Helpful Advice

[Daywalker]

Before forwarding your CV to an end-client they must tell you who the end-client is. It's not OK for them to only tell you who they are when an interview is arranged. I'm surprised at how many contractors are happy to be kept in the dark over something so important. It's also the case that the role is likely to be live rather than fake if the recruiter tells you the client's name, it may also demonstrate that they have a good relationship with the client and that they're not using your CV for speculative purposes and are on their PSL as a first tier supplier if that's a supply side requirement, and they should also forward you the job spec that outlines fully what the role requires. Do you want to be represented without this information????

All good and well until they tell you to feck off! I lost count of how many times I have refused to send a CV to an agent because they withhold the name of the client.

Therefore my CV is structured in such a way that they cannot glean information from the contracts that I have worked on, and if they then call and ask for references they get the good old feck off.

Better to send the CV and maybe get the contract, rather than not agreeing with agent withholding the clients name and not having any chance!

good advice though, did you type that in over the weekend or cut and paste,

[Mordac]

>All good and well until they tell you to feck off! I lost count of how many times I have refused to send a CV to an agent because they withhold the name of the client.

Good agents also have to withold the client details, mainly because there are unscrupulous agents who will try it on with resourcers and contractors to find out where the live contracts are.
By all means discuss it with the agents (as opposed to the resourcer) but don't ever tell them to feck off. It's grossly unprofessional. When this situation arises, which it will, you have to make a judgement call. Is the rate/location good? Have you got much else on the go?

[Denny]

Before forwarding your CV to an end-client they must tell you who the end-client is. It's not OK for them to only tell you who they are when an interview is arranged. I'm surprised at how many contractors are happy to be kept in the dark over something so important. It's also the case that the role is likely to be live rather than fake if the recruiter tells you the client's name, it may also demonstrate that they have a good relationship with the client and that they're not using your CV for speculative purposes and are on their PSL as a first tier supplier if that's a supply side requirement, and they should also forward you the job spec that outlines fully what the role requires. Do you want to be represented without this information????

All good and well until they tell you to feck off! I lost count of how many times I have refused to send a CV to an agent because they withhold the name of the client.

Therefore my CV is structured in such a way that they cannot glean information from the contracts that I have worked on, and if they then call and ask for references they get the good old feck off.

Better to send the CV and maybe get the contract, rather than not agreeing with agent withholding the clients name and not having any chance!

good advice though, did you type that in over the weekend or cut and paste,

All good and well until they tell you to feck off! I lost count of how many times I have refused to send a CV to an agent because they withhold the name of the client

You're going about this completely the wrong way Daywalker. No recruiter will disclose the name of the client prior to receiving your CV in case you are a rival recruiter. You should always send them the CV and then when they express a desire to represent you, it is then you should expect to get the name of the client as a condition of them representing you.

If a recruiter still refused to disclose the client, they are not only breaking the law, it is also detrimental to their own interests. Instead of laying out the law though, the best approach, at least initially, would be to reasure them that there would be no point in you giving out the client's name once you know who it is to other recruiters because you would be attracting further competition for the role. This normally satisifies them. To back up this reassurance, ask the representing recruiter to e-mail you confirming that you are using them to represent you because this will also reassure them that you aren't planning to contact the end-client in an attempt to go direct because they too will have a paper trail of your proof that you got the client's name through them. Even if you did go direct, behind the recruiter's back, should the end-client countenance such an arrangement, and most wouldn't, if you were taken on you are also bound to be found out sooner or later from other conractors on site at the end-client and the recruiter will inevitably bill the end-client for introduction fees along with your e-mail proof to back up their claim.

Common sense really.

Mordac I think I've answered your point too.

[Forumbore]

All good and well until they tell you to feck off! I lost count of how many times I have refused to send a CV to an agent because they withhold the name of the client

You're going about this completely the wrong way Daywalker. No recruiter will disclose the name of the client prior to receiving your CV in case you are a rival recruiter. You should always send them the CV and then when they express a desire to represent you, it is then you should expect to get the name of the client as a condition of them representing you.

If a recruiter still refused to disclose the client, they are not only breaking the law, it is also detrimental to their own interests. Instead, of laying out the law though, the best approach, at least initially, would be to reasure then that there would be no point in you giving out the client's name once you know who it is to other recruiters because you would be attracting further competition for the role. This normally satisifies them. To back up this reassurance, ask the representing recruiter to e-mail you confirming that you are using them to represent you because this will also reassure them that you aren't planning to contact the end-client in an attempt to go direct because they too will have a paper trail of your proof that you got the client's name through them.

Common sense really.

Mordac I think I've answered your point too.

If the recruiter does no behave how you wish him to behave do you then involve the client in any dispute? In my experience thesedays the big corporates who hire multiple contractors have strict PSLs in place that neither allow you to go direct or use random agencies. You therefore find that not many agencies need to "protect" the name of the client.

[Daywalker]

You're going about this completely the wrong way Daywalker. No recruiter will disclose the name of the client prior to receiving your CV in case you are a rival recruiter. You should always send them the CV and then when they express a desire to represent you, it is then you should expect to get the name of the client as a condition of them representing you.

I disagree, if I have already submitted my CV, then I have applied for the position. No point then asking for who the end client is because I have already applied for it. If I see an advertisment and think I am suitable for the position I will make contact with the agent and discuss. As happened last week if they refuse to reveal the identity of the client then it is improbale that I would be interested in sending my CV, for several reasons, I may have worked with them before, I may not wish to work with them period. I certainly to do not want all my previous employers being pestered by some agency.

[Denny]

You're going about this completely the wrong way Daywalker. No recruiter will disclose the name of the client prior to receiving your CV in case you are a rival recruiter. You should always send them the CV and then when they express a desire to represent you, it is then you should expect to get the name of the client as a condition of them representing you.
I disagree, if I have already submitted my CV, then I have applied for the position. No point then asking for who the end client is because I have already applied for it. If I see an advertisment and think I am suitable for the position I will make contact with the agent and discuss. As happened last week if they refuse to reveal the identity of the client then it is improbale that I would be interested in sending my CV, for several reasons, I may have worked with them before, I may not wish to work with them period. I certainly to do not want all my previous employers being pestered by some agency.

How many times do I have to say this? No contractor ever applies for a job or role. You are simply responding to a employment business' call for candidates that will potentially suit the end-client's and the recruiter's aspirations to have a qualified contractor on site and for the recruiter to make a placement. They are not doing you the favour, you are doing them one if you are a potential winner for the role. How else do the recruiters stay in business or end-clients for that matter, when there is such a demand for contractors due to employee skills shortages and so on? You always have an option to get business directly through your own contacts and private clients but no employment business can survive without a steady flow of potential candidates to forward.


You said in you original post that you expected the client's name before sending the recruiter your CV not afterwards and told them to 'feck off' when they didn't tell you.

How can you know if you worked for the end-client before if you don't know who they are when the recruiter wants to represent you? It's also up to you to give permission to the recruiter to contact your previous end-client sites when references are requested. This should never happen before the interview takes place.

[Forumbore]

They are not doing you the favour, you are doing them one if you are a potential winner for the role.

.

As a business analyst I am not sure what you mean by "doing favours". Is it that when you do some work for a client that not only are they paying you but you are "doing them a favour"? What has "doing favours" got anything to do with business?

Anyone who views themselves as mightily enough to regard themselves as giving favours as opposed to getting on with the job that they are paid to do is not someone I would ever wish to hire.

I think Denny you have a rather overinflated sense of importance about yourself.

[Denny]

As a business analyst I am not sure what you mean by "doing favours". Is it that when you do some work for a client that not only are they paying you but you are "doing them a favour"? What has "doing favours" got anything to do with business?

Anyone who views themselves as mightily enough to regard themselves as giving favours as opposed to getting on with the job that they are paid to do is not someone I would ever wish to hire.

I think Denny you have a rather overinflated sense of importance about yourself.

I think you take the 'roll over an die' attitude which I find so reprehensible to contractors who are making it difficult for contractors who are constantly being squeezed of any sayso or power in the negotiations and are constantly taking a disporportionate share of the risks when using recruiters or working on end-client sites. When I use the word 'favour' I'm not claiming superiority as an individual or using the word on other contractors' behalf. What I am actually doing is pointing out the contractual arrangements that exist between employment businesses and recruiters before and during the time a contractor is placed. The end-client hires the services of the employment business to source candidates, it's not contractors who source the recruiters to find work. In other words - they need us officially, we do not need them officially even if we do desire a business opportunity for ourselves as part of the package. As for your point about being professional on site - when did my attitude over all of this ever suggest that we shouldn't put 110 per cent into doing a good job?

What I have stated above about the contractual arrangements between end-client and recuriter is a fact. It is not an opinion and it's about time contractors realised they are not passive commodities willing to be pushed around by signing up to all manner of terms and negotiations that clearly don't represent our interests as well as serving the needs of of the other parties concerned. That's what the PGC have done to us too by being in the pockets of recruiter interests over opting out and now the hideous idea that we should pay for our own security checks (which I suspect will also go against contractors eventually, should the scheme get a foothold in the market, when recruiters make it a mandatory condition for representing us to certain organisations even if they're not saying so as yet).

I suspect that you are a recruiter. Either that, or you've been brainwashed by right wing attitudes that actually believes and supports the abuse of the 'little person' in business or employees if we're talking about permies.

[Daywalker]

I was going to continue this debate, but now you are just boring the **** out of me.

[Forumbore]

I think you take the 'roll over an die' attitude which I find so reprehensible to contractors who are making it difficult for contractors who are constantly being squeezed of any sayso or power in the negotiations and are constantly taking a disporportionate share of the risks when using recruiters or working on end-client sites. When I use the word 'favour' I'm not claiming superiority as an individual or using the word on other contractors' behalf. What I am actually doing is pointing out the contractual arrangements that exist between employment businesses and recruiters before and during the time a contractor is placed. The end-client hires the services of the employment business to source candidates, it's not contractors who source the recruiters to find work. In other words - they need us officially, we do not need them officially even if we do desire a business opportunity for ourselves as part of the package. As for your point about being professional on site - when did my attitude over all of this ever suggest that we shouldn't put 110 per cent into doing a good job?

What I have stated above about the contractual arrangements between end-client and recuriter is a fact. It is not an opinion and it's about time contractors realised they are not passive commodities willing to be pushed around by signing up to all manner of terms and negotiations that clearly don't represent our interests as well as serving the needs of of the other parties concerned. That's what the PGC have done to us too by being in the pockets of recruiter interests over opting out and now the hideous idea that we should pay for our own security checks (which I suspect will also go against contractors eventually, should the scheme get a foothold in the market, when recruiters make it a mandatory condition for representing us to certain organisations even if they're not saying so as yet).

I suspect that you are a recruiter. Either that, or you've been brainwashed by right wing attitudes that actually believes and supports the abuse of the 'little person' in business or employees if we're talking about permies.

I am afraid that I dont play golf, who are the PGC?