Agency requesting passport / references etc with no concrete job interview lined up !

[The Agents View]

[

1185078]Because if we have a good working relationship with our previous client, we wouldn't want to ruin it by giving it out to Agencies, especially where clients have a PSL.

]

PSL's are tosh - I don't know a single PSL that I can't get around if the client wants to use me.

An agent should be able to give you that "tit for tat" solution - Ie, if I want references on you, I would be more than happy for you to speak to my clients and my candidates about me - end of.

That doesn't make sense. If we have a good working relationship with our previous clients, they will contact us directly (or via the agency that got us the gig) to get us back in.

PSL's change, preferred suppliers change, opinions change - having an additional route through to the client, can never be a bad thing.....

Because often or not, we will have a good working relationship with our previous clients, and would like to maintain it.

What makes you think an agent is going to do anything to tarnish that relationship? What possible use is it to me, to rub your references up the wrong way??

If line managers did that for me, they would get me in via agencies I have worked for in the past, one of their preferred suppliers or through an agency of my choice.

Well then why on earth are you worried??

Line managers are thick skinned, they can tell sales people to s0d off, plus - most of this information will be freely available on LinkedIn etc, so there's little point in hiding it?

Yep. They are thicked skin, they will tell us to p*ss off if they found out that we referred some agent to them.

Again - If I were you, I'd select your agencies more carefully - some of us know how to extract the information needed without rubbing anyone up the wrong way - oh and that provides a sales pitch without even needing to pitch...... (yes we know people don't like being sold to - often, not selling, is a more powerful tool than being the best salesperson in the world )

[The Agents View]

Id like to point out that I'm quite impressed with my ability to use the quote feature - being of non coding brain, to me it looked like junk (the code, not the content) on the screen - but its come out better than I expected

[northernladuk]

Id like to point out that I'm quite impressed with my ability to place contractors with clients being of non brain, to me it all looks like junk on the screen - but its come out better than I expected

FTFY but it's rarely as good as we would expect from our end

PSL's are tosh - I don't know a single PSL that I can't get around if the client wants to use me.

But that is the attitude we expect hence our further resistance to send our managers info on to you so you don't do a selling job on him.

[The Agents View]

FTFY but it's rarely as good as we would expect from our end



But that is the attitude we expect hence our further resistance to send our managers info on to you so you don't do a selling job on him.

If you read it ALL again, you'll notice that my experience suggests that a selling job isn't necessary - I gain more business from not doing the sales job, and simply referencing and asking the right kind of questions. Most people are bright enough to think "actually i like this style, I'd like to have this person check people out on my behalf as well".

We're never all going to agree on this subject - end of.

[Boo]

PSL's change, preferred suppliers change, opinions change - having an additional route through to the client, can never be a bad thing.

But having an agent put their preferred candidate forward against you at a lower rate when they happen to hear about it before the agent that put you in last time is a bad thing though.


Boo

[Wanderer]

Is your word completely worthless then ?

The regulations protect the worker once they have started working. So a worker is free to opt out before the interview stage then they save themselves and the agency a lot of work doing identity/qualification checks and taking up references. In my opinion, the regulations are pretty much red tape rather than protection at this stage and there is possibly a benefit to both parties if the worker opts-out at this stage.

If a contract is offered (and that's a big if), then the opt-out is reconsidered as part of the contract negotiations. The agency regulations are your statutory rights, a worker should never feel obliged to sign away this protection. To my thinking, an agency could only tacitly threaten to withdraw a contract offer if the worker refused to opt-out. Anything else would probably land them in some serious legal and ethical difficulties. Regulation 32(13) provides that an employment agency or employment business may not make the provision of its work-finding services conditional upon either a limited company or the worker to be supplied giving notice to opt out of the Regulations.

Even if the agency were adamant that the worker must should stay opted out, the worker could sign and return the contract, organise the start date and then fax them the opt-in letter just before they started work.

I enter negotiations in good faith. If the other party acts in bad faith then I reserve the right to demand my statutory rights at a point provided for in the statute. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which party is being underhand or acting in bad faith here.

[The Agents View]

Regulation 32(13) provides that an employment agency or employment business may not make the provision of its work-finding services conditional upon either a limited company or the worker to be supplied giving notice to opt out of the Regulations.

No agency makes work conditional upon a limited company - this is why you will always be offered the umbrella route - it's the other route. What we can do though, is choose who we do business with - so if I turn around and say that we refuse to do business with your sole trader business, because there is too much risk involved, then I am perfectly entitled to do this. In addition, you are employed by your company or umbrella - not by the client, and not by my agency - the agency can make it a condition of the contract between the two companies, to supply an individual that is opted out I believe (don't quote me - i'm not certain of this!)

I enter negotiations in good faith. If the other party acts in bad faith then I reserve the right to demand my statutory rights at a point provided for in the statute. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which party is being underhand or acting in bad faith here

Am I wrong to think the mentality is wrong here? (im open to thoughts on this).

If you work for a big outsourcing business for example, as a permanent employee, you are subcontracted out in exactly the same way as your limited company employs you in a contract situation.

The opt in then, is automatic, unfortunately the only company you can sue for breach of these rights, is your own limited company.

It all seems like a vicious circle to me, because there has to be one rule for all - afterall, your Fujitsu, IBM, CapGem, type organisations, are ultimately just bigger versions of your limited companies surely??? In which case, you are opted in by being a limited company employee.....??

I think I might have just confused myself........

[Not So Wise]

Why is there such an issue with agencies pitching to your previous client? .

With one agency calling? there would be no real issue

But a contractor is likely to be in contact with more than one agency when looking for a new role, every one of those agencys will want the contacts, everyone of those agencys will ring those contacts (more than once in many cases), every one of those agents will try to sell their services to the contact (a very small percentage will actually do a proper "reference check", none will not try to use it for a sales lead).

Angry contacts will promptly call the contractor and tell him to stop giving out their details (but already too late as they will continue getting calls from all those agents for next few years)

This is why reason number one why we do not give references up front, because very quickly we would have none

[The Agents View]

With one agency calling? there would be no real issue

But a contractor is likely to be in contact with more than one agency when looking for a new role, every one of those agencys will want the contacts, everyone of those agencys will ring those contacts (more than once in many cases), every one of those agents will try to sell their services to the contact (a very small percentage will actually do a proper "reference check", none will not try to use it for a sales lead).

Angry contacts will promptly call the contractor and tell him to stop giving out their details (but already too late as they will continue getting calls from all those agents for next few years)

This is why reason number one why we do not give references up front, because very quickly we would have none

This is the joy of having this board - Of course I only see it from my perspective, and therefore knowing that I always go down the route of just taking the reference. Having thought about it from the other side of the fence, I can appreciate how this could rub your contacts up the wrong way. It's a catch 22 situation really - officially we are meant to take these, but if we take them, then when you do get a gig, you can't get the references......

So this is a conundrum - maybe the solution is to get written references which you can provide on application, allowing the agent to take up verbal confirmation straight after you've been offered a gig?

If anyone wants a template for use which should satisfy most requirements, then PM me and I'll send you one.....

[Boo]

maybe the solution is to get written references which you can provide on application

The solution is to give the previous agent as the reference instead of your client. This is a particularly gratifying conversational trou-de-loup if you have managed to get the agent to explain to you that "I am your client so there is no reason for you to know my margin".

Boo