DisHonest Practice

[Diestl]

A couple of hours later he phoned back to say it had been rejected on the grounds that the client had already been sent my CV by another agency, without having contacted me at all.

I don't understand why clients reject based on this, "Oh no, this guys CV has come from 2 different agents, obviously he is an imbecile!!. How could he let this happen, we now have 2 copies of the same CV, help!!".

[tim123]

Contractors are never sued as far as I know. If you have any examples of where they have been sued then please enlighten me.

I know of at least two occasions where GB contractors working in Germany have been sued for "return of monies paid" when there did not complete the contract as per the spec.

This is fully enforcable under German law if one works as a 'freelance'. It's the price one pays for not being an agency-PAYE worker, but most cons don't know this.

tim

[DodgyAgent]

I know of at least two occasions where GB contractors working in Germany have been sued for "return of monies paid" when there did not complete the contract as per the spec.

This is fully enforcable under German law if one works as a 'freelance'. It's the price one pays for not being an agency-PAYE worker, but most cons don't know this.

tim

Then there is indeed a strong case for regulating contractors
I will vote for it.

[Epiphone]

I don't understand why clients reject based on this, "Oh no, this guys CV has come from 2 different agents, obviously he is an imbecile!!. How could he let this happen, we now have 2 copies of the same CV, help!!".

In case the respective agents get in a fight and drag the client into it.

[Frus88ed]

DisHonest Practice

Hi All,

Was busy working and just read through all the posts, thanks for all the answers, seems that I am not alone with these practices.

I am certainly not naive but frustrated to the point that if I don't rewrite my resume to match exactly the phrasing on the job ad it seems you never get put forward, agents seem to have a problem articulating job openings with CV's, maybe its just me.

So the endpoint is this, is it worthwhile to petition the government for regulating agents ? or is it a waste of time with no real support ?

As for regulating contractors if they cant manage there own books and tax properly they should stick to being a full timer.

My skillset is in the Programme Change and IT Director level. I also note that the cowboy agents are taking the opportunity to use INTERIM as a way to reduce rates.

thanks

[cojak]

Then don't use them. Interim doesn't equate with 'desperate' - it should mean a higher rate as you'll be competent enough to be productive from the moment you step on the site.

Just tell them that before you slam the phone down on them.

[Old Greg]

I'm new to contracting and I've been pretty lucky with my 1st contract - well paid, agents behaving decently and on fixed rate. I guess I'll see what it's really like when I go for my next contract.

It seems some people feel pretty hard done by agents and I can see why when I read some of the tales. There's a view that agents are the big middlemen squeezing the small supplier (contractors).

There are industries (prinicpally agriculture) where small suppliers increase there power relative to the big boys through cooperatives. If contractors were to form their own cooperative agency/EB and if this successfully penetrated the market, this co-op wouldn't present the same problems in terms of clients/contractors feeling they're being ripped off and in terms of dodgy practice - it wouldn't be in its members interests to behave badly. It could openly advertise its % and would be controlled by its members. A mechanism could be put in place to distribute/invest any profits.

Having said that, I can't see contractors going for this model so I'll prepare to ride the wave when my contract ends.

[DodgyAgent]

I'm new to contracting and I've been pretty lucky with my 1st contract - well paid, agents behaving decently and on fixed rate. I guess I'll see what it's really like when I go for my next contract.

It seems some people feel pretty hard done by agents and I can see why when I read some of the tales. There's a view that agents are the big middlemen squeezing the small supplier (contractors).

There are industries (prinicpally agriculture) where small suppliers increase there power relative to the big boys through cooperatives. If contractors were to form their own cooperative agency/EB and if this successfully penetrated the market, this co-op wouldn't present the same problems in terms of clients/contractors feeling they're being ripped off and in terms of dodgy practice - it wouldn't be in its members interests to behave badly. It could openly advertise its % and would be controlled by its members. A mechanism could be put in place to distribute/invest any profits.

Having said that, I can't see contractors going for this model so I'll prepare to ride the wave when my contract ends.

The first thing is that you are overrating the influence that agencies have. There is only so much that an agent can do to influence who a PM recruits. 99% of recruiters use more than one agency and the bottom line is that the agency who gets the best contractor at the right time at the right money is going to get the job. Not some iffy contractor who's CV has been "altered" and who has been conned into accepting the lowest rate. The contractors in most demand are the ones that the PMs want which has the effect of marginalising the influence of the agency.

As I have said before there is a stronger case for regulating contractors than agents, we are just not important or influential enough. Besides no labour leaning govt will feel any need to provide you lot with any sort of protection as they think that you are nothing more than a bunch of rich tax avoiding parasites. (that is not what I think of you BTW )

[Old Greg]

My post didn't address agencies' influence over who gets the contract, but on the apparent 'dodgy practices' (inflated %s, and fishing for CVs etc.) which people obviously get so worked up about.

I didn't mention regulation either, but agree with your final point about government not looking to protect contractors.

[DodgyAgent]

My post didn't address agencies' influence over who gets the contract, but on the apparent 'dodgy practices' (inflated %s, and fishing for CVs etc.) which people obviously get so worked up about.

I didn't mention regulation either, but agree with your final point about government not looking to protect contractors.

The practices of many recruitment agencies are deplorable but very carefully "risk managed". Agencies know that indulging in good aftercare for contractors is a waste of precious time. After all despite what some of you may think it is the clients who are paying them not you guys. Contractors will put up with a lot in order to secure the contract that they want, and no one can blame them for that. Although we all may loathe the spivvy antics of Computer People, Huxley and the others it is no coincidence that these agencies are the most sucessful, and that the "nicer ones" are not.

These agencies are like politicians they say all the right things about caring for their contractors but they know full well that rewards in this industry come from continual contact and hustling of clients. They do not come from wasting time returning calls to contractors who they have no immediate chance of placing.

It is the Alan Sugar way, it is the Foxtons way, it is HSBC's way, it is how business works; by understanding its customer and by understanding its market..