldn't have put you forward without your agreement. I presume you hadn't agreed until you saw the spec?

Anyway, I would let them fight it out amongst themselves. I had similar once and Agent 2 got me an interview. I mentioned to the client about Agent 1 at the interview so that they knew up front and they said they'd not received my CV from Agent 1 and they were dealing with Agent 2.

I also told Agent 2 that Agent 1 had supposedly put me forward as soon as I realised it was the same gig.

Argh.

This isn't improving.

Agent 1 has now spoken to the client and has called me back.

Agent 2 (who has more roles on the go than Agent 1 IMO) I suspect to have read my email telling me I was going with agent 1 and rushed to call up the client and then called me back claiming to have 'just got my email'.

I had already given WRITTEN confirmation to both agents that Agent 1 was to represent.

So I feel obliged now to tell Agent 2 to back off, and also to confirm same to the client, who want confirmation of which agent is representing me before proceeding.

I feel quite sure that Agent 2 will now call me up and have a go.

What fun.

[malvolio]

So now you understand my position on this... Think positive, at least you're still up for consideration: if it had been me, you wouldn't have been!