Restrictive Covenant ... more on this.

[AussieDigger]

I think 12 months is a restraint of trade in any case.

But the workaround to your problem is this:

Contract yourself through someone else's company and you simply supply services to that company. Unless of course the restriction clause limits it to third parties as well ?

Alternately, get the client to change the role to make it distinctly different.

Otherwise, I would call the agent's bluff. If you've been there for 14 months then the agent has made good ££££ out of the contract and you're entitled to carry on with other roles. I can't stand agencies that do this and they just kill their chances with the client for future work. Basically they are saying that if they can't have the role then no one will. Stupid.

[terradev]

Yes and i'm sure you believe all that

Lol all that hand wringing "The Agents View" and you're still not convincing anyone. Those of us who have been both the hirer and the hired have seen your business model from both ends and its amazing what a different perspective you get. It doesnt take much to link up the two ends and realise there isnt much proactive going on in between. Sure if you are head hunting then there is all the world of difference but this represents a very small percentage of the contracts out there.

I'm talking generally so if you are one of the very few agents who actually reads all the CVs (not just the 50% rule or the I have three so I'll stop looking) and scours the registered contractors for a match rather than relying on the auto suggestions from the job board then I commend you. You are in the absolute minority. Good agents do exist and they are like flawless diamonds, valuable and unbelievably rare. The problem isn't that agents exist, I accept this. It's that a vast majority of them wouldn't think twice about lying to your face and have actually no idea about the industry they are recruiting for. Its actually a shame for the good agents that they have to compete with the dross of the universe (although we seem to have a similar problem in IT).

Answer this, who do you consider yourself to be an agent for, the client or the contractor? To be both is a conflict of interest. If the client, how can you negotiate rate on the contractors behalf, and if it is the contractor you represent why do you never seem to do so for more than one contract at a time? Next time an agent calls you ask him this question, you'd be surprised what different answers you get.

Look I admit I was a bit harsh in my previous post but it came off the back of a call from yet another agent who phoned me to "check what other opportunities I am currently involved with so he can make sure he doesn't put me forward twice". Funny when you ask them what they are thinking of putting you forward for so you can tell them if you've already been involved with it they suddenly don't seem to have anything at all.

[The Agents View]

[QUOTE]

Lol all that hand wringing "The Agents View" and you're still not convincing anyone. Those of us who have been both the hirer and the hired have seen your business model from both ends and its amazing what a different perspective you get. It doesnt take much to link up the two ends and realise there isnt much proactive going on in between. Sure if you are head hunting then there is all the world of difference but this represents a very small percentage of the contracts out there.

I'm not a headhunter. But do you know what, the only difference between myself, and a headhunter, is the way in which I start a telephone call. I have no need to blow smoke up the rear end of a contractor and make them feel as if I've "hunted" them down - those days are gone as the information is freely available on LinkedIn etc.

I'm talking generally so if you are one of the very few agents who actually reads all the CVs (not just the 50% rule or the I have three so I'll stop looking) and scours the registered contractors for a match rather than relying on the auto suggestions from the job board then I commend you. You are in the absolute minority. Good agents do exist and they are like flawless diamonds, valuable and unbelievably rare. The problem isn't that agents exist, I accept this. It's that a vast majority of them wouldn't think twice about lying to your face and have actually no idea about the industry they are recruiting for. Its actually a shame for the good agents that they have to compete with the dross of the universe (although we seem to have a similar problem in IT).

Unfortunately, the industry is awash with cowboys, who think that reading a CV is the best way to assess the suitability of a contractor. Ultimately, the CV for me, is the first port of call - it's my sanity check to make sure that if I call this person, they're going to have some idea of what my client is looking to achieve, and won't result in me wasting my time - beyond that, the qualification call is the most important element. However, as much as you get the cowboy recruiters, you also get a number of cowboy contractors - people who think that contracts are permanent jobs, where they can just "pick it up as they go along". The reality is, that the use of the contract market, during times of austerity is limited to those who have been there and done it. Hit the ground running, been through this process a number of times, expert ability in XYZ are all common in client demands - now more than ever.

Do I read every CV? No - I have a cut off point, usually about 48 hours into any advert run - ultimately, I have to call time on it somewhere. As I've previously said on here - the first run through is a scan read - I will very basically check that the highest level requirements are met, and then I'll call to discuss the others - however, out of 100 applications, it's not uncommon to find that there's maybe five or six applicants who fulfill that criteria.

Answer this, who do you consider yourself to be an agent for, the client or the contractor? To be both is a conflict of interest. If the client, how can you negotiate rate on the contractors behalf, and if it is the contractor you represent why do you never seem to do so for more than one contract at a time? Next time an agent calls you ask him this question, you'd be surprised what different answers you get.

It depends on the situation. If I'm being pro-active, I work purely on behalf of the contractor. If I'm finding someone on behalf of a client, I work, in the majority for the client (in this case, additional candidates aren't as difficult to find as additional clients!) - However I think there always has to be some form of balance - I'm a firm believer that relationships matter, and that the project assistant of today, is the programme director of tomorrow - As the recruiter, if you provide a fair deal to everyone, then there's not any bad blood. I personally am quite upfront about the margin I charge. It averages at 15%, with some at 20% and some at 10% - I don't get too hung up on it, as doing that can, and does stop placements from happening, and that's no good for anyone.

What I would point out though, is that regardless of how fair I want/need/should be - ultimately, it is not the contractor who pays my bill.

Look I admit I was a bit harsh in my previous post but it came off the back of a call from yet another agent who phoned me to "check what other opportunities I am currently involved with so he can make sure he doesn't put me forward twice". Funny when you ask them what they are thinking of putting you forward for so you can tell them if you've already been involved with it they suddenly don't seem to have anything at all.

Amazing! Phishing I can cope with - as long as it's quid pro-quo - i.e. if I've got you an interview, then I'll ask what kind of roles are going on for you elsewhere - my expected response from that is a couple of job titles at the most. At which point, I'll ask the contractor to do a deal with me - so if I can convince the client to take them on, and pay them the money they want, without any massive rate squeezes, I'd like the details of who they've seen, and for what position. Up front, honest, and simple. The notion of asking for information for nothing in return shouldn't really register in a recruiters brain. Unfortunately, there are some massive businesses out there, run by the ultimate cowboys, who think that you lot still fall for that Scr3p.