Agency 'Cut'

[Julius Caesar]

If agents are so useless what does that say for your communication skills. I would imagine that you lack any sort of business skills. It doesnt take an Einstein to understand that if agents were of no value then there would be no market for them.

That is not so. The fact that someone manages to get paid does not prove that they are of any real value, except in some theoretical sense where "value" = what somebody is prepared to pay them.

I draw your attention again if I may to the example of a blackmailer. Does the fact that there is a "market" for blackmailers mean that thay have some value? You could say that the "value" of a blackmailer's "services" is what the victim is prepared to pay them. In a certain theoretical economic sense that is true. In real life, anybody can see that they are just a parasite who has succeeded in inserting himself into a situation to extract some wealth from it.

[DodgyAgent]

That is not so. The fact that someone manages to get paid does not prove that they are of any real value, except in some theoretical sense where "value" = what somebody is prepared to pay them.

I draw your attention again if I may to the example of a blackmailer. Does the fact that there is a "market" for blackmailers mean that thay have some value? You could say that the "value" of a blackmailer's "services" is what the victim is prepared to pay them. In a certain theoretical economic sense that is true. In real life, anybody can see that they are just a parasite who has succeeded in inserting himself into a situation to extract some wealth from it.

If you see yourself as a victim of blackmail whilst at the same time not having to pay for any sales and marketing and financial services then you are a loser.
You clearly have no idea of how business works.

[The Agents View]

That is not so. The fact that someone manages to get paid does not prove that they are of any real value, except in some theoretical sense where "value" = what somebody is prepared to pay them.

I draw your attention again if I may to the example of a blackmailer. Does the fact that there is a "market" for blackmailers mean that thay have some value? You could say that the "value" of a blackmailer's "services" is what the victim is prepared to pay them. In a certain theoretical economic sense that is true. In real life, anybody can see that they are just a parasite who has succeeded in inserting himself into a situation to extract some wealth from it.

And you called ME Orwellian.....

The difference is, that Blackmailers, have information which could damage the reputation of the individual being blackmailed. Without them, that information would not come out - you are buying their silence.

An agent, posseses information, networks, key individuals, market knowledge, an ability to recognise culture, and match that to the right individual. If you really want to understand (which you very very clearly do not), send me a PM, and next time you're on the bench, come and do a day with me. Trust me, you'll feel differently afterwards.

[downsouth]

So in a world pre agents, company was looking for some temporary resources (5) to support a project at say £100 a day

simple maths - 5 x £100 = £500 pd outlay to client

now agents come along and become the middle man charging 20% per person per day

5 x £100 + 20% = £600 pd total bill to the company

now tell me where in this simple bit of maths the agent had added value, decreased the risk

I cant see anywhere other than you have increased the clients costs.

Client realises this and says one resource has to go so per day costs drop to £480 total

again tell me where you have added value, decreased the risks etc.

All you have really done is to decrease the resource pool as clients cannot afford to fully resource a project etc to the point where the agency is simply a cost that could be better placed with a direct resource on site doing client work.

The client is worse off resource wise post agencies yet paying the same cash as pre agency days

[DodgyAgent]

So in a world pre agents, company was looking for some temporary resources (5) to support a project at say £100 a day

simple maths - 5 x £100 = £500 pd outlay to client

now agents come along and become the middle man charging 20% per person per day

5 x £100 + 20% = £600 pd total bill to the company

now tell me where in this simple bit of maths the agent had added value, decreased the risk

I cant see anywhere other than you have increased the clients costs.

Client realises this and says one resource has to go so per day costs drop to £480 total

again tell me where you have added value, decreased the risks etc.

All you have really done is to decrease the resource pool as clients cannot afford to fully resource a project etc to the point where the agency is simply a cost that could be better placed with a direct resource on site doing client work.

The client is worse off resource wise post agencies yet paying the same cash as pre agency days

Well perhaps you might explain how the client goes about finding the contractors he needs in the first place, and how he gets a standardised form of billings and payments. And what happens to the "direct resource" when there is no activity.
Finally do you not think that if there existed a better way then it would have been implemented and used already?

[Julius Caesar]

And you called ME Orwellian.....

The difference is, that Blackmailers, have information which could damage the reputation of the individual being blackmailed. Without them, that information would not come out - you are buying their silence.

An agent, posseses information, networks, key individuals, market knowledge, an ability to recognise culture, and match that to the right individual. If you really want to understand (which you very very clearly do not), send me a PM, and next time you're on the bench, come and do a day with me. Trust me, you'll feel differently afterwards.

Thanks, but actually in my Real Life I know some agents personally. They do work hard, those I know, and I don't blame them personally for making a crust this way. That doesn't alter my view of whether they are really necessary.

[The Agents View]

So in a world pre agents, company was looking for some temporary resources (5) to support a project at say £100 a day

simple maths - 5 x £100 = £500 pd outlay to client

now agents come along and become the middle man charging 20% per person per day

5 x £100 + 20% = £600 pd total bill to the company

now tell me where in this simple bit of maths the agent had added value, decreased the risk

I cant see anywhere other than you have increased the clients costs.

Client realises this and says one resource has to go so per day costs drop to £480 total

again tell me where you have added value, decreased the risks etc.

All you have really done is to decrease the resource pool as clients cannot afford to fully resource a project etc to the point where the agency is simply a cost that could be better placed with a direct resource on site doing client work.

The client is worse off resource wise post agencies yet paying the same cash as pre agency days

Quite honestly, there's never going to be any convincing you.

But in the pre-agency days, there weren't that many contractors. Now, everyone wants a bit of the pie, because you're all greedy ultimately - why don't you work permanently? Oh that's right, because you can go contracting and charge more - do explain to me how you have helped add value there?

These days there are alot of monkey contractors out there (and I'm bordering on suggesting you might be one of these given that it's unlikely you have any relationships with anyone, let alone an agent) - Our value add should be interviewing and sifting all of the rubbish. Given that we often get 200 applicants per role, and everyone wants a fair crack, may I point out that the time of a senior manager to do this can be significant, not to mention the cost of not doing their main job, not to mention factoring, invoice streamlining, and ultimately not putting idiots like you in front of them.

Those who have built empires over the recent history, have done so by doing something differently. Maybe this is your chance to show the world how to do it, and make yourself a mint. In the meantime, I have a big house, champagne lifestyle and sportscar to pay for...so get on with it, or find a better solution.......

[Julius Caesar]

Well perhaps you might explain how the client goes about finding the contractors he needs in the first place, and how he gets a standardised form of billings and payments. And what happens to the "direct resource" when there is no activity.
Finally do you not think that if there existed a better way then it would have been implemented and used already?

It might have been but agents have naturally shafted this possibility. That's why I can find contracts myself and then have to find an agent afterwards.

I'll tell you one place they could find contractors: my CV is on the internet, and is high on the list of Google hits if you are looking for someone like me. That's one way that agents find it, though I rarely work with agents I don't know now. If the agencies hadn't twisted the market to operate through them, that's what clients could do. Then they'd have a CV, and some contact details. That's all they get from agents, and I have not seen any evidence whatever of any agent "filtering" that any more than the client could do anyway. In almost all cases; the agent is totally unable to do the sort of basic sanity/brazen lies check on my CV that the client can do it 2 minutes on the phone.

[DodgyAgent]

It might have been but agents have naturally shafted this possibility. That's why I can find contracts myself and then have to find an agent afterwards.

I'll tell you one place they could find contractors: my CV is on the internet, and is high on the list of Google hits if you are looking for someone like me. That's one way that agents find it, though I rarely work with agents I don't know now. If the agencies hadn't twisted the market to operate through them, that's what clients could do. Then they'd have a CV, and some contact details. That's all they get from agents, and I have not seen any evidence whatever of any agent "filtering" that any more than the client could do anyway. In almost all cases; the agent is totally unable to do the sort of basic sanity/brazen lies check on my CV that the client can do it 2 minutes on the phone.

Are you really that stupid to think that a hiring manager is going to spend his time trawling through Google to find a CV of someone that may fit his requirement?

[Julius Caesar]

Quite honestly, there's never going to be any convincing you.

But in the pre-agency days, there weren't that many contractors. Now, everyone wants a bit of the pie, because you're all greedy ultimately - why don't you work permanently? Oh that's right, because you can go contracting and charge more - do explain to me how you have helped add value there?

These days there are alot of monkey contractors out there (and I'm bordering on suggesting you might be one of these given that it's unlikely you have any relationships with anyone, let alone an agent) - Our value add should be interviewing and sifting all of the rubbish. Given that we often get 200 applicants per role, and everyone wants a fair crack, may I point out that the time of a senior manager to do this can be significant, not to mention the cost of not doing their main job, not to mention factoring, invoice streamlining, and ultimately not putting idiots like you in front of them.

Those who have built empires over the recent history, have done so by doing something differently. Maybe this is your chance to show the world how to do it, and make yourself a mint. In the meantime, I have a big house, champagne lifestyle and sportscar to pay for...so get on with it, or find a better solution.......

You're showing a fair bit of ad hominem here. Whether my anti-agent rant has any truth in it is not at all affected by your having a big house and a sportscar. Really.

You are right that there are many more contractors than there used to be. I am not one of the new monkey contractors out there, I have been contracting for decades and have seen it go downhill all the way. I blame agencies for this.

The question of whether an IT person adds value by going contract is a good one, the only good one so far. I think so. In fact I would claim the support of the market here, in that a client can always find permanent employees if they want. If they look for contractors, that is their choice.

Personally I am looking at permanent work now. Like some other contractors here, I maintain that I contracted not for the money, or at least not just for the money, but because I liked that way of working. It has now changed out of all recognition, and I don't think that I do like it any more. And yes, I do blame the agencies.