Yawn.... this bench is bl00dy uncomfortable

[nomadd]

If your contacts don't contain agents then there is no problem with that...

Boo

I only ever get invites from Agents. Which I always refuse. Meaning I have zero contacts. Which bizarrely means I have no problems with LinkedIn any more. Win-win.

[Boo]

I only ever get invites from Agents. Which I always refuse. Meaning I have zero contacts. Which bizarrely means I have no problems with LinkedIn any more. Win-win.

I assume from that you don't think LinkedIn is worth the effort ? I've been pretty assiduously cultivating contacts but it hasn't brought in any work yet. I see they have a new jobs vacant facility which is interesting and which brings clients directly into play - so far it's all been permanent work but I've still put my CV forward where relevant. I've high hopes of LinkedIn in the medium term - the current economic climate means clients will be looking to cut costs and LI is one way to do that.

In case you weren't joking, you do know you need to go out and search for people you know, don't you

Boo

[The Agents View]

are[/B] "the massive financial risk" for most contractors. Whether it's preposterous contract terms, or going bust, or imposing unnecessary intermediaries, or simply pocketing the clients' money and declining to pay. Most contractors' risk is the leech, not the client.

Get a business brain, and CREDIT CHECK your agents then - god knows we do it for every client we deal with - which is what the agent is - your client.

This only really applies to the small fry agencies - the chances of an SThree, Capita, or Ranstad going bust and not paying, are remote at best.

And that long list of unnecessary, invented makework you supplied only shows that the clients' reasons for using agencies are dubious at best and unseemly at worst : they have to do all of the agencies' work all over again when they get the CVs from the leech in any case.

You clearly work with or for small scale companies - the bigger you go, the more risk averse companies become - which is why smaller companies will take contractors direct, and bigger ones will put a middleman in so that they can use the Teflon Shouldered approach.

Every penny you have earned is derivated from contractors who do the only useful portion of the work that the client pays for. Everything else is overhead form leech to umbrella to HR person.

Wrong. Every penny I have ever earned, has come from my ability to provide the sales and marketing element of your business. As with any organisation which provides sales outsource, this costs money - not to you, but oddly, the client. In reality, for providing you with Sales leads, we should be charging the contractor.

So think on that as you pick splinters from your *rse whilst mulling over the likely destination of the current boom in social networks like LinkedIn.Boo

Firstly, I'm not benched - and neither am I likely to be, given that I generate profit for my employer.

Secondly, if you want to make an argument, you might want to think about it first. This morning I have had confirmation of two contracts which have been accepted by my contractors and will start Monday - total sale value £96,000 over three months - Profit Margin, £15,600. The Source? You guessed it - LinkedIn. So yes, I'm absolutely tuliping myself that LinkedIn could replace my in depth sales and negotiation skills immediately, and see me out of a job.....

[MrMark]

Every penny I have ever earned, has come from my ability to provide the sales and marketing element of your business. As with any organisation which provides sales outsource, this costs money - not to you, but oddly, the client. In reality, for providing you with Sales leads, we should be charging the contractor.

I like the idea of this. I suspect there would soon be a common percentage that both sides find acceptable. Agent: I can get you a 550 a day contract for 3 months, but 15% of that will have to be paid to me Contractor: Ok, fine. Instead of the current situation Agent: Client X is looking for someone with your skillsets, but under the present economic downturn they can only pay £200 a day. Contractor : Huh?

[nomadd]

I assume from that you don't think LinkedIn is worth the effort ? I've been pretty assiduously cultivating contacts but it hasn't brought in any work yet. I see they have a new jobs vacant facility which is interesting and which brings clients directly into play - so far it's all been permanent work but I've still put my CV forward where relevant. I've high hopes of LinkedIn in the medium term - the current economic climate means clients will be looking to cut costs and LI is one way to do that.

In case you weren't joking, you do know you need to go out and search for people you know, don't you

Boo

Well, it just seemed to be an "agents playground" when I looked into it last time I was on the bench (2009). Nothing came of the agents, apart from a lot of timewasting calls for "previous client details." So I gave up with it.

Might look back into it next time I'm on the bench, I guess.

Still, I'll continue to ignore all the agent requests to be added to my "friends" (or is that Facebook? Don't use that either... ) At the end of the day, if an agent has a role and has found me on LinkedIn, they'll have no problem finding my contact details and picking up a phone to call. God knows, I've been registered with all of them for the last gazillion years.

[thugusher]

almost 6 mths on the bench for me.. still applying though but very broke now and exhausted warchest..

[PropertyCrashUK]

I used to enjoy this thread.

Can we start another thread on the same subject and leave these chaps to have their row. Or perhaps they could go on linkedin and have it there?

[nomadd]

...leave these chaps to have their row. Or perhaps they could go on linkedin and have it there?

+100

Brilliant idea.

Free Handbags for them at LinkedIn:

[Boo]

Get a business brain, and CREDIT CHECK your agents then

I presume you are being intentionally obtuse ? The fact of the matter is that agencies do not "protect the contractor from risk" as you said. In most cases the agency is the risk for the contractor and it is vapid to suggest that credit checking the agency is a solution to that risk : the solution to agencies' theivery is to cut the agency out of the chain.

the agent is - your client.

No, the agency is the clients' agent. The agency is not the contractors' client since the contractor and agency have no business relationship : the agency does not judge the contractors' work nor discuss the projects' progress, not accept/reject ideas, nor benefit in any way from the contractors' skills cf another less skillful contractor.

The agent is a leech, pure and simple. If you want to see that the agent is a leech then try asking one if they are happy to bill the client for their work while letting the contractor go direct with the client. They will refuse because the only way they can justify the sums they charge is by confusing the contractors' valuable output with the agencies' unjustifiable overhead and expense.

You clearly work with or for small scale companies

Pure invention : I have recently worked with one of the world's largest communications company and the only risk I saw was the guy sitting at the desk to my left lost money through an intermediary going bust.

smaller companies will take contractors direct, and bigger ones will put a middleman in so that they can use the Teflon Shouldered approach.

More self-serving fabrication from the pen of the resident leech - there is no legal advantage for the client in using an agent compared to taking on a Ltd Co. contractor direct. Any liability that stops at the AgencyCo. would also stop at ContractorCo. and a big ("risk averse", remember ?) firm could certainly add tax/NI insurance to their comprehensive set of indemnities for far less than the leech's stupendous and wholly unearned margin

Wrong. Every penny I have ever earned, has come from my ability to provide the sales and marketing element of your business.

Utter codswallop. You perform no more marketing than a barrow boy does for an individual chestnut. Leeches do nothing to market enhanced skills or capabilities, they put forward the cheapest contractor they can find at the highest margin they can "justify" and will do everything possible to prevent a better qualified contractor going forward at a higher rate if that is a lower margin for the agency.

As with any organisation which provides sales outsource, this costs money - not to you, but oddly, the client.

If you were any goood at the services you provide then you would be able to charge the client without the contractor being involved in your "sales outsourcing". The fact that clients will do everything possible to avoid paying a leech tells you what you are worth : nothing.

Secondly, if you want to make an argument, you might want to think about it first. This morning I have had confirmation of two contracts which have been accepted by my contractors and will start Monday - total sale value £96,000 over three months - Profit Margin, £15,600.

£15k, huh ? Lets see now,

• 1 months advertising on Jobserve £250
• 4 hours of an HR bod's time to discard irrelevant CVs : £100
• 2 hours / month of a contract bookkeepers' time to process timesheets 2*3*£50 == £300

Total £650 per contractor == £1300 for the client to do the job in house. Max.

So the mark up on everything you do of value to the client is factor of 10, and the best you can do for the contractor is not go bust ? Thanks, mate but no thanks, mate.

The Source? You guessed it - LinkedIn. So yes, I'm absolutely tuliping myself that LinkedIn could replace my in depth sales and negotiation skills immediately, and see me out of a job.....

"in depth sales and negotiation skills" my fat hairy *rse. You put a job on jobserve then discard the no hopers on a tick-list basis then lie through your nose to all and sundry about the margin you are charging and the "poor availability" of well qualified candidates. There's no question the clients would do a better job themselves and would see better candidates if the leeches were not in the loop.

The reason companies use leeches is kickbacks which go under various guises, like "referrals". Your days are numbered as legislation like the bribary act comes into force and hard times force even HR executives to put their company's interests first.

Boo

[nomadd]

...the solution to agencies' theivery is to cut the agency out of the chain.

...The agent is a leech, pure and simple.

...More self-serving fabrication from the pen of the resident leech

...far less than the leech's stupendous and wholly unearned margin

...Utter codswallop. You perform no more marketing than a barrow boy does for an individual chestnut.

...Leeches do nothing to market enhanced skills or capabilities

...The fact that clients will do everything possible to avoid paying a leech tells you what you are worth : nothing.

..."in depth sales and negotiation skills" my fat hairy *rse.

...then lie through your nose to all and sundry

...if the leeches were not in the loop.

...leeches...kickbacks...Your days are numbered

Boo

I think I'm detecting a pattern here...

In fairness, there are one or two good agents/agencies around. I've found that most of those tend to be on-site, embedded within a large client organisation, where they can't get away with dirty tactics. My last two contracts have been via agencies who have their own staff permanently on-site managing things. Both jobs have gone pretty well, and the agents have been on a smallish 8-10% margin due to the client giving them exclusivity.

Still, unfortunately, there are many around who fit your description. The only advice I can give is don't use them. I get quite a few who phone me up with "attitude", and I simply point out to them that they are just "one of several agencies working on the role, and I'd rather go via someone more professional" quickly puts them in their place.