Is this illegal or just part of the territory?....

[d000hg]

Doesn't client co ultimately suffer as the agent puts forward only those contractors willing to accept a lower rate even though the more expensive contractor may have the better skill set? The agency has no interest in offering any quality service to either client or contractor. They are true bottom feeders.

I think that's over simplistic. Firstly to suggest a direct correlation between the rate someone asks and their quality is naive. Secondly, if an agency supplies dodgy resources consistently their client may try another agency.

If you (meaning anyone, not you specifically) really think agents are bottom-feeders who don't provide a valuable service, then the choice not to use them will be an easy one. On the other hand if you reluctantly admit you can't easily get work directly, or on terms you require, you've proved the agents' value.

[MarillionFan]

People on this forum are ridiculously blinkered.

If you were selling a piece of IT hardware - lets say, a Server, and you sold it to a client at list price plus a bit of margin, then found out, that the supplier could do it cheaper, then that is not "bulltulip" or "agency games" thats GOOD BUSINESS.

As it happens, more and more, agents are being locked down on margins, so when rate fluctuates, so does the charge rate.

It is entirely possible, that what you were seeing, is the result of the response to the job - if you only have one person, and they want top dollar, great - if you have 4 or 5, it's unlikely that the top dollar bod will get the job - so you either sack them off, or put them in as a benchmarker - neither of them will get YOU the gig.

Recruitment consulants, are business people, and you are their product. They make the sale, and then the cost comes out of that sale - it's really that simple.

WHS.

Seriously been a lot of serious whining about adverts and agents 'practices' recently. It's quite simple, if you don't like it, don't use them.

[jmo21]

Doesn't client co ultimately suffer as the agent puts forward only those contractors willing to accept a lower rate even though the more expensive contractor may have the better skill set? The agency has no interest in offering any quality service to either client or contractor. They are true bottom feeders.

All good points, not sure why you are directing them at me though?

[Wanderer]

Ok, I will make this brief as I can... Is it illegal for recruitment consultants to put up ads with misleading salary rates?

No.

I'm curious as to legality of putting up job ads with misleading salary rates. If it is illegal it might be good leverage to point this out in a negotiation.

It's an Invitation to treat not a binding contract offer. If they put the feelers out for a 400-500 per day job and a load of people come in at 350-400 then the one who comes in at 500 isn't going to get a look in.

Why did they advertise it at that rate then?

It's just their way of doing business. They'll pay top dollar if an exceptional person comes along and they have trouble finding anyone else but if they get a pile of applications at lower rates then they're going to negotiate the rate down aren't they? Reverse the situation and consider how you would do business in their position...

[meridian]

They're all pathological liars.

In my current gig, the rate was advertised as a range. When talking to the agent, I mentioned that I was looking to go in at the higher end of the range.

Interview lined up with the client, but I met with the agent beforehand for a chat. Again, the rate was mentioned and I said that I was looking at the higher end of the range.

Met with the client - on the desk between us was the agency's covernote to my cv. Clearly on the front was "Rate" and the lowest rate. Not even a range. Bam goes any chance of negotiating with the client to the higher end.

[d000hg]

In my experience companies hiring direct do this as much (for permie jobs anyway), post the absolute they'd pay and then find reasons why you are not eligible for that. I don't think it's a recruitment thing, just a "trying not to pay more than they have to" thing. If they advertise at £500 it might mean they'd pay £500 if only one good candidate comes along, but if there's competition then why shouldn't they leverage market forces...

[TheFaQQer]

If you were selling a piece of IT hardware - lets say, a Server, and you sold it to a client at list price plus a bit of margin, then found out, that the supplier could do it cheaper, then that is not "bulltulip" or "agency games" thats GOOD BUSINESS.

That analogy only works when you are comparing widgets that are pretty much identical regardless of supplier.

Where it drastically falls down is if that's not the case. Say, for example, when you are trying to supply people or other resources where they are all unique.

[Wanderer]

Met with the client - on the desk between us was the agency's covernote to my cv. Clearly on the front was "Rate" and the lowest rate. Not even a range. Bam goes any chance of negotiating with the client to the higher end.

Once again this is an invitation to treat so it cuts both ways.

I don't generally get to negotiate directly with the client, it's the agency you are supposed to do business with (although it's great if you can negotiate direct because you can stop the agent taking the piss).

If I'm fortunate enough to be able to negotiate directly with the client then I would flatly point out that the agency wrote that figure on the CV not me. In fact the agent represented the role to me as paying between X and Y per day which I think is in line with the market rate for my skills.

Perhaps the agent deliberately misrepresents you at the lower rate to get your foot in the door from where you can pitch for the upsell and a higher rate. Of course the worker and client look at the agent as a filthy dirty operator for doing this and we both have a grumble about how tulip agents are. But just quietly, it's got me the interview and a chance to pitch my business to the client so I'm happy for that.

1. Moving on in a businesslike manner and presuming I had a strong case, I'd pitch for the higher end of the range due to the fact that I'm such a good fit to their needs and I can see a number of places where I can really add value. Client accepts my pitch and a deal is done.

2. Client gets annoyed and says that X amount is the absolute maximum they can pay and they won't consider candidates costing any more so the agent has wasted everyone's time.

Or something between 1 and 2 happens. Either way, a business deal is done with an opener, negotiations, upsell and closer. You win some, you lose some but you are doing a sales job here and you have to accept that the odd one will be a waste of time.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

We have a highly amusing situation in my particular niche at present. An agency is advertising a cross train permie role and demanding a very high level of experience.

I talked to them about what I'd need to earn to make it worthwhile going permie(accepting that I'd take a cut in income for a cross-train into something with a potentially better future) which puts me at the top end of the advertised pay scale - and I do have all the experence they want. After a lot of mucking about the agent comes back and says clientco got the budget wrong and will only pay X - which is a non-starter for me (to be fair to him he was apologetic about it).

Meanwhile two fellow contractors and acquaintances were in negotiation - one gets offered the role and turns it down because the wonga is insuffucient, the other can't agree terms either. Result, they have been advertising the role for upwards of three months and to my certain knowledge it remains unfilled. I guess they will recruit someone eventually, but not with the experience they claim they need, at the money they want to pay.

Sometimes clientco's management is just being dense.