Rates and Margins in these times..

[shanti]

Unregulated

It is illegal for any agency to advertise a role they do not believe to be genuine, any agency can be targetted for an audit and the fines are huge so you will not find many agenices advertising dodgy roles. However a caveat to that would be that we often have line manager clients provide us with a role that they have not gained budget approval for however this is not the fault of the ageny (obviously) and we recruit for these roles without knowing budget approval has not been obtained - trust me its as frustrating for you as it is for us.

Audit by who? Fined for what? The industry is pretty much unregulated. You don't need a license, just some terms of business, a signed contract of a Clientco, an open req and you are in the great cash business of recruitment(!!!)

I have heard of the R.E.C - but they are an agency funded talk shop with "guidelines" that give recruitment companies a nice logo if they pay them enough money to be members.

If you spend your time carefully carving out a CV for a role which is speculative and get no status back - its been a complete waste of your time, yet the agency benefit from having another CV in the database kitty.

I wonder if you have the data protection right to ask for the CV back and deleted of the agencies system? Better to have them waste their time taking it off, rather then benefiting by building out their databases at the cost of the applicants time. Make em' think twice before sticking up unfunded roles.

[Grinder]

Audit by who? Fined for what? The industry is pretty much unregulated. You don't need a license, just some terms of business, a signed contract of a Clientco, an open req and you are in the great cash business of recruitment(!!!)

I have heard of the R.E.C - but they are an agency funded talk shop with "guidelines" that give recruitment companies a nice logo if they pay them enough money to be members.

I was wondering this too.

If you spend your time carefully carving out a CV for a role which is speculative and get no status back - its been a complete waste of your time, yet the agency benefit from having another CV in the database kitty.

At least between contracts we tend to have more time on our hands.

I often wonder if its potentially damaging to tailor a CV if they encounter your 'stock' CV on monster / whatever.

I wonder if you have the data protection right to ask for the CV back and deleted of the agencies system? Better to have them waste their time taking it off, rather then benefiting by building out their databases at the cost of the applicants time. Make em' think twice before sticking up unfunded roles.

I've received automated responses stating data protection rights and process to get removed.

[HeadOfTesting]

Just my 2p's worth on the last few posts:

- It's references/leads they want rather than CVs (especially in the prevailing market conditions) although there's probably a greater emphasis on CV trawling in highly specialised niches.

-The regulation argument surely doesn't hold much/any water. There are loads of cowboys out there and is there much evidence of enforcement? Can anyone quote any notable case law?

- I guess it's an arrogant position to adopt but I never ever customise my CV for a particular role. If anyone questions it I just give the honest answer which is "Nothing against you personally but my policy is to always apply to a role on the assumption that the role does not exist". Similarly I never chase for feedback. I'm not saying that approach is the right one, but in this climate I simply wouldn't invest the effort knowing that I'm one of 500 candidates responding to the advert.

HeadOfTesting

[Sausage Surprise]

That'll explain why they couldn't absorb may 12% rate cut!

or the 30% I got

[DodgyAgent]

Had a couple of discussion with Agents recently.

During the conversation I normally get the banter about rates needing to be lower.

If you are a contract recruitment agent - and have 200 CVs in your inbox for a role - I am sure you would want to forward the best "and" highest margin candidate if your client contract gives you that flexibility.

Sure, there is less work out there, but I am wondering how many agents are giving the candidates a scare story in order to increase their margins? Can or should a candidates insist on transparency from the agent to ensure that they are not being ripped off for a low rate role? Does the agent have to tell the client what they are paying the candidate?

I guess it depends on the Terms of Business between the agent and the client. Just wondering what are the *types* of Business Terms that agents use with their clients. Fixed margin, I assume, is when they take a fixed % on the rate that you put in at. What are the other general types of Client Terms of Business used.. can anyone shed some light on them and how they impact the end contractor?

Welcome input.

Agents are not complicated they/we go for the paths of least resistance. Take that as a rule and even a stupid idiot like you should be able to work out how the market operates. And considering that you are the only "business" that doesnt have to spend a penny on sales or marketing you are pretty damned fortunate that we exist.

[TykeMerc]

And considering that you are the only "business" that doesnt have to spend a penny on sales or marketing you are pretty damned fortunate that we exist.

Actually Dodgy that's not true, we spend on phonecalls and transport to sales meetings (interviews) plus we pay the Agents a non negotiable ongoing percentage simply because the Clients want it that way.

Ignoring Agents markups I've spent at least £100 a month on marketing, quite a bit of which was wasted on opportunities that turned out to be misrepresented by the Agents as with full and truthful info I wouldn't have been interested.

[ChimpMaster]

Let's put this simply:-

1. Recruitments agents would not exist without contractors.
2. Contractors can exist without agents.

[DodgyAgent]

Actually Dodgy that's not true, we spend on phonecalls and transport to sales meetings (interviews) plus we pay the Agents a non negotiable ongoing percentage simply because the Clients want it that way.

Ignoring Agents markups I've spent at least £100 a month on marketing, quite a bit of which was wasted on opportunities that turned out to be misrepresented by the Agents as with full and truthful info I wouldn't have been interested.

Fair point

[Amiga500]

The agents are giving out scare stories and keeping the rates down though there is a lack of work out there. To compensate for the lack of work they are raising their margins. I was offered a contract for £325 odd per day. I turned it down due to the rate being too low and after fifteen minuets the daily rate magically increased by £100 per day. Now that's not enough time to go back to the end client but is time for the agent cut their margin.

Moral of the story, I am on £425 and not £325 per day. The problem is taking the risk and saying no in the first place hoping that the rate magically increases. Good luck.

I see your point, but this is an over simplistic explanation. Other key variables come in to play, particularly contract length.

I accepted a rate of £75 less per day than I normally would, as the contract was a nice juicy 6 monther. Another key factor is your war chest of course - if it's nearly depleted you are not really in a position to play hard ball.

[Another Dodgy Agent]

My




Heart




Bleeds...

Good, all over the floor hopefully! You will not be missed for many more of you exist clogging up my database