Can I go directly with client missing out agency

[sumez]

Hello All,
Went for a role with a large consultancy at 400pd(what i take home).
First interview was technical based interview. At the end of it i was told that i did very well and that the interviewer liked me.
Just before second round agency told me that the consultancy has liked 2 people, me and another guy and that to get both in, we need to take our rate down. I agreed to take it down to 375pd. Went to second round and clearly the head of IT knew by looking at my CV that i didnt have enough experience as a Architect and he told the agency that they couldnt take me on. He said that technically I was very strong but as an architect they needed people with 3 years experience which i didnt have.

However he also said that they would take me as a technical consultant if i reduce my rate to 350 (which includes agency fees). Agency are know playing hard as they dont think it is benefitial for them to put me in as the margins are too small (they said i could get 300pd maximum). Is there anything i could do? can i go direct with the client and get the whole £350 or can i just go to another agency and tell them that i want them to represent me?

What do you think?

[BrilloPad]

Are the client prepared to take you on direct? Do they want an agency of some sort?

I reckon agents need a fee of 10% to cover the cashflow differences - 15% and they are ok allowing to pay for agent's porsche. So £300 is not unreasonable.

Of course if the agent is unreasonable it might go down badly with the client -try to play on that. Also tell the agent the market is going downhill - better to get some business than none. They might fall for it.

[sumez]

I'll try that. I told agent to get me in whatever happens as I know the client is looking to keep staff long term. Agent said it might be a bit more complicated than he first anticipated. I asked why and this was his response:

"As a staffing consultancy it is our responsibility to obain best value for money for the client. By informing them that you are willing to undergo a rate decrease to get into the company we are basically admitting that we do not do our job properly"

What is that supposed to mean? The head of IT has already said that they will take me at a technical consultant instead of an architect and if i am willing to take a decrease in rate. I have agreed that i want the role so what is the agencies problem? Can i not get in touch with another agency and ask them to represent me?

[jkoder]

Hi sumez,

Can I ask how much experience you do have and what skills do you have?

Cheers.

[lambrini_socialist]

"As a staffing consultancy it is our responsibility to obain best value for money for the client. By informing them that you are willing to undergo a rate decrease to get into the company we are basically admitting that we do not do our job properly"

What is that supposed to mean? The head of IT has already said that they will take me at a technical consultant instead of an architect and if i am willing to take a decrease in rate. I have agreed that i want the role so what is the agencies problem?

i think it means that by putting you forward for a less senior role, it shows that they are trying to sell contractors to the client who don't actually have the skills or experience the client asked for. it sucks but i can see why they'd want to save face.

in my experience, agents routinely put forward candidates for technical jobs who are just absolutely awful and would literally have to study hard to get a job in McDonalds. basically, they (agents) are scumbags, but they understandably want to maintain a veneer of competence and professionalism when dealing with their primary income stream (the client) even if that means screwing over a secondary income stream (you).

[DodgyAgent]

i think it means that by putting you forward for a less senior role, it shows that they are trying to sell contractors to the client who don't actually have the skills or experience the client asked for. it sucks but i can see why they'd want to save face.

in my experience, agents routinely put forward candidates for technical jobs who are just absolutely awful and would literally have to study hard to get a job in McDonalds. basically, they (agents) are scumbags, but they understandably want to maintain a veneer of competence and professionalism when dealing with their primary income stream (the client) even if that means screwing over a secondary income stream (you).

Another mind blowingly stupid assumption from a mindblowingly stupid contractor. we can argue all day as to whether agents are scumbags, but to assume that agents have the power to impose candidates onto a client is either a lie, or that you assume that clients are more stupid and gullible than you are.

I have never seen an agent "foist" an individual on a client ever. And where maybe inappropriate candidates occasionally manage to slip into the "wrong" jobs, it usually results in the agency being rapped over the knuckles or booted off the supplier list. There are so many agents out there that clients do not have to deal with any particular agent. If bad candidates are "routinely" being put forward then this is more likely a reflection of what is available on the market place for the price.

[Dow Jones]

Socialist

Another mind blowingly stupid assumption from a mindblowingly (stupid) contractor.



socialist

Main issue here is that contractor assumes that the client wants him whereas what he was really told was that his rate was too high for his (lack of) experience, compounded by the fact that he now wants to be represented by another agent and not the one that put him forward for the position - cardinal sin!

[DodgyAgent]

Another mind blowingly stupid assumption from a mindblowingly (stupid) contractor.



socialist

Main issue here is that contractor assumes that the client wants him whereas what he was really told was that his rate was too high for his (lack of) experience, compounded by the fact that he now wants to be represented by another agent and not the one that put him forward for the position - cardinal sin!

It is not inconceivable that the agency is screwing him on margin. £50 per day on top of £300 pay to the contractor is "a nice little earner" . Go for £320 and call the client directly, just to ask a bit of info about the job; you may be able to steer the conversation onto the rate, at which point you can check what the agency is getting for you. Be careful not to let the agency find out that you have called their client unless negotiations start to get a bit hairy.

[brianbetter]

Not qualified for role?

Guys,

Remember that agencies are not qualified IT consultants or they would be doing the job. A lot of the time they have to go by what is on your CV and what you tell them about your ability to do the job. If your CV is trumped up, the agent does not know and you may get caught out at interview!

[lambrini_socialist]

<hilarious angry tirade snipped for brevity>

I have never seen an agent "foist" an individual on a client ever.

frankly, you impose a candidate on a client the very second you send a CV attached, along with the usual breathlessly enthusiastic email ("i really think you'll like this guy...") and ask someone to take the time to review it.

i've seen too many mumbling cretins with CVs full of complete lies and little or no grasp of the English language (let alone technical skills) shuffle through the doors of companies and either (a) completely waste the interviewers' time (and get shown the door after 10 minutes anyway) or (b) get hired by some clueless non-technical manager and become a complete drain on the team.

if agents saw this as anything other than a numbers game they wouldn't be pimping these people - who don't belong on the market, whatever rate is being offered or asked for - in the first place. and seeing some agents' pitiful efforts to try and help candidates cheat on pre-interview screening tests and embellish their resumes puts paid to any idea that agents have their clients' best interests at heart - not that it really needed saying anyway.