Opt out of Conduct of employment agencies 2003 act?

[SueEllen]

So has anyone ever complained about an agency and seen something done?

Way I see it is even if you complain and agency gets slap on the wrist maybe all that happens is that you probably lose the gig and some other mug gets its. Might be the right thing to do of course.

The whole system is a joke. Can't believe you can't email/web form in a complaint either. There should be an easy way to report breaches without having the faff of phoning.

Maybe then it would sink in with the governing body how much of an issue it is when they get a volume of complaints.

You still get the contract and the agents involved act p*ssed for the entire time you are there. They know if they do anything to you without proper evidence of you being useless/fraudulent/whatever you can cause the agency legal problems and those agents to lose their jobs.

Another thing with reporting companies to their regulators is not the fines but the powers the regulator can have in stopping a company going about it's normal day to day business so they lose more income than the fines.

The time spent dealing with a regulator whether it's just to answer an email to fend off investigation or it's because they have seized your computers etc is lost income.

[Wanderer]

Wow, that is one confused agency.

No, they are not confused at all.

They are deliberately muddling the "Agency Conduct Regulations" up with the "Agency Workers Regulations" in order to trick clients into only taking opted out contractors and to bully the contractors into opting out.

This is of course illegal under the Agency Conduct Regulations but they don't care about that. It's all deniable, if they get found out then they will just say "woops, we were confused. Some junior staff member said the wrong thing. Sorry about that".

As you will well know, there are solid commercial reasons for a client to prefer contractors who do NOT opt out of the agency conduct regulations (restrictive covenants, temp to perm fees etc).

[SteelyDan]

As you will well know, there are solid commercial reasons for a client to prefer contractors who do NOT opt out of the agency conduct regulations (restrictive covenants, temp to perm fees etc).

Are you sure you've got this right? I think you're the one who is confused.

[SueEllen]

Are you sure you've got this right? I think you're the one who is confused.

It is correct.

There are lot of contracting work available through consultancies who use lots of agencies, and can drop and add an agency to their PSL at will.

If a contractor who has previously worked for a consultancy through agency X is opted-out and has a 12 month restraint of trade clause finishes a contract they cannot within 12 months go through agency Y to supply their services to the same consultancy without a lot of hassle.

If the contractor was opted-in and finishes a contract with the consultancy through agency X, and 6 months later sees a role through agency Y to the consultancy there is no issue in them taking it whatsoever.

This is why it is worth getting the client's contact details at interview so if the agency insists on the opt-out you can get the client to help push back if their contracts person understands what it is.

[malvolio]

It is correct.

There are lot of contracting work available through consultancies who use lots of agencies, and can drop and add an agency to their PSL at will.

If a contractor who has previously worked for a consultancy through agency X is opted-out and has a 12 month restraint of trade clause finishes a contract they cannot within 12 months go through agency Y to supply their services to the same consultancy without a lot of hassle.

If the contractor was opted-in and finishes a contract with the consultancy through agency X, and 6 months later sees a role through agency Y to the consultancy there is no issue in them taking it whatsoever.

This is why it is worth getting the client's contact details at interview so if the agency insists on the opt-out you can get the client to help push back if their contracts person understands what it is.

But if you sign a contract with a 12 month handcuff in it, you're a fool. Unless you are something very special and losing you to a rival company will damage the client's business, not the agency's earnings, anything over three months is unreasonable and a court will set it aside if it's challenged.

The Regs are to support vulnerable workers, primarily, not contractors. The opt out is to protect certain small businesses who would find it harder to use their sub contractors (one reason of many being the precise one above, that the subbie will take business critical knowledge to a rival if he can drop out after the minimum period allowed in the regs). Opting out or not is no substitute for setting up a commercially advantageous contract.

[SueEllen]

Agencies bank on most contractors not wanting to make it legal, clients not wanting the hassle and other FUD.

[Wanderer]

But if you sign a contract with a 12 month handcuff in it, you're a fool.

Agencies will often say that the handcuff clause is a deal breaker and tell the client you aren't available if you don't agree to their standard terms. Perhaps you are but not everyone is in a strong enough negotiating position to be ready to walk away from a deal like that. Lots of people are happy to opt out too, that's their choice. What we are dealing with here is the people who can't just walk away from a deal and they want to use the regulations as a bargaining chip. There's nothing wrong with that.

Unless you are something very special and losing you to a rival company will damage the client's business, not the agency's earnings, anything over three months is unreasonable and a court will set it aside if it's challenged.

Sure, but as SueEllen says, 95% of the time it will not come to court - the agency will bully the contractor and/or the client and all too often the client will dump the contractor because they don't want to deal with the hassle. The agency don't care a tulip because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by attempting to enforce a restraint of trade. That's why the government legislated against this conduct...

The Regs are to support vulnerable workers, primarily, not contractors.

If people keep repeating that nonsense for long enough then perhaps people will believe it.

The fact is that nowhere in the legislation does it define "vulnerable workers" and what makes people think that no contractor could ever be vulnerable, I've seen plenty here. The scope of the legislation is to regulate the conduct of an an Employment Agency or an Employment Business in their dealings with hirers and workers, there is no test of vulnerability in the legislation - it is purely a free choice that an incorporated worker is offered.

If people want to opt out then that's great, go forth and do business. However, telling people that they shouldn't refuse to opt out in the first place is not a valid argument.

The opt out is to protect certain small businesses who would find it harder to use their sub contractors

More nonsense. The only party bound by the regulations is an employment agency or employment business and these are statutory definitions. A small business which is employing subcontractors is most likely not acting as an Agency so the Agency Conduct regulations simply don't apply. Any business which IS acting as an agency is legally bound to state this they are and they would know all about it because there is a huge raft of regulatory issues that they would have to comply with which would make the conduct regulations look like kindergarten.

If by some chance, a small business IS in fact operating as an agency then they deserve to be bound by the regulations because, wait for it, they ARE an agency!! I don't see why a small agency run by a contractor should be exempt.

[chappers]

what exactly am I being asked to sign?

[Bunk]

what exactly am I being asked to sign?

Um, I don't know, what are you being asked to sign?

[DirtyDog]

what exactly am I being asked to sign?

Paper.