Avoid Aston Carter at all costs

[nomadd]

See, this I don't understand. Surely if all contractors were more open about their rates then it can only benefit everyone?

Agree. I've been contract 23 years and have never had a problem discussing rate with fellow contractors - but never permies. I've also found very few other contractors who aren't prepared to discuss rates either. Hence I'm very surprised at most of the comments of "I never discuss rates" that get posted here. I feel these comments are more just Internet Bravado than honesty.

[MyUserName]

Seriously? If the agent told you client was prepared to pay you 350 a day and didnt tell you client had given him a budget of 700 day, which allows the agent to pocket 350 a day out of you, you still wouldnt care!?

Not if I was happy on 350 a day and if I was not I would not be there.

I would probably think it was cheeky but I would have probably done the same in his shoes. What the agent gets is just none of my business IMHO.

[BolshieBastard]

I'd been contracting about 7 years when, one of my mates eventually listened to me and went contracting himself.

When he was 'considering' going contracting, every couple of months he was always asking what my rate was.

Within 6 months of him going contracting, he suggested we didnt discuss rates any more!

[AnonAgent]

Seriously? If the agent told you client was prepared to pay you 350 a day and didnt tell you client had given him a budget of 700 day, which allows the agent to pocket 350 a day out of you, you still wouldnt care!?

I honestly havent had that situation come up nor do I expect to. Clients know the market rate, candidates know the market rate. I did say "if the candidate was happy though". For a role that is £700/day all inclusive the candidates would be looking for a minimum of £550/day in my experience.

In that situation, good agents will take it and run. Great agents will manage it effectively. Because we know that if the client finds out we are taking a 50% cut, they will never do business with us again.

Also back on topic for the OP. Dont judge adverts by their true rate, some agencies post rates lower than the actual rate offered (to manage expectations) and some agencies post rates above that offered (to get the best candidates and close them lower). Agencies like Aston Carter (i.e. in the banking industry) will usually have a set % agreed with the client, so it would benefit them to have candidates get as much as they can.

[BolshieBastard]

Not if I was happy on 350 a day and if I was not I would not be there.

I would probably think it was cheeky but I would have probably done the same in his shoes. What the agent gets is just none of my business IMHO.

Yes, in the normal course of things one would be happy with 350 a day (depending on location).

But why would you be happy on 350 a day when the agent deliberately withheld information from you meaning you could have had another 50, 100 or more a day so he could earn as much as you for doing sweet FA?

IMHO, agents should be forced to divulge how much the client has said they would pay then, contractor & agent could negotiate how much the contractor got and how much the agent got. Yes, its utopia I know.

A few years ago when we went into recessions and contractor rates went down drastically, nearly all agencies reported improved profit. Now with more contractors out of work and those working on historically lower rates, how did they manage that I wonder?

[Boo]

Unsurprisingly though, if I am forced to work to a set margin, then I work less enthusiastically and the client gets a worse service.

And the client can tell this, how ?

Boo2

[The Agents View]

And the client can tell this, how ?

Boo2

If they treat all of their agencies like that, then they find themselves at the back of the queue when it comes to getting the best people. They soon realise this when all of the people they really need are on site elsewhere (and they do generally know these things) and they've got the dregs running their projects - It's amazing how quickly the rule book disappears in this situation.

As a rule, I work on £100 per day cut being my base level (I tend to deal with people between £400 and £1500 pd) - if there's more money to factor and therefore greater risk, this increases. If you're on £1500 per day through me, then I'll be charging the client approximately £1750 - £1800.

It's quite simple - the client is paying for the work that takes place to find someone, the work that goes into building and maintaining a network of reliable individuals, the cost of running the business generally, the cost of the money side (processing, factoring, etc) and the RISK - Aston Carter are taking the P155 there a bit, but when you're negotiating to buy something, do you reveal the highest amount you'd pay for it?? Thought not.

[ELContractor]

I confirm Aston Carter is to avoid.
In my experience this is what they do and the solution I always try to adopt:

Call you to know the Companies you have applied to.
I don't give any name. If they have one they tell me the name and I say if I applied already.

Call you with an excuse for Banking role whereas the only available is a gambling role.
I cut it short and don't reply back.

Send your CV across Companies without telling you anything.
Asked proof of this as I knew people inside the company.

Don't send your CV when they say they do.
Asked proof of this as I knew people inside the company.

Ask you to take IKM tests hundreds of times.
I take the test once a year and I keep giving the same all the time.

Ask you to help them find the person they are looking for.
Cut it short.

I am also concerned about the following:
1. If a Company explicitly asks the recruiters not to contact them through the website, does it mean that if they do, the Company won't consider the application?

1. Ask you to take tests for giving the solution to someone they want to help? hmm..
Still have to have some evidence on this.

IMHO it's also the Companies' fault. Sometimes they spend months in finding the "right" candidate adopting useless methods.
I would prefer that a Company takes the first 10 people they find and that's it. If a candidate is not good, it's better to lay it off after 2 months rather then spending ages and being obsessively picky in everything at the beginning. These are the distortions of a highly-competitive market. Luckily, I am not an interviewer.

Cheers,
ElContractor

[The Agents View]

. Luckily, I am not an interviewer.

Cheers,
ElContractor

And given the way this post is written, I assume you're not a writer either....

[BolshieBastard]

And given the way this post is written, I assume you're not a writer either....

MEOW!!