Opt out of Conduct of employment agencies 2003 act?

[SueEllen]

Thats one of my pet hates - companies who issue email addresses and dont answer emails. Whats the point?

I'd prefer to email someone than phone them. Likewise, I prefer if someone emails me rather than phones. If they phone I have to speak to them then, if they email I can deal with it in the next few hours.

What pisses me off is people who don't answer emails/take days to do so. Good thing is my accountant at NW answers emails same day which is excellent - I've never actually spoken to him!

Unfortunately some people in organisations didn't realise how an email address on the web would be spammed. Besides the majority of non-IT people like having conversations with other people. In the case of agents I'm sure it's because the majority are liars who may be illiterate and/or luddites as well, but with everyone else it's to do with being sociable.

[SueEllen]

You have the PCG to thank for the opt out.

Still, contractors want to show they are independent commercial businesses taking risk seeking to hide behind Employment Agency Regulations does seem a bit weird to me.

It would be lovely if we were guarenteed payments irrespective of quality by our customers

It's was for the right of substitution with an employee or subcontractor from the beginning of the contract. Unfortunately the government lawyers couldn't write it concisely.

To be honest if your billing cycle is like most agencies I've dealt with, you are actually paying the contractor often before you get paid.

This means you should get properly drafted contracts from a solicitor with a clause to state the contractor will down tools if the agency isn't paid by the client, and restraint of trade and dispute clauses that would actually stick in a court of law. I know a lot of agents use template contracts as lots of clauses can be easily ripped apart by a lawyer.

[BolshieBastard]

It's fairly simple, if you want to Opt Out you can, if you don't want to we won't force you. There are some clients who insist on only receiving applications from opt-out contractors but they are a tiny fraction of the client base.

Andy, is Rullion an S3 company?

Why would a client only want to consider opted out contractors?

Opting in doesnt make a contractor an 'employee.' So either the agents are blocking contractors who want to opt in (for whatever reason) or they are feeding clients misinformation about the opt in ie you the client will be employing this contractor.

In reality the status makes very little difference to us for the 99.9% of UK contracts that run smoothly. You may be surprised to know that it is more of a pain NOT to pay when running a fully electronic worksheet system going into our SAP system.

If this is correct then why is the default position of S3 and many other agencies that the documents sent to the contractor is opt out (please sign and return)?

I can't say it will stay like this forever as we need to stay in line with the market, but our opt-out contracts have never had a 'pay when paid' clauses for opt out contractors. Perhaps as we are more used to dealing internationally where protection for freelancers and contractors via management companies is a lot higher.

I know for a fact that adecco do have this clause. They also have a clause that says if you dont submit signed timesheets within 8 weeks of the date of the period they are for, for any reason, you dont get paid.

B&C negotiated this clause out of the relevant contract.

[Andy Hallett]

Opt out of Conduct of employment agencies 2003 act?

Bolshie,

Rullion are not one of ours.

It is very rare of a client to insist on it, we are talking 1 or 2 in our portfolio. I will find out what the rationale was and if able to I will post.

Our form gives a choice of opt in (yes I know that's the default) and opting out.

I can't comment on Adecco's contract or policies.

Andy

[BolshieBastard]

Bolshie,

Rullion are not one of ours.

It is very rare of a client to insist on it, we are talking 1 or 2 in our portfolio. I will find out what the rationale was and if able to I will post.

Our form gives a choice of opt in (yes I know that's the default) and opting out.

I can't comment on Adecco's contract or policies.

Andy

Thanks Andy.

Obviously Rullion didnt have the courtesy or courage to tell me they would not take on an Opt In request.

[Ignis Fatuus]

You have the PCG to thank for the opt out.

Still, contractors want to show they are independent commercial businesses taking risk seeking to hide behind Employment Agency Regulations does seem a bit weird to me.

It would be lovely if we were guarenteed payments irrespective of quality by our customers

A good point!

But somebody has to take the risk of non-payment by the client - either the agency or the contractor. It seems to me that these days rates are so depressed that they barely cover the ever greater risk of bench time, never mind the risk of non-payment. Of course an agency may well feel the same way about their rates to the client. It is perhaps the fault of both of us, in offering our services too cheap by failing to price in bad luck.

[BolshieBastard]

A good point!

But somebody has to take the risk of non-payment by the client - either the agency or the contractor. It seems to me that these days rates are so depressed that they barely cover the ever greater risk of bench time, never mind the risk of non-payment. Of course an agency may well feel the same way about their rates to the client. It is perhaps the fault of both of us, in offering our services too cheap by failing to price in bad luck.

Or perhaps its the fault of agencies who want to make far too much mark up on contractors that causes them to seek a bit more 'protection'?

How can an agency justify the same mark up on a contractor getting repeat extensions to when they first placed them? OK, the first assignment they can say all the hard work was getting the contractor in front of the client etc, etc but for extensions? One past agent used to phone me saying 'they' had great news as 'they' had negotiated repeat extensions for me. Nope, I'd discussed all (in a 3+ year period) but one with the client first.

I find it a bit of an eye opener that whenever the market is depressed and lots of contractors are benched or finding rates offered are well down on normal, a litany of agencies post increased turnover and increased profit for their corresponding year end accounts.

You cant have increased turnover and \ or increased profit on fewer working contractors unless you are squeezing the supply chain from both ends ie the contractor and the client.

[geoffreywhereveryoumaybe]

Restriction Clause

I have landed a contract through a large consultancy rather than an employment agency so there has been no mention of opting in or out. However, the contract they sent which is between their company and my ltd as a vendor has a 2 year non-solicitation clause. I have challenged this? Am I still covered by the Conduct of Employment Agencies act or is it different in this scenario?

[malvolio]

I have landed a contract through a large consultancy rather than an employment agency so there has been no mention of opting in or out. However, the contract they sent which is between their company and my ltd as a vendor has a 2 year non-solicitation clause. I have challenged this? Am I still covered by the Conduct of Employment Agencies act or is it different in this scenario?

Where is the Employment Business in that engagement, do you suppose? The agency REgs apply to agencies, not clients. If you don't like the clause, challenge it to make it something mutually acceptable: you likely won't win, they are protecting their intellectual property not their income stream, but if you don't ask...

[geoffreywhereveryoumaybe]

The Consultancy are placing me with an end client

So they are acting like an Employment Business?