hourly rate beware?

[Swamp Thing]

Gawd in heaven, let's simplify this.

1. In theory, it can be cheaper for the client to source freelancers directly. They cut out the agency margin. BUT:
2. Clients like working through agencies/outsourced providers because:
- their own overhead has proved to be more expensive;
- they accrue scale economies by leveraging providers' industry expertise;
- the provider is under SLA for things like candidate screening/vetting/onboarding/early exit. The provider is therefore liable for putting things right where they go wrong;
- the provider can advise on industry developments, regulatory changes (in-house recruitment banks don't have the in-depth knowledge or time, and if there is a need, they buy it in).

So ultimately, most clients opt for 2. The overhead (if indeed there is any) is more than offset by the providers offering a de-risked solution. I can't think of any of the blue chippers that I have provided services to in the last 8 years who haven't taken this route.

[moggy]

Gawd in heaven, let's simplify this.

1. In theory, it can be cheaper for the client to source freelancers directly. They cut out the agency margin. BUT:
2. Clients like working through agencies/outsourced providers because:
- their own overhead has proved to be more expensive;
- they accrue scale economies by leveraging providers' industry expertise;
- the provider is under SLA for things like candidate screening/vetting/onboarding/early exit. The provider is therefore liable for putting things right where they go wrong;
- the provider can advise on industry developments, regulatory changes (in-house recruitment banks don't have the in-depth knowledge or time, and if there is a need, they buy it in).

So ultimately, most clients opt for 2. The overhead (if indeed there is any) is more than offset by the providers offering a de-risked solution. I can't think of any of the blue chippers that I have provided services to in the last 8 years who haven't taken this route.

+1 In fact the few that have hired directly insist you still go through one of their PSL agencies.

[Ninja1980]

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.

In post 56 I implied all the companies you referred to also used agents. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Crushing, hardly. Just because these companies use agents for the minority of their recruitment, does not make them necessary. Just like your car and walking analogy (which was very good) .

These businesses prove that agents can be removed from the equation and can be considered unnecessary in these circumstances, QED. This is the point I'm trying to make and I can't understand how you could disagree?

[MyUserName]

In post 56 I implied all the companies you referred to also used agents. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

So you agree that not a single one of those companies thinks it is a good idea not to use agencies?

Crushing, hardly. Just because these companies use agents for the minority of their recruitment, does not make them necessary. Just like your car and walking analogy (which was very good) .

Please exlpain how you know that each of these 9 companies recruits the majority of their contractors directly.

These businesses prove that agents can be removed from the equation and can be considered unnecessary in these circumstances, QED. This is the point I'm trying to make and I can't understand how you could disagree?

Because this is not what you originally said. You said, and argued, that agencies were an unnecessary overhead and brought nothing to the table. The fact that it is also possible to go direct and not use an agent was never in dispute.

[Boo]

What model are you using?
What point are you making?

I don't know what you mean by "model" but I am talking about the usual client-agency-contractor nexus.

My point is just exactly what I said :

The only person providing any value for the client is the contractor.
Therefore any money payed by the client belongs to the contractor.
The agency does not provide value. They are just an overhead.
So their proportion of the take needs to be reduced as far as possible.

Boo

[Boo]

The agencies perform a role which takes time and expertise

No they don't. The agent places an advert on jobserve then uses a piece of computer software to winnow the results based upon a keyword search. Those CVs that pass are then scanned by the agent and the contractor is phoned up to see if they are a) cheap, b) cheap, c) cheap,...,x) cheap, y) available and z) competent. The cheapest of the available contractors' CVs are then anonymised and sent to the client.

The reason this is not of any value to the client is that the process of telling the agent what words to use as the basis of the search takes longer than winnowing the CVs.

The reason clients use agencies is because the HR and senior management get kickbacks from the agencies who fill the roles. It has nothing to do with value.

Boo

[northernladuk]

The reason clients use agencies is because the HR and senior management get kickbacks from the agencies who fill the roles. It has nothing to do with value.

Boo

I am just speechless.....

[northernladuk]

I don't know what you mean by "model" but I am talking about the usual client-agency-contractor nexus.

My point is just exactly what I said :

The only person providing any value for the client is the contractor.
Therefore any money payed by the client belongs to the contractor.
The agency does not provide value. They are just an overhead.
So their proportion of the take needs to be reduced as far as possible.

Boo

ERm Boo.... I think you have logged on the wrong account. You should have replied using the Ninja account....

[kevpuk]

Not really wanting to get involved....but:

I am a few weeks into my first contract, a 6-month gig with large Insurance company. Now, I got introduced to this role by an Agent (actually, whilst on my way up to interview, another Agent I get on with called to see if I was interested in the very same role) which is good, as I would not have come by it without an Agent.

I had decided on my Daily Rate, and this was within what the Agent would 'accept' - based on what they receive from ClientCo - so off I toddle to interview. For me, I really liked the sound of the gig and then spent a few days nervously waiting.....they were seeing a few other candidates, and I am pretty confident some were cheaper (this is based on the other Agent telling me that the rate *they* were talking was going to struggle to quite match my required..). My Agent was very decent throughout, keeping me posted and so forth. I had strong. positive feedback from ClientCo, via Agent, the very next day; within a few days, literally a few hours after the last candidate had been seen, the Agent was on the phone a couple of times in the evening to first check that I would still be interested if ClientCo offered, then immediately calling ClientCo to see if it was a go-er.....and it was, and Agent called me back and I accepted verbally STC.

Anywhoo...the point of all this is that - for me, at least - the Agent has been an integral part of this assignment for me. Now I am at ClientCo, I have some interesting facts - ClientCo do not hire direct (ever), ClientCo pays a fair bit more than I see, meaning the Agent does OK and also apparently HR receive around 12% 'kickback' too. I was a little surprised about the HR bit, but - you know what - none of it really matters as I have a gig I like/wanted and for a rate I wanted/am happy with.

That said, come extension time, there may be some decent scope for re-negotiation

[MyUserName]

none of it really matters as I have a gig I like/wanted and for a rate I wanted/am happy with.

This ^^^^^^