Not getting through directly

[BlasterBates]

It's cheaper for companies to go through agencies. Of course îf you happen to know the PM and you have the right skill set he'll consider you, but once a budget for the contractor has been approved then provided your rate isn't above the max dictated by the purchasing dept, the PM will just go for the best candidate. A PM is not going to see his salary increase because you're a bit cheaper. Not being a preferred supplier is a disadvantage even if you're cheaper because as everyone has said that increases admin costs. A lot of companies won't even allow direct contracts because of possible employment issues, i.e. being sued by a contractor. Agencies don't sue clients but contractors do.

Basically direct contracting is discouraged in most companies, and only happens in exceptional cases. In simple terms it just isn't worth the hassle.

[Wanderer]

Do you mean "they pay more" or "the contractor gets paid less"? If it's the former, what difference does it make to you? If the latter, what difference does it make to them?

He means BOTH of those. Let's cut out the middle man and split the difference. Everyone's a winner except the agency.

I get pissed off with parasitic agencies playing the contractor and client off against each other - lying to both parties to pad out their margin, bulltulip contract terms and unfair restraint of trade.

Clients need to sort their act out and stamp down on the agencies so they stop pissing us contractors around. Fixed, transparent margins, reasonable contract and payment terms. Unfortunately, contractors don't have enough clout to do this because it's divide and conquer. If a contractor doesn't bend over and get shafted then the agent lies to the client telling them that the contractor is "unavailable".