"We must opt you out of the Conduct of Employment Agencies Regs 2003...

[cojak]

I made enquires as well and got the opposite answer to Cojak.

It seems it depends on who you deal with in that part of the BIS

I believe Incognito thought that I wasn't specific enough with my question and it allowed the BIS to wriggle out of it. So for the first time I'll place everything here.

Hello, I have discovered 2 companies stating in their websites that following discussions WITH YOU they will not work with contractors who insist on remaining within The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (Regulation 32) ('Opting- In'). Is this true and is this legal? [Agency A & Agency B pdfs] Regards, cojak

BIS response:

Dear cojak
EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES ACT 1973
Thank you for your email about employment agencies indicating that they will only seek to find work
for contractors who have opted out of the Conduct of Employment Agencies or Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. Your email has been passed to me to respond to you and I apologise for the delay in responding to you.
I can inform you that the Employment Agency Standards (EAS) Inspectorate, based in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and associated regulations. This legislation requires employment agencies and employment businesses to abide by specified minimum standards of conduct. Further details about the legislation can be obtained from our website,
Employment Agency Standards inspectorate | Policies | BIS
I can advise you that it is not illegal under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 or Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 for an employment agency or employment business to insist that they will only seek work for work-seekers who will agree to opt out of the Conduct Regulations. This is a business decision that employment agencies or employment business might make without contravening the employment agency legislation.
I hope this has clarified the position.
Regards

XXXXXX
Head of Employment Agency Standards Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

[malvolio]

Which is what I've been saying for the last three or four days...

[Incognito]

How about if it's my original? Do I credit myself? OR if yuo want a reference, how about the Operations Director of a £400m a year agency; is that authoritative enough?

And I do actually know who BIS are, thanks.

You're not meant to bicker in the professional forums, but I'm afraid I have to point out you go from this:

This could be intresting...

If you're opted out then no, the agency are not obliged to pay you if they haven't been paid themselves. However, if you're opted in, they are. Your invoice is not part of the client's debts so any money arguments are between agency and client. The point is that 99% of us are opted in, intentionally or not, so if this goes to the wire it would good to test things in court....

To this:

Let's have a degree of realism, chaps, please....

Fourthly the definiton of "Introduction" is the problem. It may mean "when the client knows who you are" in the sense we understand it or it may mean "when the previously unidentified worker turns up on the Monday" as per the Office Angels model which the agencies prefer. Until it goes to court, we will never know and neither side can be rigid about it.

In the space of a fortnight. After my post laying out that argument. So again, it's courteous to pay people the respect if you're going to use their argument as your own.

[malvolio]

You're not meant to bicker in the professional forums, but I'm afraid I have to point out you go from this:



To this:



In the space of a fortnight. After my post laying out that argument. So again, it's courteous to pay people the respect if you're going to use their argument as your own.

Well if it makes you happy...

Alhough I hope that after several years arguing about the Regs and what they mean, I must have raised that point at least once before.

[Incognito]

Well if it makes you happy...

Alhough I hope that after several years arguing about the Regs and what they mean, I must have raised that point at least once before.

Well I don't know, but I'll give you your due, you have argued the regs. I'm pro Regs by the way, I think the PCG did the best they could in getting them implemented. I'm also a member.