hourly rate beware?

[Ninja1980]

*massages temples*

The agencies perform a role which takes time and expertise (networking etc). If the client did not employ the agent then they would have to perform these tasks in house, it is cheaper and easier for them to use an agent - otherwise they would perform these tasks in house.

If the contractor feels they are receiving too little then negotiate for a higher rate - what other expenses the client has is nothing to do with the contractor. If they are able to go direct then they *might* get a better rate but they also might get some extra issues.

If you do not want to use an agent then don't but if you think that there is a massive cost saving to be made for every company that uses and agency which only you have spotted then you must be mad!

I've had contracts for several companies that choose to take contractors on directly. I know for a fact this is to save significant hiring costs and to offer contractors a higher than market rate to tempt them from other firms..... Or maybe I'm just mad?

[northernladuk]

I've had contracts for several companies that choose to take contractors on directly. I know for a fact this is to save significant hiring costs and to offer contractors a higher than market rate to tempt them from other firms..... Or maybe I'm just mad?

They are just different business models. I bet there are 10 times more that don't deal with it direct. Some companies can be bothered with the hassle, some outsource the work to agents. Some companies have in house people to fill the coffee machines, other just contract it out. Some have in house IT... oh forget that one...

Anyway, it is a business model the firm chooses to pick. If they want to reduce spending HR they outsource the work to an agency and sack on of the HR bods, show a gain and pocket the bonus.

You are not mad, just showing incredible naivety.

[Ninja1980]

They are just different business models. I bet there are 10 times more that don't deal with it direct. Some companies can be bothered with the hassle, some outsource the work to agents. Some companies have in house people to fill the coffee machines, other just contract it out. Some have in house IT... oh forget that one...

Anyway, it is a business model the firm chooses to pick. If they want to reduce spending HR they outsource the work to an agency and sack on of the HR bods, show a gain and pocket the bonus.

You are not mad, just showing incredible naivety.

I think the point is that an agent is an added cost. Which results in an inflated overhead for both the contractor and the firm. That's a fact and something that many companies are choosing to address (in my experience)

The only naivety I'm showing is to think the forums number one poster can engage in an intelligent discussion without resorting to childish insults.

[northernladuk]

I think the point is that an agent is an added cost. Which results in an inflated overhead for both the contractor and the firm. That's a fact and something that many companies are choosing to address (in my experience)

The only naivety I'm showing is to think the forums number one poster can engage in an intelligent discussion without resorting to childish insults.

But it reduces the cost of admin/HR to the client, the agent performs a service just like the cleaning company, coffee people etc.. so the company can concentrate on doing what it does best. I just can't see why you can't get that. The number of agents and the number of gigs via agent vs direct also bear evidence that the relationship works for all parties.

[Ninja1980]

But it reduces the cost of admin/HR to the client, the agent performs a service just like the cleaning company, coffee people etc.. so the company can concentrate on doing what it does best. I just can't see why you can't get that. The number of agents and the number of gigs via agent vs direct also bear evidence that the relationship works for all parties.

If what you're saying is true, then why would A LOT of companies perform in house recruitment? What part of this do you not understand?

It could be because you're in IT and I'm in Engineering and it's a difference in industry philosophy.

[MyUserName]

If what you're saying is true, then why would A LOT of companies perform in house recruitment? What part of this do you not understand?

It could be because you're in IT and I'm in Engineering and it's a difference in industry philosophy.

Could you please provide your sources fior A LOT of companies perform in house recruitment?

Does this excluse companies which use a mixture of in house recruitment (even if it is just processing CVs that are sent to them) and agencies?

If what you are saying is true and agencies are nothing but wasted money why would the majority of companies (at least in IT) use them?

Why don't you start a poll asking people how they have got most of their gigs, agency or direct?

[Ninja1980]

Could you please provide your sources fior A LOT of companies perform in house recruitment?

Does this excluse companies which use a mixture of in house recruitment (even if it is just processing CVs that are sent to them) and agencies?

If what you are saying is true and agencies are nothing but wasted money why would the majority of companies (at least in IT) use them?

Why don't you start a poll asking people how they have got most of their gigs, agency or direct?

You've hit the nail on the head in your third paragraph.

Most of the companies I would consider contracting for in London will allow direct contracts or have in house agents (same thing). Why would they do this? Ask yourself that.

[MyUserName]

You've hit the nail on the head in your third paragraph.

Most of the companies I would consider contracting for in London will allow direct contracts or have in house agents (same thing). Why would they do this? Ask yourself that.

Are you saying that they allow direct contract or use HR teams and not use external agencies for recruitment?

[northernladuk]

We did have a survey on here and a majority were through agents...

SJD have also done a survery on how you found a contract and I think the numbers in both surverys kinda ruins the 'A LOT of companies perform in house recruitment' argument.

SJD survey here. I think it is a bit flawed as I am sure many of the rolls under linkedin, personal network, through job board will also include an agent so maybe they should re-think that question in future, but still..

Check page 10...

http://www.sjdaccountancy.com/sites/...y_Dec_2012.pdf

Here is the 6 months prior if that isn't enough for you. Page 10 again.

http://www.sjdaccountancy.com/sites/..._July_2012.pdf

[northernladuk]

Remember also that some large clients have the contractor rectruitment based on site and integral in their organisation but it is still staffed by employees of an agency. My last two clients had this and some contractors thought they were contracted directly because of the organisation despite the agents name being all over their contract.