Employment service check

[SimonMac]

Go Perm. You are not cut out to be a contractor.

WHS!

[Spacecadet]

They are breaking the law. Anything which directly connects applying for a job and changing the applicant is illegal.

It also won't work as how many agencies are going to accept spammy applications when there receive hundreds of valid applicants that they already don't filter properly.

it depends on the interpretation of this:

for finding him employment, or for seeking to find him employment.

As far as I can see from the website, all their system does is use your search criterea and apply for any matching jobs on your behalf on the jobsite website with the exact search criterea which you would have entered into the jobsite search box yourself. They don't even constantly monitor the jobsite listings and only promise to apply on your behalf within 24 hours.

They offer nothing in terms of special contacts, jobs only available through them or anything else which would imply that someone using their website would get any preferential treatment with regards to a single job advert over someone who didn't.

Infact if they did find themselves caught by the law then all they would have to do is change to a generic automated form filling service and offer free templates.. one of which is for the jobsite website!

which leads on to this:

employment agency or an employment business

They are not an employment agency or business, they are a software business.

[Scoobos]

But hold on..

By taking a cut that the contractor isn't usually aware of, aren't all agents breaking this law?

They are "indirectly" charging aren't they? I mean I've had lots of clients who assume , for god knows what reason, that what they pay the agent is what they pay my company.

[stek]

But hold on..

By taking a cut that the contractor isn't usually aware of, aren't all agents breaking this law?

They are "indirectly" charging aren't they? I mean I've had lots of clients who assume , for god knows what reason, that what they pay the agent is what they pay my company.

I might be wrong - but isn't it to do with The Agencies Act, introduced by the Conservatives to stop the 'who's tax liability is it' mess and make it Clientco - Agent - Ltd - Person so the tax liability is obvious.

So really just the easiest way to pin down the tax liability whereas if the agency could charge the Ltd the tax liability issue is clouded?

[northernladuk]

But hold on..

By taking a cut that the contractor isn't usually aware of, aren't all agents breaking this law?

They are "indirectly" charging aren't they? I mean I've had lots of clients who assume , for god knows what reason, that what they pay the agent is what they pay my company.

Taking a cut of a result is different to charging upfront.

[eek]

They are not an employment agency or business, they are a software business.

But by providing the service they do and by running it they way they do that software business is also an employment agency or business by virtue of the nature of the services
they provide.

If you look at it the other way Jobserve can charge agents to look at CVs they can't charge candidates to see or apply for jobs.

[Spacecadet]

But by providing the service they do and by running it they way they do that software business is also an employment agency or business by virtue of the nature of the services
they provide.

If you look at it the other way Jobserve can charge agents to look at CVs they can't charge candidates to see or apply for jobs.

but they are not charging to apply for jobs and there is nothing stopping you from entering the same search terms in jobsite, seeing exactly the same jobs and applying manually.

All they do is automation they are not the gate keepers to the jobs.