Switching agency?? :o

[Reccon]

%

However, they would probably cut my rate down too, but i am already on a VERY low rate, purely because the agency is taking 20% of client's pay, and leaving 80% to me...is that a big margin?

Still makes me laugh every time - the agency is not taking 20% and leaving you 80%. You are getting the rate you accepted and they are charging 20% more!

[tim123]

Well Dodgy, personal experience is that more than once I've not got the rate that I asked for because I was told that the client 'couldn't afford me' and I compromised only to find later that the agent had taken their margin into the unacceptable level.

I don't fall for this trick anymore, but that's because I don't feel that I actually need the work, if I did, I probably would.

FWIW, outside of working as a contractor I've had people complain about my 'negotiating' because I don't compromise without unreasonably complaining. I.e I don't play the game of "I want X+20%" (where the 20% isn't always money) so that I can take the 20% off, I've already built my compromises into my original request. Why should I get stuffed for this?

tim

[rootsnall]

If my rate isn't the best and I suspect they are taking a big chunk I wait until the contract is in the bag ( the later in the process the better ) and the agent is thinking about his bonus and then ask them with tact in the first instance to confirm they are on 20% or less and could they put it in an email please.

[tim123]

If my rate isn't the best and I suspect they are taking a big chunk I wait until the contract is in the bag ( the later in the process the better ) and the agent is thinking about his bonus and then ask them with tact in the first instance to confirm they are on 20% or less and could they put it in an email please.

This is what I did on the next but one job where I was also beaten down on the rate, and ever since then I haven't needed the job enough to compromise, so I just waited until I got what I asked for.

But, TBH I find it hard to understand why an agent thinks it OK to compromise a relationship (and not necessarily the one with me) for 2 pound an hour. I'm not unreasonable on margins (as I think I have shown already in this thread). If an agent is open and honest, and want's 20%, he can have 20%, it's when he says he's on 20% and takes 28% that I have a problem.

tim

[rootsnall]

I'm also happy(ish) with 20% if they've found me a contract I wouldn't otherwise of come across. It still grates a bit when I'm 18 months in and they are still getting 20% of every invoice but this is down to the client in this case as they could manage the agent out of the picture for zero cost over a 3 month renewal but so far haven't despite my best efforts to convince them. There is lots of talk of going direct by some contractors here but I've found this more and more difficult especially with bigger clients who like having an agent in the picture for various reasons.

[DeanM]

What your forgetting is that the agent has a contract with the client and the client would not only have a restrictive covenant in their contract but they would have also opted out of the DTI regs. This means that the client cannot hire the contractor direct even if the contractor wants to, not that the contractor can't go to the client direct.

[rootsnall]

Its the contractor that opts in or out of the regs, not the client. Thats the whole idea of the regs to prevent this situation happening and porr little contractors being exploited. If you opt in to the regs then there can be no restrictive clauses in the agency/client agreement over and above those stated in the regs. I think it limits the going direct exclusion period to 8/14(?) weeks and also states that there should be an extended period of hire offered in the contract of 8/14(?) weeks, not the 1 year stuff that appears in most standard opt out contracts.

[Mailman]

I don't see how such a requirement is a restraint of trade, you want to do business with the customer, you continue to pay the guy who found you the customer. What's the problem?

tim

God Tim, you must be agencies best dreams come true...someone who would put up with anything they throw at you because you think you are a business

You don't like the clause, negotiate it away or don't use that person to find you customers (and find them yourself). You've got a free choice, I don't see how it can be described as nonsense!

Unfortunately unless you are a highly experienced "professional" or in an area where there is very little competition and you are "da bomb" in that area then statements like this is simply a joke.

As with all business transactions my sole interest is in maximising my profits (be that through the reduction in my tax exposure or the elemination of unneccesary costs, like agency fees). Im not there to please agents, Im there to make money for myself

Think of it this way, as soon as you are worth nothing to agents they have no problems in dropping you like a lead ballon. The same then applies to them, as soon as they have outlived their usefulness to me I make moves to sideline them.

Having said that when I have enjoyed working with agents (like my current one from MSB) I have thrown extra business their way (when I have choice of who I have to use for a contract). So Im not a completely heartless tramp

Mailman

[tim123]

God Tim, you must be agencies best dreams come true...someone who would put up with anything they throw at you because you think you are a business
Mailman

You seem to have come to this conclusion all on you own here.

The point that I made is a that a non compete clause is generally a standard clause in any B2B relationship. Accepting this as a normal practice, does not enable you to draw any conclusion as to what other clauses I might, or might not agree to.

tim