Reply to: Agency dodgy dealings

[jmo21]

I've had one agent tell me on the phone she would lie to the end client that the reason I was not accepting a renewal was because I didn't like working there & didn't like them. Not the truth, which was that their renewal terms were worse.

That's just massive stupidity to tell you.

You would simply inform the client of the real reason.

A "smart" agent wouldn't have told you they were going to do that.

[DTexas]

But seriously, agents are not the most honest of folk.

Indeed. Has an agent, ever in the history of man, ever told the end client the truth about why a contractor has declined a job offer or renewal?

I've had one agent tell me on the phone she would lie to the end client that the reason I was not accepting a renewal was because I didn't like working there & didn't like them. Not the truth, which was that their renewal terms were worse.

Another agent told me he would tell the client I would be "unable" to take up the job, when in fact it was the client's screening agency who were making it impossible for me to pass the screening with their increasingly constraining evidence demands.

There is a way around some of this, my friends.

Use your rights under the Data Protection Act to obtain correspondence between your agent and end-client, if you feel the agent has lied on your behalf. Submit it to your end-client then have fun discussing the matter with 'your' agent.

[Taita]

Really? I find with salary most people are happier not talking about it...as if you do find out about others (careless printouts left lying around) it doesn't half get to you over time

Turn a blind eye, don't pry and then you won't cry!

[PerfectStorm]

It's probably just me, but i haven't seen such clause in my contracts. Then again how are they going to prove you did tell the client, yet alone do something about it... It's like the rules of conduit in most companies where employees are forbidden to share their salaries with colleagues, yet everyone knows how much everyone else is getting paid...

Really? I find with salary most people are happier not talking about it...as if you do find out about others (careless printouts left lying around) it doesn't half get to you over time

[TheFaQQer]

It's probably just me, but i haven't seen such clause in my contracts. Then again how are they going to prove you did tell the client, yet alone do something about it... It's like the rules of conduit in most companies where employees are forbidden to share their salaries with colleagues, yet everyone knows how much everyone else is getting paid...

Ajilon / Computer People used to have it in theirs. They also had a clause which said that if they lost work as a result of anything that you told the client, they would hold you liable.

I just told them that they were ridiculous clauses that couldn't be enforced so to take them out or I'd explain to the client why I wasn't working with them.

[sal]

When you sign future contracts tell the agent to remove any clause that states you mustn't tell the client your rate. Just make a plausible reason why you want this removed and if it's plausible you can get it removed or altered.

That way the agent can't try tricks on like this.

It's probably just me, but i haven't seen such clause in my contracts. Then again how are they going to prove you did tell the client, yet alone do something about it... It's like the rules of conduit in most companies where employees are forbidden to share their salaries with colleagues, yet everyone knows how much everyone else is getting paid...

[jmo21]

When you sign future contracts tell the agent to remove any clause that states you mustn't tell the client your rate. Just make a plausible reason why you want this removed and if it's plausible you can get it removed or altered.

That way the agent can't try tricks on like this.

Have you ever done this before? If so what was the reason you gave?

Struggling to think of anything that would compel the agent to remove that other than point blank refusing to sign the contract and them potentially losing the contract position to another agency.

[SueEllen]

When you sign future contracts tell the agent to remove any clause that states you mustn't tell the client your rate. Just make a plausible reason why you want this removed and if it's plausible you can get it removed or altered.

That way the agent can't try tricks on like this.

[mudskipper]

I think the client holds the cards here. If the client has agreed a 15% margin, then the client should be kicking the agent's arse and paying 15% (backdated).

If the client ain't that bothered, then there's nothing you can really do.

[mankyspanky]

To a certain extent I agree with what a lot of you say. Tescos dont tell you how much they buy cornflakes for before they sell them to you after all.

BUT, in this case, I think agent has gone too far. Yes I worked out they are all liars and everyones in business to make money.
But lying to both parties, and hoping they dont speak to each other? Misrepresenting another party (i.e. agency says client said this when in fact it was made up) is a bit much. Lying about the cut to client is also a bit off - even though its their fault really if its not contractual (now that would be fun!).

Yes to be fair agency has done well and made a quick buck but when client works out the score its not going to do much for long term relationship.

I know that ultimately nothing is going to happen. BUT at least now I know the score. In the event of renewal I can tell agent that the parties over.

Yes I could pull a strop and hand in notice now and demand the agent stop being greedy. But that could go badly. After all, as someone said, all client wants is someone there doing the work not moaning about money.

[tractor]

...

Yes it does, although I was wrong to say counter-claim. It's a separate claim based off a separate contract.

Client <---contract1---> Agent <---contract2---> Contractor

If contractor breaks their contract (contract2 - which is with the agent), agent claims against contractor. Agent is in the right, and will probably win, but (from the OP's story) agent has meanwhile broken their contract with client (contract1). Client files separate claim against agent. Agent is now fighting two claims - one which they'll win and one which they'll lose. Net result is zero and a whole lot of wasted time and effort (and therefore money) for the agent.

Agents may be devoid of scruples but they're not stupid. In a situation like this, they're likely to simply back down on all fronts. It won't be without some namecalling, flinging threats around etc., but they'll back down as they know to fight to the end would be a pyrrhic victory.

Your view is too simplistic. Many of us are forced into contracts that provide compensation to the agent for any losses caused by the contractor's action (or inaction, if appropriate). In which case, if the contractor caused the agent to break it's contract with the client, the contractor could be held liable for any losses where the agent loses an action brought by the client. This would of course, include legal costs for both actions if the contractor and the agent lost. That makes it a 0,0,-2 situation.

[Taita]

Fairly new to this. Been contracting about two years.

Worked out that a lot of agencies are a little dodgy but recent events take the biscuit. Im always one for if rate is good for you dont worry about but this really is bad.
Just wondered how best way to handle it.

I've always thought agent was a bit of liar especially about the cut he was taking. Alway told me his margin was slim etc.
Asked for an increase at one renewal and although I got some, he told me client wasnt happy/had to re-do budgets etc which I've since found out was a lie.

Anyway, turns out agent has been playing contractors and client off against each other. Agent has been blaming client for rate cuts and dodgy deals which was all made up, and now client has got wind and is not happy about it. In one instance, agency knocked a chunk off, blamed the client for cuts and kept if for himself. For all contractors, client though rate was the same but its now appears to depend on how many lies agent could get past to cut the rate.

Client is also not happy that the margin appears massive and not 15% as they agreed with agent. Its all possibly going to get legal.

Must admit I don't like seeing client ripped off like this. The rate I get is OK, but if the client is paying a massive rate its unfair especialy if agent is using them in their lies.

Waiting to see what happens here to be honest. Any suggestions or anyone seen this sort of thing before?

"Client is also not happy that the margin appears massive and not 15% as they agreed with agent. Its all possibly going to get legal."

When you are having a beer with your line manager who wants to keep you sweet.....he will probably sympathise with your gripes.

'Get legal'????......the reality is that, unless you are working for a small outfit where your line manager also decides the business policies of the company, nothing will happen to the agent or his contract. in larger companies, HR/Procurement hear gripes all the time but they pay little heed until the master contract is up for renewal and not much even then.

If he gets sued for misleading contractors about rates and margins it will make industry history (IT contracting is roughly 45 years old)!

[TheFaQQer]

Yes it does, although I was wrong to say counter-claim. It's a separate claim based off a separate contract.

Client <---contract1---> Agent <---contract2---> Contractor

If contractor breaks their contract (contract2 - which is with the agent), agent claims against contractor. Agent is in the right, and will probably win, but (from the OP's story) agent has meanwhile broken their contract with client (contract1). Client files separate claim against agent. Agent is now fighting two claims - one which they'll win and one which they'll lose. Net result is zero and a whole lot of wasted time and effort (and therefore money) for the agent.

Agents may be devoid of scruples but they're not stupid. In a situation like this, they're likely to simply back down on all fronts. It won't be without some namecalling, flinging threats around etc., but they'll back down as they know to fight to the end would be a pyrrhic victory.

If the client is going to take the contractor on direct, then the client is also very likely to be in breach of contract1 with the agency, which would be used in a counter-claim if the client tried to sue the agency. So, a nil-game on contract1 (assuming a court decides that the breaches are of significant worth, which I doubt they would), and the agency wins on contract2.

[billybiro]

Eh? The client files a counter-claim against the agent for breaking their contract with the client?

That doesn't make any sense.

Yes it does, although I was wrong to say counter-claim. It's a separate claim based off a separate contract.

Client <---contract1---> Agent <---contract2---> Contractor

If contractor breaks their contract (contract2 - which is with the agent), agent claims against contractor. Agent is in the right, and will probably win, but (from the OP's story) agent has meanwhile broken their contract with client (contract1). Client files separate claim against agent. Agent is now fighting two claims - one which they'll win and one which they'll lose. Net result is zero and a whole lot of wasted time and effort (and therefore money) for the agent.

Agents may be devoid of scruples but they're not stupid. In a situation like this, they're likely to simply back down on all fronts. It won't be without some namecalling, flinging threats around etc., but they'll back down as they know to fight to the end would be a pyrrhic victory.

[TheFaQQer]

OP wrote:


After shenanigans like the above, you don't think the agent might back down when the client files a counter claim due to the agent breaking their contract with the client?

If they have broken the contract, then if the client wants to pursue that course of action, then that is exactly what they should do. If they have broken the contract, then that is the correct remedy - to pursue a more egregious breach of contract would not be the sensible course of action.

If they have not broken the contract, then there isn't much they can do apart from moan.