What Is A Normal Agency "Cut"?

[evilagent]

You're right in fact why does the agent even bother to get a third party in to fulfill the contract, why not just do the work yourself and keep 100% of what the client is paying...oh hang on they cant = they need us more than we need them. For my current role the pimp rejected me outright and refused to send my CV on to the client = I applied direct and am now on my 4th extension, well done

I sincerely hope your logic skills aren't being used on mission critical systems.

Actually, for myself, I have decided to do away with getting someone in, and am indeed doing the work myself. It's great fun. That's one MORE contractor on the bench somewhere out there.

Anyway, good fortune to you for getting the role.

Tarring the entire recruitment industry based on one poor personal experience is incredibly poor reasoning.

Agents are entirely useless and surplus to requirements, as you say.
But WHY are they still around?
Why is the industry still in existence?
Why do agents make a tonne more money than you?
WHY? WHY?
What is being done to render them obsolete?

Somebody, somewhere, is outsourcing their needs to a third party.
We really need to stop this happening.
Agreed?

[Contreras]

An agency's business model is to carry on being paid once they have done their piece of work, i.e. they have got their CV keyword searcher to find a few CV's, then make a few phone calls for interviews, then carry on being paid every single day that a contractor is working while they sit on their asses believing they're the mutt's nuts providing some sort of value to the situation.

A much better idea would be for the agent to charge a one-off fee for introducing a contractor to a client. Do you think that could work?

Or reduce the margin after 6 months.

Savvy clients will have this written into the contract. Why can't the savvy contractor negotiate something similar?

[evilagent]

Or reduce the margin after 6 months.

Savvy clients will have this written into the contract. Why can't the savvy contractor negotiate something similar?

Equally valid insight.
After all, after the initial finders fee is paid, then the remainder is just admin.

How about suggesting a ball-park fee to start the conversation going?

£1,000?
£2,000?
£399.99?

[kingcook]

That is an entirely viable method.
What you need to assess is what that fee should be.

But, the clientco will have to pay the same fee whether it's a 3-month contract or a 12-month contract, right?
After all, the work to find a contractor remains the same, right. I mean, you don't do 4 times as much work to find a contractor for a 12-monther than a 3-monther.

Who pays, the clientco, or the contractor?

That's correct - whether it's a 3 or 12 monther the fee should be the same (IMO),

So, client and contractor(s) have been introduced/discussed the project, and client chooses a contractor.

I believe at this point , the agent has done his/her work, gets paid, end of (or perhaps the agent should be paid £x/day e.g. upto 3 months).

I'd be quite OK with handling the contract/relationship with the client directly, being paid directly by the client. There's no need for an agent to stand in the middle calling me now and again to see if "everything is OK", nor is there a need for the agent to give me a pat on the back for all of the hard work i've done over the last X months.

As for what the fee should be, that's anyone's guess. How hard is it to put some ads on some websites, look through a few CV's, and make a few phone calls?

[Wanderer]

Tarring the entire recruitment industry based on one poor personal experience is incredibly poor reasoning.

No, it's pretty fair to say that the recruitment industry is a filthy dirty cut throat business made up of a bunch of lying, cheating sharks. Indeed, the government even saw fit to regulate the conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses because they were such a nasty bunch.

Agents are entirely useless and surplus to requirements, as you say.

No one ever said they were entirely useless. What I am seeing more and more though is clients who are much tougher on agencies. I also see more and more clients are bringing the work finding services back in house and only dealing with agencies on fixed (low) margins because they are tired of being screwed by unscrupulous agencies.

You come on here trolling and being as bolshie as you like but when it comes to working with clients the tune is quite different, isn't it? Just another example of how two faced agencies are....

[Wanderer]

As for what the fee should be, that's anyone's guess. How hard is it to put some ads on some websites, look through a few CV's, and make a few phone calls?

An agent shouldn't be asking us what the fee should be because it is illegal for us to pay fees to an agency. So why don't they ask the client that question.... Oh yes, it's because now days my clients are telling agencies what cut they can take....

[evilagent]

As for what the fee should be, that's anyone's guess. How hard is it to put some ads on some websites, look through a few CV's, and make a few phone calls?

Not very, as you have surmised.

[evilagent]

No, it's pretty fair to say that the recruitment industry is a filthy dirty cut throat business made up of a bunch of lying, cheating sharks. Indeed, the government even saw fit to regulate the conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses because they were such a nasty bunch.

Regulation is everywhere.
IR-35 was brought in to deal with pseudo-companies seeking to screw the exchequer out of fair taxes.

But I wouldn't call you lot nasty, dirty or cheats.
Uncouth, perhaps simple-minded, maybe, but not nasty.

[evilagent]

You come on here trolling and being as bolshie as you like but when it comes to working with clients the tune is quite different, isn't it? Just another example of how two faced agencies are....

I do not troll. Nor am I bolshie. OK, maybe a couple of times.

Having worked on both sides of the fence, I am interested in the perceptions people have of areas they have limited knowledge of, and whether they are capable of being open-minded enough to learn, or being so ingrained in their own views, or swimming in their own bile, that they can't move on.

[malvolio]

The answer is actually dead easy and laughably simple. Opt out of the Agency Regs and the restriction on paying for work-finding services goes away (it's enshrined in the Regs, and the opt out applies to the whole of the Regs). So you pay the agent, he goes to market with a zero-markup offer and represents you to the client, not the other way round. Happy now?

There are a couple of downsides though:

a) The agency still has to carry the financial risk between giving you your money and being paid themselves. On average that's 7-8 weeks income per contractor, around £16k unsecured debt.

b) You are nowhere near as creditworthy as the average business client. That rather wipes out the appeal of (a) above.

c) You will need a USP to make it worth the agency's effort to sell you in preference to anyone else. Bulk and/or commoditised skills won't cut it.

d) Handcuff clauses go out of the window, to be replaced by non-competition clauses. Do you really want to be limited to one or two agencies, rather than the whole market?

But apart from that...