Agents and contractors: mutual need, or Hole In The Head?

[Hex]

You've either been really badly stiffed by an agent, are a very inexperienced contractor, or have your eyes completely closed to the reality of the situation.

What we do often is plant seeds.

If you were the Director of a business unit that needed to save money, and I called up to say "I've had someone who I know really well, come available, that can save you £x million, and has done it previously for a similar business" are you telling me you wouldn't be interested in it because the call was out of the blue? Rubbish - you'd want to know more, and then if the mix of personality, delivery, culture, and skills is exactly right, then you'd find a way to create a contract position.

Despite what you think, it's not just about finding the already planned contracts and filling them, alot of what I do is advise when a contractor is appropriate, when they're better off taking a permy, developing the skills requirement alongside the client, building in knowledge transfer plans, working out where and when the interim might exit, then moulding it, either to someone I know, or someone I think I can find. If you have 50 hours a week to bash the phones for the reward on average of 1-2 contracts per week, then a) you're not concentrating on doing the job you're being paid to do, and b) you should become an agent - you'd clearly be better at it than us.

I reckon less than 1% of agents work this way. I work in Investment Banks and the agents are just CV collection and payment processing shops.

[DodgyAgent]

Agents keep saying that contractors need them. On the face of it, that's true. Clients have work needing done, contractors do the work, and agents match the two.

But is that a good description of the situation?

Suppose that someone had a copy of an embarrassing but not illegal photograph, and was asking for money to give it back to you, or delete copies. Well, the blackmailer needs you, that's for sure. Would he say that you need him? That "need" that you have for the blackmailer was created by him solely in order to skim off money from you. The "need" is artificial - once he has got himself in the way, you are stuck with dealing with him, but you didn't really need him.

Does that sound like agents? You need them because they have the contracts. But they put a lot of work into getting into that position. An agent's job is to get in the way, so that he has to be paid off.

You sound like a complete "everyone owes me a living" cretin. If you dont like the model then go ahead and change it. I would imagine any agency that is prepared to take on the task of dealing with you would certainly earn his fee.

[Julius Caesar]

You sound like a complete "everyone owes me a living" cretin. If you dont like the model then go ahead and change it. I would imagine any agency that is prepared to take on the task of dealing with you would certainly earn his fee.

No, the problem is that the change that is required is for agents to get out of the way. It's all very well for you lot to parrot this "if you don't like agents then don't use them". The problem is that they have got in the way so the game is changed (for the worse) and you have to use them.

I have changed the model where I could, by using my own contacts and reputation (which is pretty good actually), but more often than I have gone direct, I've found the contract direct and then been made to go through an agent.

It's like the blackmailer in my example above: if you don't like your blackmailer, just don't use him. Yeah, right. If you don't like the useless parasitic know-nothing pimp who has weaselly inserted himself as a leech in in the middle of a piece of technical work that he can't even spell the names of never mind actually understand, then don't use him. Trouble is that you can't avoid him because he has bribed HR or scared clients into thinking that he is of some use.

Not all pimps may be like that, for all I know.

[DodgyAgent]

No, the problem is that the change that is required is for agents to get out of the way. It's all very well for you lot to parrot this "if you don't like agents then don't use them". The problem is that they have got in the way so the game is changed (for the worse) and you have to use them.

I have changed the model where I could, by using my own contacts and reputation (which is pretty good actually), but more often than I have gone direct, I've found the contract direct and then been made to go through an agent.

It's like the blackmailer in my example above: if you don't like your blackmailer, just don't use him. Yeah, right. If you don't like the useless parasitic know-nothing pimp who has weaselly inserted himself as a leech in in the middle of a piece of technical work that he can't even spell the names of never mind actually understand, then don't use him. Trouble is that you can't avoid him because he has bribed HR or scared clients into thinking that he is of some use.

Not all pimps may be like that, for all I know.

You are pretty damned stupid if you think that agents have the power and intellect to insert themselves within the chain of supply against the wishes of everyone. Also if agents are so damned useless then why is it companies so like having them?

If your pea of a brain could work out how else 250,000 contractors could individually engage with say 250.000 hiring managers. If each contractor had to do their own sales and marketing, compile their own contracts and manage their own cashflow then the expense would be enormous.

What your pea of a brain also doesnt grasp is that agencies aggregate supply and demand bringing the two together in the most efficient manner possible. This recruitment model is as perfect as it gets and is utterly driven by the requirements of a free market. You may not like but you are free to change it.

[Julius Caesar]

You are pretty damned stupid if you think that agents have the power and intellect to insert themselves within the chain of supply against the wishes of everyone. Also if agents are so damned useless then why is it companies so like having them?

If your pea of a brain could work out how else 250,000 contractors could individually engage with say 250.000 hiring managers. If each contractor had to do their own sales and marketing, compile their own contracts and manage their own cashflow then the expense would be enormous.

What your pea of a brain also doesnt grasp is that agencies aggregate supply and demand bringing the two together in the most efficient manner possible. This recruitment model is as perfect as it gets and is utterly driven by the requirements of a free market. You may not like but you are free to change it.

Excuse me, but sales and marketing is what you do to beat out other agents to the money, it doesn't in itself get any jobs done. The expense of compiling one's own contracts can be kept down to the cost of a PCG subscription. And we have to manage our own cashflow anyway: without agents we might have a slower cashflow (though I haven't in my direct contracts), but if necessary we could factor it or even just borrow the money, for a fraction of the agents' rip- I mean rake-off.

And if you see this operating as a perfectly efficient free market, you are in cloud-cuckoo land. It's a fix-up.

[DodgyAgent]

Excuse me, but sales and marketing is what you do to beat out other agents to the money, it doesn't in itself get any jobs done. The expense of compiling one's own contracts can be kept down to the cost of a PCG subscription. And we have to manage our own cashflow anyway: without agents we might have a slower cashflow (though I haven't in my direct contracts), but if necessary we could factor it or even just borrow the money, for a fraction of the agents' rip- I mean rake-off.

And if you see this operating as a perfectly efficient free market, you are in cloud-cuckoo land. It's a fix-up.

You can call it a fix up but I am afraid that it isnt. Why? because all parties are perfectly free to use any means that they like to procure the services of contractors. Agencies are very small companies and contractors and clients are free to use whoever they want. There is complete choice and no monopolies distorting the market. There are no compliance regulations that only allow large organisations to operate in this market.
Agents have no power to control whatsoever. We even have to surrender "our" contractors if clients or contractors are detrmined enough to change. With a bit of push there is little regulation "protecting" our position if say a contractor switches to go direct.

We agents exist entirely by virtue of what the market wants. You can whine all you like about it but you cannot come up with a more efficient model can you?

[Julius Caesar]

You can call it a fix up but I am afraid that it isnt. Why? because all parties are perfectly free to use any means that they like to procure the services of contractors. Agencies are very small companies and contractors and clients are free to use whoever they want. There is complete choice and no monopolies distorting the market. There are no compliance regulations that only allow large organisations to operate in this market.
Agents have no power to control whatsoever. We even have to surrender "our" contractors if clients or contractors are detrmined enough to change. With a bit of push there is little regulation "protecting" our position if say a contractor switches to go direct.

We agents exist entirely by virtue of what the market wants. You can whine all you like about it but you cannot come up with a more efficient model can you?

Look guys, even 2 against 1 on 2 threads you can't even agree to duff me up on 1 each.

[DodgyAgent]

Look guys, even 2 against 1 on 2 threads you can't even agree to duff me up on 1 each.

I would hardly call it 2:1 . Arguing with you with him as my ally is a bit like Mr Bean helping Genghis Khan with an invasion of China

[The Agents View]

I would hardly call it 2:1 . Arguing with you with him as my ally is a bit like Mr Bean helping Genghis Khan with an invasion of China

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself DA - it's OK for you to look like Mr Bean.

Duff you up? You'll implode on yourself shortly anyway - neither of us need to do any duffing.

I am bored of calling today though.......

[Stan.goodvibes]

Agents are like insurance, a necessary evil.

Once upon a time there were some clients and some contractors and they managed to find each other and everything was wonderful. Then one day some unskilled parasite worked out that he could piggyback off the contractors skills without having to add any value whatsoever, and thats how agencies and agents (spelt C-H-A-V-S) were created.

That whole 'you don't know how hard we work to get you to interview stage' is just laughable.

You are killing the industry, slowly and surely, but like deep sea fishermen who refuse to stop fishing until all the fish stock collapse, you continue living in the fantasy that you are actually doing something worthwhile.

You suck. We hate you. Deal with it