Good and Bad IT agencies..recommendations?

[Boolean]

Well, the point about distinguishing "agency" from "employment business" is a good one.

I think some kind of definition as to what might constitute a "good" or "bad" "employment business" might have been handy. However, given my lack of experience in the IT contracting field, I can't come up with a concrete one. That's why I posted this thread.

I concede that a good "agency" can be spoilt by a few bad apples, or vice versa, a bad "agency" might be mis-represented by two or three that are actually quite good at their job.

But seriously, people must have some way of filtering the crap phone calls, or do you take every "agency" call seriously!?!?

In any case, I find the following behaviour unacceptable:

1. Transparent LIES.
2. Rudeness and aggression on the phone (they called me not the other way around).
3. Approaches from Cowboy outfits.

I don't see why the above should be acceptable by ANYBODY. Regardless, if after a phone call the "agency" feels the candidate is not suitable for a role. Not all agencies are like this, so why do the ones that are like this, feel the need to act this way!? professionalism anyone!??!?!

Perhaps I am being naive here. Maybe there aren't good or bad agencies, but people who have "good" or "bad" experiences working through them.

Does the criticism for the S3 Group still have substance then, since multiple people on this forum and another, have spoken about bad experiences? Or is it that these are large businesses (with loads of ads), and chances are most contractors will have come into contact with them hence the amount of bad feedback they receive is actually quite small in proportion to their size?!?!??!

As for SEC, 2 different agents = 2 different p****s as far as I am concerned.

[Denny]

Perhaps I am being naive here. Maybe there aren't good or bad agencies, but people who have "good" or "bad" experiences working through them.

Bang on.

Yes, lots of people talk about S3 group and Computer People, in particular.

Much depends on your tax arrangements too. In my opinion, CP have got in nailed down exactly over IR35 compliance unequivocally. If your contract actually would fail IR35 working conditions then what harm is there going through an EB that only issues IR35 compliant contracts that are back-to-back with their clients expectations? None I suspect. It's not worth using your own limited anyway if you're compliant, so using one their recommended brollies is probably a good idea and provided they don't force your or coerce you to opt out then their policies are well thought through and their contracts don't try and exempt you from your opting in rights (if you're signing off an opting in contract). Too many agencies tell contractors one thing (exemption acceptable with dodgy IR35 freindly contracts to match) but once they are on site they are IR35 compliant. That is unfair and, to me, a clear breach of contract and could even be viewed as obtaining services by deception. That leaves contractors in an awkward position of trying to dodge the taxman and hoping they will get away with it, and with useless insurance protections tomatch, or else having to declare all of their fees (minus 5%) via a owner managed mechanism that was non tax efficient all along. Contractors have a right to know what they are getting into before they start a role, not when it's too late.

Obviously CP are useless for IR35 exempt contractors and if they advertise for roles or handle accounts that are clearly unsuitable for bum of seaters then it's hardly surprising if contractors complain and don't use them. They shouldn't be handling these roles in the first place.

[Fleetwood]

Avoid "Wyoming Recruitment" like the plague.

I'm not saying they're cowboys, but you can hear the chink-chink-chink of their spurs over the phone.

[Cowboy Bob]

Reference-wise you can't really go on the experiences of one agent - they maybe the bad apple in the company. Two or three doing the same thing though...

In the case of Xansa that I was talking about, the block was the "Best Practices Manager" not the individual pimp, so I think under your criteria it's a real

[funkyd]

On a positive note, anybody heard of Veritas? I went for an interview through them and the whole process was okay, the recruiter was quite helpful even though I turned down the opportunity of a second interview (then again as far as I know he might have binned my CV as a result etc..)

Any ideas?

Many thanks,

They are OK - but like all agencies they wont hesitate to shaft you when the client needs apermie to replace you.

[cojak]

Oh yes - there's good money in placing a permie, apparently. (% of 1st year's salary or something..)

[Mordac]

Oh yes - there's good money in placing a permie, apparently. (% of 1st year's salary or something..)

Usually about 20% - and all up front. Kerching.

[DodgyAgent]

Denny is absolutly correct in how he sees the dynamics of the "agency" business (I dont think "employment business will catch on" even though he is technically correct). Whoever pays the money is where the attention goes. Our paymasters are the clients (despite what you may say about us taking money out of your earnings) so ultimately that is where our allegiances lie. However the reality is a little more subtle than that because contractors also need to be treated like customers as they too have choices, and they too determine whther the agent makes a placement or not. Apart from anything else a contractor you shaft today may be become a hirer himself.

The key of course is for agents to get the right balance; do not overindulge contractors but at the same time treat them with respect.

DA in "must start to practice what I preach" mode

[funkyd]

So how exactly should an agency treat a contractor post placement?

All mine has ever done for me in the last 18 months is pay my invoice on time.

That said, they are about to shaft me by bringing in a permie behind my back thinking I don't know what they're up to .....like you say, their alliegence is to the client not the contractor.

They've had 15% a week out of the rate they have charged the client for nearly two years plus another 20-25% of the permies first year salary.

Will they be thinking of me and putting me foward for anything new on my behalf- probably not.

[DodgyAgent]

So how exactly should an agency treat a contractor post placement?

All mine has ever done for me in the last 18 months is pay my invoice on time.

That said, they are about to shaft me by bringing in a permie behind my back thinking I don't know what they're up to .....like you say, their alliegence is to the client not the contractor.

They've had 15% a week out of the rate they have charged the client for nearly two years plus another 20-25% of the permies first year salary.

Will they be thinking of me and putting me foward for anything new on my behalf- probably not.

If they are bringing in a permie then the decision to do so is neither theirs nor yours but that of the client. Keeping the contract open just because it suits you defeats the point of why you are there in the first place.
Quite frankly if I were a contractor the last thing I would want is to have to suffer the prescence of an oily recruitment agent just because I want some appreciation. I really do not understand why contractors give a sh*t about whether they are taken out for lunch or not.
As far as spending time finding you another job is concerned they are hardly likely to spend time banging against walls of PSLs when clearly they are not going to make any progress. What I usually do is to "give it a go" with a contractor and then try and point them in the directions of where the jobs are and which agencies are on the PSL, plus offer to give references. This is a business it is not a lonely hearts industry, if you want attention then go and stand naked on top of big ben.