There's absolutely no need at all for 'employment businesses' to turn into contractor hired agencies by paying them to find work. The relationship as it stands should just be reflected in the terminologies and language used and the payment model to recruiters should reflect the true situation as well.
The end clients are still the best to know what they need and when and should take the intitative when sourcing contractors and to do the paying. They just need to understand that contractors are not 'supplied' services of the recruiter if they are 'limiteds' and that only introductions are made by the recruiter off their own hard (well it would be if they were paid) work that is currently unpaid for by clients in lieu of the mark-up fees they currently get when contractors are already on site. All fees to the recruiter should be two fold - one fee for sourcing and forwarding CVs and one fee for a successful introduction (where the contractor is hired). These fees should be upfront and reflect how long the a contract lasts from the results of an introduction and should also include the recruitment body acting, as they currently do, as a payroll channel for the client and contractor for convenience.
It's about getting it right to reflect the true legal situation as it currently stands, not making it different by turning the model around so that contractors pay agents. At the moment the model is already turned around in an absurd way because as far as the end client are concerned they use employment businesses to source candidates who in turn regard themselves to contractors as their unpaid agent by telling them they are 'finding them work' or 'found them a job'. Even end client representatives, when talking to contractors directly about anything, will say things like : well you need to speak to your agency about that. Hello? They aren't our agency, they're your employment business, you hired them to find me, you need my services otherwise you wouldn;t have bothered and yes, I would like my travel expenses paid for interviews considering you are offically sourcing and not me who is seeking (accept unofficially).
If there are any problems with an agency contractors often run into another problem. At present, if you have any complaint about a recruiter the end client will immediately dissasociate themselves from the complainant by not addressing the issue directly to them and instead will promise to ring you back with an answer but will actually contact the same agency the contractor has complained about to deal with the complaint. How absurd is that? It's as if we don't exist as people or business representatives in our own right. In other words we're merely a distributed pair of shoes or a car that has no voice. Personally, I object to being compared and treated like an inanimate object.
This whole situation as is currently stands is ludicrous and degrading for both recruiters (who aren't paid for what they do) and for us (who are treated like well paid slaves who have no rights or voice) and the only ones that ultimately suffer disporportionately are contractors who are manipulated by all parties involved in the recruitment process. But all lose out the way things currently stand.
As I've said before, the only reason I use employment businesses to market myself is because my field and the organisations that need my services are all large FTSE100s and government departments who insist on recruiting through employment businesses. I do have private clients but could never get a decent income from using them alone.
The end clients are still the best to know what they need and when and should take the intitative when sourcing contractors and to do the paying. They just need to understand that contractors are not 'supplied' services of the recruiter if they are 'limiteds' and that only introductions are made by the recruiter off their own hard (well it would be if they were paid) work that is currently unpaid for by clients in lieu of the mark-up fees they currently get when contractors are already on site. All fees to the recruiter should be two fold - one fee for sourcing and forwarding CVs and one fee for a successful introduction (where the contractor is hired). These fees should be upfront and reflect how long the a contract lasts from the results of an introduction and should also include the recruitment body acting, as they currently do, as a payroll channel for the client and contractor for convenience.
It's about getting it right to reflect the true legal situation as it currently stands, not making it different by turning the model around so that contractors pay agents. At the moment the model is already turned around in an absurd way because as far as the end client are concerned they use employment businesses to source candidates who in turn regard themselves to contractors as their unpaid agent by telling them they are 'finding them work' or 'found them a job'. Even end client representatives, when talking to contractors directly about anything, will say things like : well you need to speak to your agency about that. Hello? They aren't our agency, they're your employment business, you hired them to find me, you need my services otherwise you wouldn;t have bothered and yes, I would like my travel expenses paid for interviews considering you are offically sourcing and not me who is seeking (accept unofficially).
If there are any problems with an agency contractors often run into another problem. At present, if you have any complaint about a recruiter the end client will immediately dissasociate themselves from the complainant by not addressing the issue directly to them and instead will promise to ring you back with an answer but will actually contact the same agency the contractor has complained about to deal with the complaint. How absurd is that? It's as if we don't exist as people or business representatives in our own right. In other words we're merely a distributed pair of shoes or a car that has no voice. Personally, I object to being compared and treated like an inanimate object.
This whole situation as is currently stands is ludicrous and degrading for both recruiters (who aren't paid for what they do) and for us (who are treated like well paid slaves who have no rights or voice) and the only ones that ultimately suffer disporportionately are contractors who are manipulated by all parties involved in the recruitment process. But all lose out the way things currently stand.
As I've said before, the only reason I use employment businesses to market myself is because my field and the organisations that need my services are all large FTSE100s and government departments who insist on recruiting through employment businesses. I do have private clients but could never get a decent income from using them alone.
make it £4k and I will chuck a lunch in 
Comment