Yawn.... this bench is bl00dy uncomfortable

[TiroFijo]

Very frustrating as loads of jobs want C# plus my skillset, but I'm not up with the C# yet.

C#, C# plus - people still use that phish...?

[nomadd]

C#, C# plus - people still use that phish...?

Think you are getting "C#" confused with C/C++ when you say are "people still use that phish...?" and quote a language that doesn't exist, "C# plus".

And as regards that "C/C++ pish", there are 27 contracts on Jobserve at the moment in finance offering £500-700 / day for it.

And the "C# pish" has 40 contracts in finance offering £500-800 / day for it.

Not bad for "pish"

EDIT: And just to be clear, that's just the "top end" jobs. Overall, for C++ there are 247 active roles; for C# there are 514 active roles. And when you consider the subject of this thread is about being "stuck on the bench", I'm sure there are plenty of folks who presently would be happy with any of those 750+ roles.

[CheeseSlice]

when say are

And as regards, that "C/C++ pish"

are you pished?

[nomadd]

are you pished?

Is it [the] weekend?

[TiroFijo]

Think you are getting "C#" confused with C/C++ when you say are "people still use that phish...?" and quote a language that doesn't exist, "C# plus".

And as regards that "C/C++ pish", there are 27 contracts on Jobserve at the moment in finance offering £500-700 / day for it.

And the "C# pish" has 40 contracts in finance offering £500-800 / day for it.

Not bad for "pish"


EDIT: And just to be clear, that's just the "top end" jobs. Overall, for C++ there are 247 active roles; for C# there are 514 active roles. And when you consider the subject of this thread is about being "stuck on the bench", I'm sure there are plenty of folks who presently would be happy with any of those 750+ roles.

Talk it up...

[The Agents View]

[QUOTE=Boo;1297205]

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.

Which is fine, right up until the End user goes bust.

Oh and in the meantime, you'll need 60 days of cashflow to even think about going direct.....

I didn't say credit checking was the answer - however, you can get insurance, which pays out assuming you have done your credit checks. Useable for agencies, and end clients.

No, the agency is the clients' agent. The agency is not the contractors' client

Read your contract. The Agency is your client. End of. It's right there in black and white.

since the contractor and agency have no business relationship : the agency does not judge the contractors' work nor discuss the projects' progress,

Hmmmm.... I do... In fact, I take alot of time to do that. Not only does it expand my knowledge, but it also leads to new opportunities and pro-active selling gaps.

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

Errr....I do this all the time - it's called a margin only deal. It's not the preferred route of most clients, because it means multiple invoices to process. The only times it really gets used are when companies credit ratings are so low that even a "leech" can't afford the risk level.

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 have ABSOLUTELY no idea what overheads are required.

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.

In that situation, I feel for the contractor - I really do - but this is also part of the reason that contractors charge themselves out at such ridiculous levels - it's to cover the risk of something like that happening. That said, I feel for your friend.

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

Several advantages.

1) amalgamated invoices. 1 invoice - multiple contractors.

2) Risk aversion - You'd be AMAZED at the tulip which can be laid at the door of agencies.

3) We do this, all day every day. A hiring manager doesn't know how to source the best skills, doesn't know how to network around, doesn't know how to negotiate to a budget (actually I take that back - they can probably cope with that).

They also don't have time to spend hours speaking to people about each opportunity, and cope with bob and his dog applying for every role in the universe.

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.

What POSSIBLE reason can you have to believe that?
30% of Nothing, is STILL nothing (or was last time I looked). The ONLY way to do this job, is to put forward the person who gets the job. That's the only time we ever make money.

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".

Which we do. This is called retained recruitment. It also happens when searching on a "head hunting" basis.

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

Ha! This is utterly hilarious. If I had a choice between paying Tesco for my shopping, and not paying them, which one do you think I'd take?

If a client had a choice between paying you, and not paying you, which do you think they'd take?

Do you see where I'm going with that?

Does that make every business in the country, and every contractor in the world worth nothing?

I think you might want to see a doctor.

£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.

You're a genius. Why don't you go and sell that model? I bet it'll get you a long way - until you take into account:

Training
Holidays
Sickness
Pension
NI
Money factoring
Electricity
IT
Incorrect placement
Referencing
Background checking
ID checking
Contract negotiation
Contract raising
Incidental expenses
.... oh yes, and the fact that in harsh economic climates, taking on additional headcount is a no no, especially for blue chip companies.

"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.

Never use job sites myself (although many do).

I've seen every single variation of in-house operation. There is alot of money in recruitment if you're good at it. If you're rubbish at it, you go and work in house.

The reason companies use leeches is kickbacks which go under various guises, like "referrals".

I've given out 2 referral payments in 8 years. Both were for candidates I needed for a hard to fill job, and both went to the same person. I'd hardly call that bribery - I'd call it rewarding someone who helped to get me out of a hole.

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.

I hope the bribery rules do change. I hope that the people who backhand bosses do get caught out. I don't, so I have nothing to worry about.

[PropertyCrashUK]

I see they are continuing to advertise this role - yet again.

Infrastructure Analyst Cardiff Contract IT Job

Server Infrastructure Analyst- Cardiff Cardiff Contract IT Job

Infrastructure Project Manager Cardiff Contract IT Job

[Robinho]

So much of this forum is TAV having arguments with contractors who dislike agents (also known as contractors).

[Boo]

Which is fine, right up until the End user goes bust.

Boy do you have that backwards ! The client goes bust and then what ? The agency pays the contractor despite the fact that they have not been paid ? Hahahahahah ! Not in this world, Sonny Jim.

What happens in this world is the client pays the agency who then declines to respond to emails about missing payment, then goes bust leaving up to hundreds of unpaid contractors. The contracts with the clients are then bought up by the agencies' directors who start the same process of thievery all over again.

That's what happens in this world. How many contractors here have had clients go bust or have heard of clients going bust ? And how many have had / heard of intermediaries go bust ? Hmm ?

I repeat : the agency is the risk for a contractor.

Oh and in the meantime, you'll need 60 days of cashflow to even think about going direct.

Which, of course you won't need if you go through an agency ? Because no agency demands 30 days from end of month from their contractors. Yeah, right...

I didn't say credit checking was the answer

Yes you did. Your response to the point "Most contractors' risk is the leech, not the client" was :

Get a business brain, and CREDIT CHECK your agents then

You seem to have a low regard for the truth, which is what contractors have come to expect from agencies in fact.

I take alot of time to do that. Not only does it expand my knowledge, but it also leads to new opportunities and pro-active selling gaps.

More bullTulipe from the resident agent: you are in no way competent to judge a professional programmers' work and no client would ever let an agent determine whether a contractors' work was done to an acceptable standard.

I do this all the time - it's called a margin only deal. It's not the preferred route of most clients, because it means multiple invoices to process. The only times it really gets used are when companies credit ratings are so low that even a "leech" can't afford the risk level.

More huff, puff and sand throwing : the question you were tasked with answering was why you do not allow contractors to go direct in normal circumstances and bill for your own "valuable efforts" separately ? The fact that you have chosen to answer another question entirely gives the reason : you do nothing of value and cannot justify your own existance.

this is also part of the reason that contractors charge themselves out at such ridiculous levels - it's to cover the risk of something like that happening.

"Something like that", remember, was the intermediary going bust. So your justification for having an agency in the loop is that contractor rates are high enough to justify the risk they will go bust ? Have you run that past a client ? No ? You should, and please record their replies for our entertainment...

1) amalgamated invoices. 1 invoice - multiple contractors.

2) Risk aversion - You'd be AMAZED at the tulip which can be laid at the door of agencies.

3) We do this, all day every day. A hiring manager doesn't know how to source the best skills, doesn't know how to network around, doesn't know how to negotiate to a budget (actually I take that back - they can probably cope with that).

They also don't have time to spend hours speaking to people about each opportunity, and cope with bob and his dog applying for every role in the universe.

I am not going to dignify all of this drivel with a reply, but you will recall that my analysis included the sum of £300 per contractor per 3 month contract for the clients' bookkeeping expenses (generous, I feel) and does not need to "spend hours speaking to people about ... every role in the universe" because the triage of the 200 CVs an average JS advert receives was included in the £100 that paid for 4 hours of the HR droid's time.

...The ONLY way to do this job, is to put forward the person who gets the job. That's the only time we ever make money.

Yes, and you make most money when the contractor is cheapest, not when the contractor is best suited for the role. Another point you seem determined to avoid.

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".

Which we do. This is called retained recruitment. It also happens when searching on a "head hunting" basis.

Yers, but you are avoiding the point again : the question was, if you are so confident in the value you represent to the client, then why do you not bill for your services separately, allowing contractors to go direct ? You don't answer that question by saying that headhunters work on that basis, the question is why don't you permit contractors to work on the same basis ? The reason is as I stated : you do nothing of value and subsist solely by sucking blood from the people who provide the value to the client.

Ha! This is utterly hilarious. If I had a choice between paying Tesco for my shopping, and not paying them, which one do you think I'd take?

I couldn't possibly comment...

If a client had a choice between paying you, and not paying you, which do you think they'd take?

My clients are happy with the service I provide and regard the product I supply as good value. So they are very happy to pay me. The problem for contractors is that agencies go bust having spent the money the clients have paid them for the contractors' services. There is no prevalent problem with clients failing to pay contractors or agencies in this business.

Do you see where I'm going with that?

Yes, "Nowhere Man", I do see where you are going with that.

£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.

You're a genius. Why don't you go and sell that model? I bet it'll get you a long way - until you take into account:

Training
Holidays
Sickness
Pension
NI
Money factoring
Electricity
IT
Incorrect placement
Referencing
Background checking
ID checking
Contract negotiation
Contract raising
Incidental expenses

You will remember that the point of the discussion was to try to determine what value the agency brings into the loop, no ?

The agent provides the value I described above : JS ads, CV sifting and (minimal) bookkeeping. Total cost to the client of providing that value for themselves £1300, max, for 2 contractors on 3 month contracts.

Out of the things you mention : training, holidays, sickness, pension, NI, money factoring, electricity, IT and incidental expenses are in tlhe loop only because an agency is in the loop, they cannot be used to justify the agency because they are a downside of using one.

Of the others, incorrect placement seems to be using agents mistakes to justify the presence of the agency in the loop ? Or else your incoherence has beaten me.

Of contract negotiation and contract raising the client still needs to do that, but has to do it with an agent instead of the contractor so the end result is nothing. Except that client can be caught by 2 contracts when there's an agent in the loop. And I would think that any client using the PCG contract would find the contract negotiation process a very short one.

So that leaves ID checking, reference and background checking. Which is true in principle, but agencies don't check my background (because I don't provide agencies with references) and ID checking is not seen by clients as a big issue IME - no client has ever asked to see my passport, and it would take them 2 minutes to do so if they ever did decide to do that.

Reference checking is a 10 minute phone call, ditto background checking.

In the financial and military sectors background checking is carried out by third parties the cost of which is either passed directly onto the client by the agency (not very likely) or else is instigated and borne directly by the client anyway (most likely).

So, all of what the agency performs is either overhead caused by having an agency in the loop in the first place, or unnecessarily additional to what the client does anyway, or included in the £1300 (for 2 off 3 month contracts) I quoted above.

And the figure you yourself quoted for an agency to do that "work" was more than £15000. Good value ? Not in my book,

I've given out 2 referral payments in 8 years. Both were for candidates I needed for a hard to fill job, and both went to the same person. I'd hardly call that bribery

If the payments go to a person in the client company then it's bribery, call it what you want, the sentence is the same.

Boo

[realityhack]

Enough. This is a professional forum. If you want to bicker - please take this to General. Thanks.