Agency regulation

[SallyAnne]

You are just not important enough to warrant such an elite system to support what is effectively a group of plumbers on typewriters.

[boredsenseless]

I actually find some of Denny's argument appealling.

I don't have a problem with an agent having a large payment on securing a position for myself with no future tie-in but you have to be reasonable.

This fee will be large, at present they take 10% (about 50 quid) a day and they fcator most contracts will last a year once extended once (roughly 10K a year).

Now if they are paid just once, then small contracts become impossible to source because the 'sweetener' the agant would require would be more than duration of the initial contract.

Also if you only pay them once for the contract they originally source you then all invoicing etc after that period needs to be done by yourself why should they carry on doing it they aren't getting anything out of it anymore.

[Euro-commuter]

Since it is the clients who pay the agencies, it is they who decide what the terms will be. They obviously think that they are OK.

If you don't like them, you are free to work only with agencies that will do things your way. If enough contractors do that, clients might realise that it is in their interest to work with such agencies; and agencies realise that it is in their interest to work that way.


I think that is a logical free-market view of how it works. I have to admit that I don't believe it either. Mainly I suppose because clients are not interested in a quality contractor at a good price, they're interested in a working body now. Reasonably enough, they'll deal with anybody that gives it to them. So the customer is "happy" with the system as is.

[TheOmegaMan]

Yes, it is an example of how the free market does not necessarily operate for the good of the population as a whole. This is why we need regulation. Regulation can actually increase competition and provide real choice. Without regulation it is optimal for the entire recruitment market to be owned by one agency (guess who?) because then they can really push rates up for the client. There is no realistic alternative other than using an HR department - but that doesn't really increase choice.

We need to put shysters like DA out to pasture for good. Adopt my five point plan and we will be on the road.

[Lucifer Box]

What we need, Jabberwocky, is an enlightened ruler who knows when to be lenient and when to be harsh. One with whom all decisions can rest. I praise the Almighty that you have returned from oblivion to save us all by fulfilling this role.

[shaunbhoy]

What we need, Jabberwocky, is an enlightened ruler who knows when to be lenient and when to be harsh. One with whom all decisions can rest. I praise the Almighty that you have returned from oblivion to save us all by fulfilling this role.

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!!

[boredsenseless]

What we need, Jabberwocky, is an enlightened ruler who knows when to be lenient and when to be harsh. One with whom all decisions can rest. I praise the Almighty that you have returned from oblivion to save us all by fulfilling this role.

Some people might say you were being sarcastic

[Lucifer Box]

Some people might say you were being sarcastic

Might they? Surely not?

[Spacecadet]

Not bothered reading the entire thread but:

there was me thinking that the end client was the "consumer" of the contractor -> agency -> client business model
Likewise the agency is a consumer of my services

I pay the agency nothing, I am not a consumer, I am a service providor

[TheOmegaMan]

One man's service is another man's sauce.