Recruitment Consultants, discuss.

[Not So Wise]

I was wondering if we could all pool our knowledge of agents and build up a list of reputable agents.

Problem with lists like that is a lot of the bad rep agencys get can be down to the individual agent(s) not the agency as a whole. Like remember a few years ago being with MSB, now according to loads of people they were/are total crap, with all the agents being total dick heads, scamming pimps. During this whole period i never had a problem with them, with them for a year, 3 renewals. Whole time a lovely chatty pleasant girl was my contact.

Then she moved on, as soon as her replacement started things started going wrong left and right, payments were late, he was a total dick head about the whole thing. I refused the 4th renewal (after telling client why) and now the rare times i see an MSB posting i just ignore it.

So two basic problems with any blacklist either every agency would end up on it (if was anonymous posting, even without other agents posting all their rivals) or would be empty if every post needed a real name attached to it, either because people would be afraid of get sued or counter blacklisted

[thunderlizard]

Agent Rat

There was indeed a website where people could rate IT recruitment agents. It was called Agent Rat. It died, I think because it got more threats of legal action than viewers.

Agents? Well they're mostly normal, likeable people whose business goals (due to the nature of the game) are sometimes in the contractor's interest, and sometimes not. It just goes wrong when they get squeamish about the facts, which are:

(1) It's in their interests to charge the client the max. poss. and pay the contractor the min. poss. ("What's your minimum rate? Obviously I'll try to get you a bit more")

(2) Their margin is spent on paying agents for the 90% of their time that doesn't result in successful placements and brings no benefit to anybody. (and there's nowt wrong with that)

All the stuff about "we pay the contractor even if we don't get paid ourselves" is tosh - as if ScabbyTenManAgency Ltd is protecting you from MegaBankCorp PLC's dodgy credit reputation. I suppose weekly invoicing is handy if you have a very hand to mouth existence, but we big boys can easily do without it.

I've always got on well personally with my agents, often the more so for a bit of wear and tear on the relationship come negotiation time! Fortunately never had an agency miss a payment, but aware it could happen.

[Arun V]

Agent/Agency ratings

I was concentrating more on the positive side to know who are the good ones, say agent X in Y agency. I accept that naming bad ones may attact libel actions.

[ancient]

I was concentrating more on the positive side to know who are the good ones, say agent X in Y agency. I accept that naming bad ones may attact libel actions.

Agreed; Perhaps ContractorUK could sponsor an award e.g. agency or agent of the year?

a couple of quotes:

" All generalisations tend to be untrue"
"Western thought is critical"

[Denny]

Problem with lists like that is a lot of the bad rep agencys get can be down to the individual agent(s) not the agency as a whole. Like remember a few years ago being with MSB, now according to loads of people they were/are total crap, with all the agents being total dick heads, scamming pimps. During this whole period i never had a problem with them, with them for a year, 3 renewals. Whole time a lovely chatty pleasant girl was my contact.

Then she moved on, as soon as her replacement started things started going wrong left and right, payments were late, he was a total dick head about the whole thing. I refused the 4th renewal (after telling client why) and now the rare times i see an MSB posting i just ignore it.

So two basic problems with any blacklist either every agency would end up on it (if was anonymous posting, even without other agents posting all their rivals) or would be empty if every post needed a real name attached to it, either because people would be afraid of get sued or counter blacklisted

The main problem is right under yours and everyone else's noses because you allude to it above. There are no bad apples in the recruitment industry, the recruitment model itself is the problem. This is something I've being saying for ages only to be met by misguided cries of 'who are the bad agents?' and so on. Until we address the issue of the employment business model, every contractor is vulnerable to being shafted or misused by any agent at any time.

We need more accountability for the employment business industry as a whole and a change in the industry model away from sales, margins and lack of accountability whereby the client doesn't know what is being said or agreed to or with the contractor and vice versa. It's not exposure of individual recruiters who may or may not be responsible for the individual actions that give rise to the numerous complaints contractors have against them. Some do their best, and some hate their own industry as much as we hate the way some recruiters behave. I've spoken to many recruiters who hate the practices that go on in their industry.

The whole employment business model and its dependents is a shambles and god knows why there hasn't been more public exposure about their practices. I can only assume it's down to a strong and powerful recruitment lobby, influential stakeholders that fingers in the recruitment pie and general complacency amongst the contractors themselves. The amount of marketeering and other absurd rubbish the recruitment industry writes about the benefits of employment business and the value they add to flexible working that gives them an almost utopian view of themselves as professionals is breathtaking. Who said they could act as spokespeople for contractors too? Again, this is something we need to stop.

That's why we need some collective action - even a union (like the NUJ who also act for freelance journalists not just employed ones) to change the model because unless we organise and stand firm against the abuses of this industry model we stand no chance of making the necessary changes. Neither PGC or ATSCO or any other rubbishy trade association that acts for the benefit of recruiters are willing to do this, so we've got to, not just bury our heads in the sand, play intellectual gymnastics by convincing ourselves that nothing can change so we may as well adapt or get out of contracting, run scared by ignoring the problems or focusing on bad apple or individual problems or, worst still, join forces with our abusers.

[ancient]

The main problem is right under yours and everyone else's noses because you allude to it above. There are no bad apples in the recruitment industry, the recruitment model itself is the problem. This is something I've being saying for ages only to be met by misguided cries of 'who are the bad agents?' and so on. Until we address the issue of the employment business model, every contractor is vulnerable to being shafted or misused by any agent at any time.

We need more accountability for the employment business industry as a whole and a change in the industry model away from sales, margins and lack of accountability whereby the client doesn't know what is being said or agreed to or with the contractor and vice versa. It's not exposure of individual recruiters who may or may not be responsible for the individual actions that give rise to the numerous complaints contractors have against them. Some do their best, and some hate their own industry as much as we hate the way some recruiters behave. I've spoken to many recruiters who hate the practices that go on in their industry.

The whole employment business model and its dependents is a shambles and god knows why there hasn't been more public exposure about their practices. I can only assume it's down to a strong and powerful recruitment lobby, influential stakeholders that fingers in the recruitment pie and general complacency amongst the contractors themselves. The amount of marketeering and other absurd rubbish the recruitment industry writes about the benefits of employment business and the value they add to flexible working that gives them an almost utopian view of themselves as professionals is breathtaking. Who said they could act as spokespeople for contractors too? Again, this is something we need to stop.

That's why we need some collective action - even a union (like the NUJ who also act for freelance journalists not just employed ones) to change the model because unless we organise and stand firm against the abuses of this industry model we stand no chance of making the necessary changes. Neither PGC or ATSCO or any other rubbishy trade association that acts for the benefit of recruiters are willing to do this, so we've got to, not just bury our heads in the sand, play intellectual gymnastics by convincing ourselves that nothing can change so we may as well adapt or get out of contracting, run scared by ignoring the problems or focusing on bad apple or individual problems or, worst still, join forces with our abusers.

At the end of the day we are governed by the forces of supply and demand.

There are more Contractors than Clients (so Clients are more important to an agent - Contractors are ten a penny).

Contractors are a silent majority that need to take the rough with the smooth.

If rates deminish, and the Contractor supply side reduces then for those that stay in the market they will be OK.

As more people enter the market, we become a commodity - bought and sold at the lowest price.

As certain technologies (J2EE & .NET) become a commodity we become aligned with that - further commoditised.

Within the Contractor market the Agents manage supply and demand - divide and rule and take a good margin - who can blame them.

Contracting = jam today
Permenant = Jam tomorrow

For those that pay full IR35 liabilities (no dividends) the gap between the two is seriously narrowing.

For those on a tax scam and prepaired to take the risk it offers a good gamble.

Current situation - two contractors siting opposite each other on the same rate - doing the same job - one taking home 42% the other 80% net.

Some Agents will supply only people who are on boni-fide Umberella's, (most often a Client stipulation so they cannot be held liable e.g HMRC), and others the devil may care as long as they get their cut.

Make your choice, but without clarity on these things - it is distorting the market - downwards.

Niche skills or experience can command more, but the Agent(s) may not understand the differentiator - so if you have niche or specific client skills, you have a smaller customer base and the potential frustration of justifying the rate.

I know a client that has fixed rates based on job roles. you might have many years experience not only of their technology base but also their business, but even if you have worked there 10 years you are paid exactly the same rate as if you came off planet Mars yesterday with a three year learning curve. At the same time if you travel 10 or 300 miles to get there they pay the same rate. In some cases they pay more just because you have come off planet Mars.

The agencies often enter into an agreement with the Client at a commodity price in terms of supply - often fixed on large contracts, anything to get the business and get on the approved list.

I guess it is the name of the game - take it or leave it - or find ways round it to your own satisfaction.

[DodgyAgent]

The main problem is right under yours and everyone else's noses because you allude to it above. There are no bad apples in the recruitment industry, the recruitment model itself is the problem. This is something I've being saying for ages only to be met by misguided cries of 'who are the bad agents?' and so on. Until we address the issue of the employment business model, every contractor is vulnerable to being shafted or misused by any agent at any time.

We need more accountability for the employment business industry as a whole and a change in the industry model away from sales, margins and lack of accountability whereby the client doesn't know what is being said or agreed to or with the contractor and vice versa. It's not exposure of individual recruiters who may or may not be responsible for the individual actions that give rise to the numerous complaints contractors have against them. Some do their best, and some hate their own industry as much as we hate the way some recruiters behave. I've spoken to many recruiters who hate the practices that go on in their industry.

The whole employment business model and its dependents is a shambles and god knows why there hasn't been more public exposure about their practices. I can only assume it's down to a strong and powerful recruitment lobby, influential stakeholders that fingers in the recruitment pie and general complacency amongst the contractors themselves. The amount of marketeering and other absurd rubbish the recruitment industry writes about the benefits of employment business and the value they add to flexible working that gives them an almost utopian view of themselves as professionals is breathtaking. Who said they could act as spokespeople for contractors too? Again, this is something we need to stop.

That's why we need some collective action - even a union (like the NUJ who also act for freelance journalists not just employed ones) to change the model because unless we organise and stand firm against the abuses of this industry model we stand no chance of making the necessary changes. Neither PGC or ATSCO or any other rubbishy trade association that acts for the benefit of recruiters are willing to do this, so we've got to, not just bury our heads in the sand, play intellectual gymnastics by convincing ourselves that nothing can change so we may as well adapt or get out of contracting, run scared by ignoring the problems or focusing on bad apple or individual problems or, worst still, join forces with our abusers.

On the contrary, the recruitment model is driven entirely by the market. If clients and contractors didnt like it, it would simply not exist. What better way is there for employers and workers to come together? What this idiot is talking about is setting up of some sort of higher authority, made up of idiots who are incapable of running a whelk store (just think of all the twats in our industry applying for "union" jobs). This whole idea smacks of New Labour control freakery.

You all talk about lack of professionalism or underhand dealing, but what is the worse that happens? A few people miss out on jobs, a number of people fail to turn up for interviews, and there are some shady characters trying to get information out of people by deceitful means.

The recruitment model is fine until someone invents a better one. The better one will be judged simply by market forces. The last thing this industry needs is a bunch of self serving busy bodies.

Oh and by the way Dan (Hunter) have you filled your (only) job yet? meeeeeooooooww

[voron]

Oh and by the way Dan (Hunter) have you filled your (only) job yet? meeeeeooooooww

At least Dan Hunter is open about his agency. Which dodgy agency do you represent?

[DodgyAgent]

At the end of the day we are governed by the forces of supply and demand.

There are more Contractors than Clients (so Clients are more important to an agent - Contractors are ten a penny).

Contractors are a silent majority that need to take the rough with the smooth.

If rates deminish, and the Contractor supply side reduces then for those that stay in the market they will be OK.

As more people enter the market, we become a commodity - bought and sold at the lowest price.

As certain technologies (J2EE & .NET) become a commodity we become aligned with that - further commoditised.

Within the Contractor market the Agents manage supply and demand - divide and rule and take a good margin - who can blame them.

Contracting = jam today
Permenant = Jam tomorrow

For those that pay full IR35 liabilities (no dividends) the gap between the two is seriously narrowing.

For those on a tax scam and prepaired to take the risk it offers a good gamble.

Current situation - two contractors siting opposite each other on the same rate - doing the same job - one taking home 42% the other 80% net.

Some Agents will supply only people who are on boni-fide Umberella's, (most often a Client stipulation so they cannot be held liable e.g HMRC), and others the devil may care as long as they get their cut.

Make your choice, but without clarity on these things - it is distorting the market - downwards.

Niche skills or experience can command more, but the Agent(s) may not understand the differentiator - so if you have niche or specific client skills, you have a smaller customer base and the potential frustration of justifying the rate.

I know a client that has fixed rates based on job roles. you might have many years experience not only of their technology base but also their business, but even if you have worked there 10 years you are paid exactly the same rate as if you came off planet Mars yesterday with a three year learning curve. At the same time if you travel 10 or 300 miles to get there they pay the same rate. In some cases they pay more just because you have come off planet Mars.

The agencies often enter into an agreement with the Client at a commodity price in terms of supply - often fixed on large contracts, anything to get the business and get on the approved list.

I guess it is the name of the game - take it or leave it - or find ways round it to your own satisfaction.

You completely overestimate the power that agencies have. Usually there are more than one or two suppliers competing with each other to find the most suitable contractor for the job.

[reformation]

On the contrary, the recruitment model is driven entirely by the market. If clients and contractors didnt like it, it would simply not exist. What better way is there for employers and workers to come together? What this idiot is talking about is setting up of some sort of higher authority, made up of idiots who are incapable of running a whelk store (just think of all the twats in our industry applying for "union" jobs). This whole idea smacks of New Labour control freakery.

You all talk about lack of professionalism or underhand dealing, but what is the worse that happens? A few people miss out on jobs, a number of people fail to turn up for interviews, and there are some shady characters trying to get information out of people by deceitful means.

The recruitment model is fine until someone invents a better one. The better one will be judged simply by market forces. The last thing this industry needs is a bunch of self serving busy bodies.

Oh and by the way Dan (Hunter) have you filled your (only) job yet? meeeeeooooooww

Gosh you've realised my agency is small? I actually have about 15 jobs live at the moment, with international law firms, and global advertsing agencies and Government institutions. Not bobs DIY shop in walthamstow, im small today with a bigger picture attitude. Why do you see fit to have a go at me? As Voron said what agency do you represent? Maybe i could come over see how the big fellas do it, you know learn a trick or two from someone in the industry thats my better?