Agent increasing their cut

[The Lone Gunman]

Thank them for the services they have provided for the initial contract and tell them that you understand that they can not afford to continue the arrangement at the present rate. It is with regret that you accept their withdrawl from the business agreement and hope you can do business with them in the future.Thank them for their generosity in releasing you from the terms of the initial contract.

When they say they havent state that you will gladly carry on at the agreed rates then.

IANAL.

[Mordac]

Thanks for the responses.

I'll name the agency in due course but i don't think it would appropriate at this stage.

The client is aware of the situation, it was the client who laid the figures out in front of me and also suggested i leave the agency and join them direct.

I'm not sure why, but the client doesn't feel he's in a position to push the agency back on their increased cut so it looks like it's time to walk unfortunately.

The only way around it i can think of is setting up a new LTD, closing the old one and joining the Client directly. Wouldn't this get around the clause in the existing contract?

The agency will also have a similar contract clause with the client, so while they may struggle to sue you, they certainly won't have any problem suing the client. As soon as the client discovers this (which they will, as the agency will write and let them know), they will drop you like a live grenade.
Name the agency, there's nothing they can do about it. Usual form on here is to replace a few letters with asterisks, if you're concerned.

[Fungus]

If the client sources contractors from multiple agencies, then you have some bargaining power, as the agency will be in competition with others to satisfy the client's requirements. In that case, turn down the extension, and they should play ball again. I guess it's risky, but I would probably do that as I don't like being turned over.

In fact many clients create preferred supplier relationships with agencies, and in return for giving the agency preferential treatment, the agency agrees to reduce its cut to a modest level e.g. 15%.

Are you skilled in a specialist area or do you have client specific knowledge e.g. of their code base? If so then you have an even stronger bargaining position. However, if you are easily replaced, well ...

I wonder why the client agreed to the agency increasing their cut? It seems odd. Is the agent providing the client with sexual favours?

Sounds to me like the client - or at least the finance/contract person - is wet.

[Mailman]

Yes, they can do what they like. So can you. Including not signing it. You won't be able to go direct, because there will be a clause in your contract saying you can't go direct (or through another agency) for x months (usually 3, 6 or 12).

This is only partly correct and really depends on a number of factors;

1. Whether you are opted in our out.
2. Whether there is a clause in your contract that allows the agents to be managed out of the business relationship.
3. Whether the agent is a preferred supplier....and the list goes on.

What is missing here is whether you are opted in or out.

If you are opted out then you are a f*cken moron and dont deserve the benefit of my adice

If you are opted in then you are sweet, especially since most likely your contract doesnt make any mention of the agents being managed out of the business relationship (usually through a short extension of several months).

Even if you are opted out you most likely will be fine as exclusion clauses are usually written so poorly that they are unenforceable.

Mailman

[Mordac]

A very good point Mailman, but I'm making the assumption that if the agency behaves in this way come renewal time, then I'm willing to bet they made the OP opt out as a condition of being put forward for the original contract in the first place.

>Even if you are opted out you most likely will be fine as exclusion clauses are usually written so poorly that they are unenforceable.

Stop making sweeping statements when you don't know what you're talking about. The agency has the same contract with the client, so he will not "likely be fine". Far from it. Are you a fcuking lawyer? Exclusion clauses may be poorly written, but they are only illegal if they contravene the law, and that's the crucial point.

[bfg]

Notsure what you are saying

If they are increasing BY 33% from some low percentage on a high rate you are in a different position if they are going TO 33% on a low rate.

Assuming it is somewhere in the middle like going from 15% to 20% on a mid-level rate for your skill set then tell 'em "Thanks, but no thanks" and be prepared to walk out the door. After all, if it is only a mid-level rate then who wants to be shafted by dropping it by 5% when there are plenty more out there.

I will put it this way, you are a business not a charity and you only owe them what they pay for. If they won't pay you owe them nothing.

[boredsenseless]

This is only partly correct and really depends on a number of factors;

1. Whether you are opted in our out.
2. Whether there is a clause in your contract that allows the agents to be managed out of the business relationship.
3. Whether the agent is a preferred supplier....and the list goes on.

What is missing here is whether you are opted in or out.

If you are opted out then you are a f*cken moron and dont deserve the benefit of my adice

If you are opted in then you are sweet, especially since most likely your contract doesnt make any mention of the agents being managed out of the business relationship (usually through a short extension of several months).

Even if you are opted out you most likely will be fine as exclusion clauses are usually written so poorly that they are unenforceable.

Mailman

I'm tired of this opt-in or your a moron rubbish that spews from your keyboard.

Opting-in only proves you are too damn wet to manage your own business and contracts without running back to tony amnd his nanny state crying when someone finds someon better, cheaper or just more likeable.

If you are a strong candidate with good skills and a great track record opting in is a waste of time. It just proves even more that you are a disguised employee and not a business in your own right.

If you don't agree why not take a look at someone like EDS or LOgica or CAP, when they contract to a big bank do they say oh and we'd like to opt-in so that you can't get rid of us if we are rubbish. No they walk in with big balls and say we'll do the work you'll love us and you won't want rid of us.

(Oh and yes I know that opt-in opt-out doesn't apply to these guys, but hey doesn't that prove my point even more a real company isn't covered by these regulations)

[tim123]

Thank them for the services they have provided for the initial contract and tell them that you understand that they can not afford to continue the arrangement at the present rate. It is with regret that you accept their withdrawl from the business agreement and hope you can do business with them in the future.Thank them for their generosity in releasing you from the terms of the initial contract.

When they say they havent state that you will gladly carry on at the agreed rates then.

IANAL.

What a pity that contract law doesn't work like that.

tim

[Mailman]

If you are a strong candidate with good skills and a great track record opting in is a waste of time. It just proves even more that you are a disguised employee and not a business in your own right.

Whether you are a strong candidate or not makes absolutely no difference when agents stiff you Although I suspect from your reply that you enjoy being bent over a cart by agents

If you don't agree why not take a look at someone like EDS or LOgica or CAP, when they contract to a big bank do they say oh and we'd like to opt-in so that you can't get rid of us if we are rubbish.

Comparing an individual contractor to a multi-billion dollar multination is apples and oranges. Firstly, those morons at EDS will ALWAYS have a hell of a lot more clout then any individual contractor will ever have.

Secondly, opting in isnt going to mean you have job security...thats not the objective of the regulations (which are to remove the dodgy feckers who call themselves agents, pitty PCG gave them a back door!).

No they walk in with big balls and say we'll do the work you'll love us and you won't want rid of us.

Because they can...Id like to see how long you last if you ever tried the same rubbish EDS always pulls! [here we go, some rubbish story of yours about what you did in ancient times is about to be posted and we will all go ohhhhhhhhh, ahhhhhhh ]

(Oh and yes I know that opt-in opt-out doesn't apply to these guys, but hey doesn't that prove my point even more a real company isn't covered by these regulations)

Again, EDS is a REAL company...just like every contractor who runs his/her own limited company, and thats regardless of whether you are opted in or out!

Mailman

[Mailman]

>Even if you are opted out you most likely will be fine as exclusion clauses are usually written so poorly that they are unenforceable.

Stop making sweeping statements when you don't know what you're talking about. The agency has the same contract with the client, so he will not "likely be fine". Far from it. Are you a fcuking lawyer? Exclusion clauses may be poorly written, but they are only illegal if they contravene the law, and that's the crucial point.

Not at all, even lawyers (who have posted advice here) have admitted that in general exclusion clauses are so poorly written that they are unenforceable.

Have a look at the exclusion clause in your contract and I bet it goes on about not being able to work for the client BUT I bet what it doesnt say is where you cant work for them.

For exclusion clauses to be enforceable they MUST be specific in where you cannot work.

But then again, as some learned goon has already said here...this adice is worth about as much as was paid for it

Mailman