Anyone recommend Contractor Club?

[BolshieBastard]

I've just got a job alert via jobswerve for a role which isnt one of my skillset (for a BA). It is from something called the contractor club who say they arent an agent and work as a 'facilitator' to link contractors to contract vaccancies without using an agent ie on site contractor is aware client needs another contractor so recommends to contractor club. Contractor wanting work presumably contacts client direct and attends interview etc, etc and gets job.

I think the succesfully placed contractor then pays a commission to the contractor club and referrer for max 90 days. If contract is extended there's no more commission to pay so obviously, the contractor retains more of their rate?

Sounds too good to be true. No agent involved, a direct route to clients and no commission to pay after 90 days. There's supposedly no up front fee to join either (which is by recommendation or vetting).

The amount of 'commission' the placed contractor pays though is not stated nor is it clear whether you have to pay 90 days commission if the contract is cut short for whatever reason.

There's no testimonials so you cant tell if its a roaring success or not. What is puzzling is, if the model is to use contractors to find new openings and get existing members of the club to fill them, just WTF are they advertising on jobswerve!? Kind of defeats the whole purpose of the club and goes against the model they are trying to promote.

[socialworker]

I thought it was illegal to charge job seekers - no matter what they call themselves, it sounds like it would be breaking employment agency law.

[northernladuk]

I thought it was illegal to charge job seekers - no matter what they call themselves, it sounds like it would be breaking employment agency law.

Where are they charging them???

[socialworker]

Where are they charging them???

"I think the succesfully placed contractor then pays a commission to the contractor club and referrer for max 90 days"

[northernladuk]

"I think the succesfully placed contractor then pays a commission to the contractor club and referrer for max 90 days"

LOL.... You cannot charge a work seeker up front to find him work. Once he has work he isn't a work seeker. If what you said were true the world would be anarchy....

Some reading material here..

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/employees/e...s-charging.htm

There is a huge difference between a charge and paying commission or a cut.

[socialworker]

the only exception i can see that applies here is this
"Work-seekers who are companies
There is no restriction on an agency or employment business charging for the service of finding or seeking to find a work-seeker employment where the work-seeker in question is a company and the employment is in an occupation other than the specific occupations referred to above."

Not all contractors have limited companies. I still struggle to see the difference between a charge and a commission, usually in law it doesn't matter what you try to call something, if it walks like a duck etc. The fact that one charge is upfront and commissionis on a no job nofee basis does n't alter the fact it is a charge - if the contractor doesn't pay the commission, what happens? If s/he is liable for the debt, it is a charge, I would have thought. Still, I am sure they have taken legal advice on their model.

[malvolio]

Ah but...

The relevant regulation is embedded in the Agency Rgulations these days. So if you are opted out, the restriction doesn't apply anyway.

Anyway, the distinction between work-seeker and work-seeking company is significant here. Agencies place people, not companies, it's how they owrk. contractor Club is clearly placing companies since that is who they are charging the commission to.

Nor is it a bad thing. I've been saying for years that if we paid the agencies, rather than the end client, our life (and theirs) would be a hell of a lot simpler. Sadly, the bean counters who run the agencies lack the wit to understand why.

[BolshieBastard]

the only exception i can see that applies here is this
"Work-seekers who are companies
There is no restriction on an agency or employment business charging for the service of finding or seeking to find a work-seeker employment where the work-seeker in question is a company and the employment is in an occupation other than the specific occupations referred to above."

Not all contractors have limited companies. I still struggle to see the difference between a charge and a commission, usually in law it doesn't matter what you try to call something, if it walks like a duck etc. The fact that one charge is upfront and commissionis on a no job nofee basis does n't alter the fact it is a charge - if the contractor doesn't pay the commission, what happens? If s/he is liable for the debt, it is a charge, I would have thought. Still, I am sure they have taken legal advice on their model.

I think you're being mischievious.

The commission is no different to what agencies charge in principle. The placed contractor only pays the commission once a contract is signed. You dont pay a fee to join the club nor for anyone to find you a contract.

Anyway, Im not defending their model. Im only interested in whether it works but I think your supposition is flawed.

[socialworker]

I think you're being mischievious.

The commission is no different to what agencies charge in principle. The placed contractor only pays the commission once a contract is signed. You dont pay a fee to join the club nor for anyone to find you a contract.

Anyway, Im not defending their model. Im only interested in whether it works but I think your supposition is flawed.

Not being mischevious at all. My supposition may well be flawed, I havent read the relevant legislation - it just seems to me that if the provision of a service (finding a job for X which X then takes up) results in an obligation on X to pay money (Commission) that is payment for a service, whether it comes before or afterwards.

I totally agree it isn't any different to what agencies charge in principle. The hirer is still liable to pay the agency's commission even though that debt is contingent on the event that the candidate starts work and other contactual stuff. Except that of course in this case it is the candidate who pays, which is what I thought was illegal, taking into account the exceptions in NLUK's helpful link.

I'm not even arguing it shouldnt be allowed - provided everyone knows upfront what the deal is.

Anyway have to go and get a life now

[BolshieBastard]

Not being mischevious at all. My supposition may well be flawed, I havent read the relevant legislation - it just seems to me that if the provision of a service (finding a job for X which X then takes up) results in an obligation on X to pay money (Commission) that is payment for a service, whether it comes before or afterwards.

I totally agree it isn't any different to what agencies charge in principle. The hirer is still liable to pay the agency's commission even though that debt is contingent on the event that the candidate starts work and other contactual stuff. Except that of course in this case it is the candidate who pays, which is what I thought was illegal, taking into account the exceptions in NLUK's helpful link.

I'm not even arguing it shouldnt be allowed - provided everyone knows upfront what the deal is.

Anyway have to go and get a life now

How is this any different to contractor sends cv to agent. agent has database of contractors available for work. Agent contacts contractor regarding role client has. Agents introduces contractor to client. Client offers contractor a role, contractor accepts. Agent gets commission from client for said contractor, agent pays contractor and retains 50 quid a day from monies paid to contractor?

OK, contractor doesnt see or get the commision the agent holds back from them but it's still the contractor paying agent a commission by another name.

As for your last sentence, that just proves you're being mischievious since all parties know about the commission..