Appearance of a third party

[LondonManc]

ClientCo may want a consultancy to deal with hiring/firing/contractor selection. Not unheard of by any stretch. Capita, for example, might not have expertise available in a certain area but end client would agree to contractors coming in as contractors rather than disguised consultants, with a charge rate of, say, £1000 rather than £1500 for a standard Capita consultant. Win-win - ClientCo doesn't have to go through the whole onboarding process, Capita gets a nice mark up for their role but cba with the cv-sifiting themselves, just the interviewing; specialist agency gets their cut for their role and you get the day rate you initially asked for.

[MrMarkyMark]

The "layer of greed" as you call it is often there for some finance and legal reason on behalf of the end client. If there is more than one consultancy/organisation who has won the contract it's easier for the client to pay a new third party who then pays each company in turn who provided the worker(s). So if consultancy A and organisation B have won the contract instead of paying A or B the end client pays company C. Company C then pays consultancies A and organisation B plus any other company who has provided workers.

Agreed, good point.

However, I was talking about when there is more than one agency involved, multi-tier, when I was suggesting an additional layer of greed.

[SueEllen]

I would ask WGAF?

If you are getting the agreed rate, I don't see what the issue is. Just make sure the contract is all in order.
At least you ended up with an agreed contract, many of these 3 tier arrangements do not work out, due to there being an additional layer of greed.

The "layer of greed" as you call it is often there for some finance and legal reason on behalf of the end client. If there is more than one consultancy/organisation who has won the contract it's easier for the client to pay a new third party who then pays each company in turn who provided the worker(s). So if consultancy A and organisation B have won the contract instead of paying A or B the end client pays company C. Company C then pays consultancies A and organisation B plus any other company who has provided workers.

[MrMarkyMark]

What gives?

I would ask WGAF?

If you are getting the agreed rate, I don't see what the issue is. Just make sure the contract is all in order.
At least you ended up with an agreed contract, many of these 3 tier arrangements do not work out, due to there being an additional layer of greed.

[SueEllen]

It is a bit frustrating though with the rate the end client is often paying. It would be nice to get a bigger slice.

You aren't going to get a bigger slice though.

[ASB]

Sounds like the recruiter is supplying a bigger supplier. We have something similar with Client-capita-agent in IT. Not uncommon. The margins are not your problem. Just make sure you are getting the max out of the agent.

It is a bit frustrating though with the rate the end client is often paying. It would be nice to get a bigger slice.

[TheFaQQer]

Do I quiz the recruiter about these folk and what the margin is?

If you are happy with the rate that you agreed, what benefit would this serve?

[northernladuk]

Sounds like the recruiter is supplying a bigger supplier. We have something similar with Client-capita-agent in IT. Not uncommon. The margins are not your problem. Just make sure you are getting the max out of the agent.

[Shotto]

Been dealing with a recruiter in respect of a contract vacancy in the Oil Industry, paying a day rate..nothing odd there.

I get an offer, then am advised that another organsiation will be contacting me to sort out details. Reading between the lines, these folk are not an umbrella or Ltd Co Accountants, but seem to be invoicing end client direct, and paying me/umbrella. no doubt net of their mark up.

Do I quiz the recruiter about these folk and what the margin is? This role is not an "employed consultant" basis, has anyone experience of this? I thought I was dealing only with recuiter and end client.

What gives?