hourly rate beware?

[Ninja1980]

Can't help but comment to this. Bearing in mind possibly every single client that has any IT infrastructure to speak of, has some outsource agreement for it rather than keep it in house shows that the concept of giving someone else the stuff they are not expert is a common and useful business strategy. If it is good for IT, the coffee machine, the cleaners etc why isn't it good for agents? Model seems pretty sound to me.

Instead of using full time staff to put adverts up, speak to all the contractors, interview them, get the legalities sorted and pay each and everyone they chose one supplier to do it all for them. They ask for a body, one turns up. How is that an unnecessary overhead?

I presume you believe estate agents are also unnecessary overhead when buying a house?

The last house I bought I walked up to the front door and persuaded the owner to sell direct with no agent. As most agents will take 3%, I was able to use this as leverage for negotiation. I therefore reduced the cost (or the overhead) for both buyer and seller. This is of course a lie, but an example of how I would choose to consider a situation.

Do you have any basic business knowledge? Are you sure you're cut out to be a contractor?

[Ninja1980]

Ah - a thoroughly impressive sample size. However we can work with it.

Presumably 2 out of 9 only go through agencies and hence disagree with you utterly that they are unneccesary overheads.

Of the other 7 how many agree with you that recruitment agencies are unneccesary overheads and refuse to deal with them at all?

It's a large enough sample size to show there is a business case to cut out the agent.

[MyUserName]

It's a large enough sample size to show there is a business case to cut out the agent.

9 out of all of the companies in Britain, 2 of which explicitly do not agree with you?

Anyway, you forgot to answer my question:

Of the other 7 how many agree with you that recruitment agencies are unneccesary overheads and refuse to deal with them at all?

[Ninja1980]

It's a large enough sample size to show there is a business case to cut out the agent.

If the overhead of an agent was absolutely necessary then why would some companies choose to allow direct hires?

[MyUserName]

If the overhead of an agent was absolutely necessary then why would some companies choose to allow direct hires?

If the overhead of an agency was absolutely unnecessary then why would almost all companies use them?

Anyway, you forgot to answer my question:

Of the other 7 how many agree with you that recruitment agencies are unneccesary overheads and refuse to deal with them at all?

[Ninja1980]

9 out of all of the companies in Britain, 2 of which explicitly do not agree with you?

Anyway, you forgot to answer my question:

Of the other 7 how many agree with you that recruitment agencies are unneccesary overheads and refuse to deal with them at all?

The fact that these companies will deal with agents does not make them a necessary overhead. If that were the case, they wouldn't do direct hire (to save on overheads)

[MyUserName]

The fact that these companies will deal with agents does not make them a necessary overhead. If that were the case, they wouldn't do direct hire (to save on overheads)

So the fact that I sometimes walk somewhere means my car is unnecessary?

Anyway, you seem to be avoiding my question:

Of the other 7 how many agree with you that recruitment agencies are unneccesary overheads and refuse to deal with them at all?

[Ninja1980]

So the fact that I sometimes walk somewhere means my car is unnecessary?

Anyway, you seem to be avoiding my question:

Of the other 7 how many agree with you that recruitment agencies are unneccesary overheads and refuse to deal with them at all?

All of them, see previous post.

Your argument is ridiculous. You can just turn it around to support my point of view.

[MyUserName]

All of them, see previous post.

Your argument is ridiculous. You can just turn it around to support my point of view.

All of them? Which post did you state that all 7 of these companies refused to deal with agencies and would only hire direct? Could you please quote that post?

My argument appears to be easily crushing yours. You claim that being as a maximum of 7 companies you have deal with allow direct contracts (ignore 2 that refuse them) all recruitment agencies are completely unnecessary. This is completely absurd.

[northernladuk]

The last house I bought I walked up to the front door and persuaded the owner to sell direct with no agent. As most agents will take 3%, I was able to use this as leverage for negotiation. I therefore reduced the cost (or the overhead) for both buyer and seller. This is of course a lie, but an example of how I would choose to consider a situation.

Do you have any basic business knowledge? Are you sure you're cut out to be a contractor?

LOL... what a joke. Just because you pull it off a few times an entire industry sector isn't required, well two because that is employment agents and estate agents....

How did you know the house was for sale by the way???

I also remember one of our regular posters put up a story exactly the same in general a couple of months ago but I can't find it. Either way I am saying sockie troll.