Originally posted by malvolio
View Post
Originally posted by malvolio
View Post
The law also restricts the temp to perm fees (I know - we would never go over to the dark side like this, but some people do) payable by the client. To me that is further evidence that the regulations are in place to regulate the agency's dealings with the client and the worker.
If I were hiring a worker though an agency then I would make damned sure that they didn't sign the opt out as there is a very good business case for a client to have their workers NOT opt out.
Originally posted by malvolio
View Post
One you missed is that the agency cannot refuse to pay you just because you can't provide signed timesheets. Of course that doesn't prevent the agency from delaying payment while they make reasonable enquiries to determine that the work has been done but it's something that a contractor can use to press them for payment in difficult circumstances. Without this provision it's simply "no timesheet, no pay" and as we all know there a myriad of reasons why a contractor may not be able to produce a timesheet in the contractually required format.
Originally posted by malvolio
View Post
Maybe it's because not everyone is in such a strong negotiating position against the agencies as we are? Perhaps agencies abuse their position by lying to clients that their first choice of worker was "unavailable" and they would have to accept their second choice when the fact is that the first choice candidate wouldn't accept the agency's draconian contract terms? I'm sure there are plenty of other stupid agency tricks that they try on.
In any case, I find it easier to just tell the agency "I'm not opting out" as my negotiating trump card rather than to go through a load of wailing and gnashing of teeth about individual contract terms weighted so heavily in the agency's favour.
Originally posted by malvolio
View Post
The fact is that the only party to benefit from the opt out provision is the employment agency or employment business.
Leave a comment: