• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "New to Contract - mucked about by agent"

Collapse

  • psychocandy
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Why don't you use explanations like that rather than 'Sod this' and 'trying stuff on'? You can see the difference it makes when you are trying to set a case out. This one could be slightly plausible but your original one was just rubbish.
    Same thing different words

    Leave a comment:


  • psychocandy
    replied
    Originally posted by OnceStonedRose View Post
    Why would agency go along with this hairbrain, cheapo outfit scheme, they aren't about to make anything out of it and let's be honest, that's all they give a shiny tulipe about!
    OK. Granted they'd probably rather their cut out of a contract but if they set up a FTC surely they get something out of the deal. Like when an agency sorts a perm role.

    Leave a comment:


  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by OnceStonedRose View Post
    Then they'd have already pushed the end client down that route surely? Wouldn't be surprised if the chap had mixed up his contacts/roles....
    It would come as a shock to us all but PC could be right - OP mentioned that he'd done FTC in the past. If he mentioned it to agent and agent has the second-best candidate, then he could reasonably undercut the other candidate/agent with an FTC placement. If he mentioned it to the client and client mentioned it to the agent, agent could recommend to the client that it will be cheaper and easier for them for a short term fixed gig with no extensions expected to go down the FTC route.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
    Agency might have a different rate card for FTCs - could be that if they know there's no extensions in it, there's better margin in an FTC gig for them.
    I just find this very hard to believe. It's not about margin when it comes to taking on employees. The client bumps and the agent is responsible for paying for the OP until the end of FTC? I very much doubt that, let alone all the other downsides, is in the agents risk profile let alone capability.

    Leave a comment:


  • OnceStonedRose
    replied
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
    Agency might have a different rate card for FTCs - could be that if they know there's no extensions in it, there's better margin in an FTC gig for them.
    Then they'd have already pushed the end client down that route surely? Wouldn't be surprised if the chap had mixed up his contacts/roles....

    Leave a comment:


  • LondonManc
    replied
    Originally posted by OnceStonedRose View Post
    Why would agency go along with this hairbrain, cheapo outfit scheme, they aren't about to make anything out of it and let's be honest, that's all they give a shiny tulipe about!
    Agency might have a different rate card for FTCs - could be that if they know there's no extensions in it, there's better margin in an FTC gig for them.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by psychocandy View Post
    So this would never happen:-

    Client manager to senior manager. So we interviewed this guy. £400 a day. But hes done FTC before - like charlie we had in before xmas, remember him?

    Senior manager. £300 a day? Nah. Like you said hes done FTC before. PHone agency to offer him £30K pro rata 6 months FTC. He'll accept that. Save us a fortune that will.
    Why don't you use explanations like that rather than 'Sod this' and 'trying stuff on'? You can see the difference it makes when you are trying to set a case out. This one could be slightly plausible but your original one was just rubbish.

    Leave a comment:


  • OnceStonedRose
    replied
    Originally posted by psychocandy View Post
    OP - Did you admit at interview that your last role was FTC?

    If so, then I reckon that has got the cogs turning and someone has hatched an idea that this would be something they could offer you again.
    Why would agency go along with this hairbrain, cheapo outfit scheme, they aren't about to make anything out of it and let's be honest, that's all they give a shiny tulipe about!

    Leave a comment:


  • psychocandy
    replied
    Originally posted by OnceStonedRose View Post
    I can't see how this has happened, the old "client likes you but wanted to pay £30 a day less" etc.. You can understand what's going on, but this?

    The agency aren't gonna see any more moola for poster going fixed term; poster isn't winning by going fixed term; clients aren't normally on the ball enough to pish around like this at last minute and would they want to carry on searching for the right man/woman just because of this last second dicking around?

    Are you sure this was a £350 pd role as i just don't see how/why this would occur?
    OP - Did you admit at interview that your last role was FTC?

    If so, then I reckon that has got the cogs turning and someone has hatched an idea that this would be something they could offer you again.

    Leave a comment:


  • psychocandy
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    I very much doubt number 2 as it then means the OP has a ton of legal rights that agents can't weedle out of. I would be very surprised indeed if an agent would be willing to take on all these responsibilities just as a chance to get more cash out of the deal. It's an extremely high risk strategy. They may have a plan to do this right from the start but to try it on just because the OP has an FTC on their CV I would very much doubt. They either run it as an approved strategy like Hays used to do with Barclays or they don't.

    I also think clients don't turn round and think 'Sod that' and 'try stuff on'.

    Maybe not judging everyone by your own standards would open up options you never thought of before.
    So this would never happen:-

    Client manager to senior manager. So we interviewed this guy. £400 a day. But hes done FTC before - like charlie we had in before xmas, remember him?

    Senior manager. £300 a day? Nah. Like you said hes done FTC before. PHone agency to offer him £30K pro rata 6 months FTC. He'll accept that. Save us a fortune that will.

    Leave a comment:


  • OnceStonedRose
    replied
    I can't see how this has happened, the old "client likes you but wanted to pay £30 a day less" etc.. You can understand what's going on, but this?

    The agency aren't gonna see any more moola for poster going fixed term; poster isn't winning by going fixed term; clients aren't normally on the ball enough to pish around like this at last minute and would they want to carry on searching for the right man/woman just because of this last second dicking around?

    Are you sure this was a £350 pd role as i just don't see how/why this would occur?

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by psychocandy View Post
    One of two things I reckon:-

    1. Client has thought sod it I aint paying £300 a day after all and agent has admitted your last employment was FTC. So between they thought they'd try this one.

    2. Agent knows you've done FTC before so as above, hes trying to get you onto a FTC with the agency and make a massive deal for himself off the client.
    I very much doubt number 2 as it then means the OP has a ton of legal rights that agents can't weedle out of. I would be very surprised indeed if an agent would be willing to take on all these responsibilities just as a chance to get more cash out of the deal. It's an extremely high risk strategy. They may have a plan to do this right from the start but to try it on just because the OP has an FTC on their CV I would very much doubt. They either run it as an approved strategy like Hays used to do with Barclays or they don't.

    I also think clients don't turn round and think 'Sod that' and 'try stuff on'.

    Maybe not judging everyone by your own standards would open up options you never thought of before.

    Leave a comment:


  • psychocandy
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    Unless the FTC is with the agent themselves.
    One of two things I reckon:-

    1. Client has thought sod it I aint paying £300 a day after all and agent has admitted your last employment was FTC. So between they thought they'd try this one.

    2. Agent knows you've done FTC before so as above, hes trying to get you onto a FTC with the agency and make a massive deal for himself off the client.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    Unless the FTC is with the agent themselves.
    Hmm, there is that, in which case the OP should be dropping it like a red hot brick...

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Am not so sure about this blaming the agent. The agent has the power to chop your rate by creaming a bit of for himself. I don't think they are on a position to dictate whether you got contractor or FTC. Ultimately you will be employed by the client so I would say they are also complicit in this arrangement. It means two very different methods of engagement for them so they have to know what is going on. I don't think this one is purely down to the agent.
    Unless the FTC is with the agent themselves.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X