What Is A Normal Agency "Cut"?

[malvolio]

clientcos are using agencies to do their dirty work for them of finding cheap people without publicising how poor they intend to pay them. In the past, perhaps agencies helped them to get the right people. It was a different market back then.

Bollocks. It's just a little harder, that's all, with less money in the system and a huge number of redundant ex-permies who think they know how to be a contractor. The market works as it's always done.

And on that subject, given the over-supply of candidates, "market rate" is what the client is prepared to pay, not what the supplier deems to be the value of his services

[masonryan]

Bollocks. It's just a little harder, that's all, with less money in the system and a huge number of redundant ex-permies who think they know how to be a contractor. The market works as it's always done.

And on that subject, given the over-supply of candidates, "market rate" is what the client is prepared to pay, not what the supplier deems to be the value of his services

Agencies are all too happy to facilitate the client co to get people cheaper than before, heck even cheaper than their bare minimum rate they told the agency last week.

[northernladuk]

Agencies are all too happy to facilitate the client co to get people cheaper than before, heck even cheaper than their bare minimum rate they told the agency last week.

Bearing in mind the agents get a percentage cut this would be a pretty stupid thing to do for the agent and pretty stupid for a client to agree to get cheaper people in when they are looking for a specialist.

[masonryan]

Bearing in mind the agents get a percentage cut this would be a pretty stupid thing to do for the agent and pretty stupid for a client to agree to get cheaper people in when they are looking for a specialist.

Not really. What you fail to mention is that clientco have more than one agent pushing people, so agent that brings the more cost-effective cheap candidate will get the sale, hence the commission.

I honestly don't care about this silly 'offense' that those on this forum with vested interests in the recruitment agency 'industry' have with the frank truths I share.

[kal]

Not really. What you fail to mention is that clientco have more than one agent pushing people, so agent that brings the more cost-effective cheap candidate will get the sale, hence the commission.

I honestly don't care about this silly 'offense' that those on this forum with vested interests in the recruitment agency 'industry' have with the frank truths I share.

You really have an inflated sense of who you are, 'share the frank truths'? purleese... you are naive as best, an idiot probably, so end-eth my wasting time on your banal posts...

[Techforcer]

Thank you all for the interesting replies and debate The 21% agency cut does seem high from what you are saying- I'm not complaining, but was looking to find out if thie was high, low or average.

I've just started this 6 month contract (on what's likely to be a 2 year project), so I'll certainly look at renegociating at the end of the initial 6 month period.

When I do this, would an increase in rate from me come out of the agent's margin? Or, do you think the agency would try and push it on to the client, telling them that I'm looking for a rate increase.

I'm keen not to seem like a money grabber in the eyes of the client, now my feet are under the desk... But still, I've got bills to pay, and the 21% the agency are getting at the moment seems like a cheakily good deal for them, especailly given the contract length!

So, who is likely to pay in this case?

[DirtyDog]

Thank you all for the interesting replies and debate The 21% agency cut does seem high from what you are saying- I'm not complaining, but was looking to find out if thie was high, low or average.

Bear in mind that for some roles, the percentage taken may be higher than "normal". This is fairly typic for lower paying roles, since the fixed cost element of the agency business remains the same regardless of the rate being agreed with the contractor / client.

I've just started this 6 month contract (on what's likely to be a 2 year project), so I'll certainly look at renegociating at the end of the initial 6 month period.

When I do this, would an increase in rate from me come out of the agent's margin? Or, do you think the agency would try and push it on to the client, telling them that I'm looking for a rate increase.

Where do you think the agent is going to try to push the cost - either they have to cut their margin or they need to increase their revenue. You should explain that you are expecting them to cut the margin rather than for the client to be footing the bill.

I'm keen not to seem like a money grabber in the eyes of the client, now my feet are under the desk... But still, I've got bills to pay, and the 21% the agency are getting at the moment seems like a cheakily good deal for them, especailly given the contract length!

Your ability to pay the bills bears no relevance to the rate that the client pays the agency - if you are running a business where things are that tight then you either need to reduce your costs or increase your income. Rather than agreeing one price and then renegotiating, you'd be better off getting a higher rate from the start.

So, who is likely to pay in this case?

Depending on your negotiating skills, the client, you or the agency. Probably in that order.

[DirtyDog]

Not really. What you fail to mention is that clientco have more than one agent pushing people, so agent that brings the more cost-effective cheap candidate will get the sale, hence the commission.

I'm glad I don't need to deal with clients and agencies who operate on this model. I have a few trusted agents that I deal with, and the clients that I work with want quality rather than cheapness.

Maybe you should reskill into a market where you don't get constantly shafted?