Agent increasing their cut

[Mordac]

OK Mailman, let's assume for a moment that you are correct. The agency still has a clause with the client, and a quick letter threatening legal action will "most likely" discourage the client from continuing the relationship with the contractor. No client is going to risk court action, they will simply find another contractor from another agency.

[Mailman]

OK Mailman, let's assume for a moment that you are correct. The agency still has a clause with the client, and a quick letter threatening legal action will "most likely" discourage the client from continuing the relationship with the contractor. No client is going to risk court action, they will simply find another contractor from another agency.

That would depend on whether the contract was with the client OR with their preferred supplier and size of the client etc or more importantly whether any such clause exists in the first place.

Then there are also a number of other variables here that would affect whether the agent would waste time, money and effort on a course of action that would result in nothing being achieved for them and most likely end any formal business relationship that may have existed etc.

Most likely in this case the best course of action is to speak to the client and ask whether you can change agents. If your agents are the sole provider of resources then you are buggered. If they arent then your manager may put you on to HR for further advice about moving to new agents (as they may have a list of agents they prefer you to work through).

I remember Dodgy saying ages ago that if the relationship between the agent and the contractor has gotten to the point where the contractor is leaving then no amount of threatening will change the fact the relationship is dead.

Mailman

[Denny]

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.

What a load of tosh. I presume then that you never use recruiters to source any of your work (whoops! business).

Why is opting in a waste of time if you do source work through recruiters?

Let me remind you that recruiters sourcing contractors refer to themselves as 'employment businesses' not introduction businesses. I assume then, that what you are really criticising is contractors using recruiters at all rather than
merely opting in when they do use them. If the odds are stacked against us as being viewed as 'owner managed' from the start whether we are limited or not, with terms and conditions that apply to everyone, the business name implies 'employment' then it's surely more businesslike to ensure that we manage the risks associated with being in business in the first place. What I'm trying to say is this: if you can't beat them do more than just join them. Also make sure you are as risk free as possible too by ensuring payment is not only there but on time too rather than not at all if the client/EB decides to screw you. That's not being a wimp or adoopting pseudo employee attitude that's having a wise business head where it counts and can be enforced.

Keep an eye on the Shout 99 thread under 'expert advice' there is a good question about this matter on there. It's not yet answered though.

[expat]

I remember Dodgy saying ages ago that if the relationship between the agent and the contractor has gotten to the point where the contractor is leaving then no amount of threatening will change the fact the relationship is dead.

Mailman

Something similar is true of marriages that have got to the point of divorce, but that doesn't stop legal action taking place.

[Mailman]

Something similar is true of marriages that have got to the point of divorce, but that doesn't stop legal action taking place.

Depends on the costs involved, the likely outcome doesnt it and whether the action would have any other affect on the current business relationship etc.

I mean, if Mr and Mrs Expat havent a penny between them then there is going to be no point in Mrs Expat taking you to the cleaners is there

Denny,

Excellent reply by the way.

Mailman

[shaunbhoy]

You could always suggest to the client that they get the agency removed from their preferred suppliers list (PSL) then you may well be free to take up the position through another agency on the PSL. Not sure if that is possible as IANAL mind you!

[IT contract agent]

walk away - out of order for an agent to do that. if he needs more money he should get it from the client.

why no name and shame?