Reply to: S3 put the "con" into contract...

[ratewhore]

1) criminally high margins (a min of 25% but preferably over 30) and laughable rates (27.5 to 32, when everyone else is offering 35 to 40). I think these two are connected.

No tulip

[Ardesco]

Yes, so you sign the contract and mail it back to the agent and then post them a letter opting back in the next day. Sorted

Just make sure you have seen and negotiated the contract before you start work.

Also bear in mind that the agency are playing silly games by automatically opting you out anyway (Which they can't do in 99% of cases as you have already met the client) so playing silly games back doesn't hurt. If it ever gets to the stage of being dragged through the courts they are in the wrong and you should be opted in anyway.

[tim123]

As for opt out, just send them an e-mail/letter opting in at any point. Completely legal, they can't do anything about it and no more problems with being opted out

No, the opt back in again only takes effect from the next 'placement', which isn't the next re-newall on the same job. The regs are written on the assumption that peeps do multiple assignments with the same agent, which isn't usually the case for IT, but is for secretarial etc.

To opt out and back in again for a current job, the opt back-in has to be done between 'interview' and start of work.

OTOH an opt out done after 'interview' is void.

('interview' here could simply be the client apprasing your CV, another thing which is not uncommon for secretarial)

tim

[tim123]

I had a s3 person call me the other day. I was sent an email about a job for which I was a 'good match'. I simply replied asking what the rate was, nothing more. I was then asked what nuber to call me on - my mobile is on the CV which showed I was a good match.

She called me up and then started to tell me that I wasn't a good match and couldn't put me in at the top rate. Yes some of my recent roles have been a little different, but my track record (4 years doing the job somewhere else) should have easily got me the top rate. It turns out the top rate was £500 a week less than I was on.

Yep, this is their tactics. It doesn't pay 500 quid less than you are on. That is the extra bit that they are keeping.

What gets me is that so many people fall for it.

I can understand when people are desparate for work, but the market isn't like that anymore.

There are newbies who (perhaps) don't know any better, but the normal reason for someone jumping into contracting is to get loads more dosh, but the rates that S3 agents offer me are barely any better than I could get in a perm job (that is, if could counter the career-contractor worry, which I can't, but a current perm doesn't have this problem).

tim

[Ardesco]

As for opt out, just send them an e-mail/letter opting in at any point. Completely legal, they can't do anything about it and no more problems with being opted out

[BoredBloke]

I had a s3 person call me the other day. I was sent an email about a job for which I was a 'good match'. I simply replied asking what the rate was, nothing more. I was then asked what nuber to call me on - my mobile is on the CV which showed I was a good match.

She called me up and then started to tell me that I wasn't a good match and couldn't put me in at the top rate. Yes some of my recent roles have been a little different, but my track record (4 years doing the job somewhere else) should have easily got me the top rate. It turns out the top rate was £500 a week less than I was on.

[boredsenseless]

For reasons I gave earlier, I've never gone far enough to find out whether they would negotiate contract terms. Their standard contract will almost certainly have you opted out, which is of course illegal, but Hoaxley and the rest of the S3 cowboys don't let minor matters such as illegality interfere with their business. Any IR35 improvements you might get them to make would almost certainly be negated by their client-side contract, which of course you will never see.

I would refer you to the standard advise regarding S3 on this site which is allegedly to avoid them even with someone else's stick

[tim123]

For reasons I gave earlier, I've never gone far enough to find out whether they would negotiate contract terms. Their standard contract will almost certainly have you opted out, which is of course illegal, but Hoaxley and the rest of the S3 cowboys don't let minor matters such as illegality interfere with their business. Any IR35 improvements you might get them to make would almost certainly be negated by their client-side contract, which of course you will never see.

IME they are far from alone in these practices.

My current agent, who seem to be fair in every other respect, steam-rollered me into being opted out, when I'd rather not be for this particular client.

And I'm sure many others do not have back-to-back contracts, especially wrt substitution.

tim

[Mordac]

For reasons I gave earlier, I've never gone far enough to find out whether they would negotiate contract terms. Their standard contract will almost certainly have you opted out, which is of course illegal, but Hoaxley and the rest of the S3 cowboys don't let minor matters such as illegality interfere with their business. Any IR35 improvements you might get them to make would almost certainly be negated by their client-side contract, which of course you will never see.

[Mike Telecoms]

I have secured the contract and confirmed this with the company. So that is fine.

But what would be the best way to neg on contract?

I was thinking of Opting In? Would this be the best thing to do? I have read a lot on Opting In and Out and I still haven't been completely convinced either way.

[Mordac]

If you mean Hoaxley (for that is how they are known) then I agree with Tim 100%. I've found that life is just a whole lot easier if I ignore them altogether. Even if I did manage to secure a contract through them (and I find that unlikely, as they would always prefer to put forward someone cheaper for them) it wouldn't be worth the aggro, plus I wouldn't have anyone left willing to give references after Hoaxley have had their way.

[tim123]

Can you elaborate? I am potentially about to get a contract with an Agency in the S3 Group (starts with the letter H) and was wondering what problems you found.

I've never got this far with them as all the problems are long before this.

1) criminally high margins (a min of 25% but preferably over 30) and laughable rates (27.5 to 32, when everyone else is offering 35 to 40). I think these two are connected.

2) They never actually got back to me about a job, despite advertising an immediate start required, interview slots for tomorrow and a near 100% match for my skills. Not sure whether this was because the job was fictional or because they sussed that I wasn't going to take it at a rate that gave them their *required* margin.

YMMV

tim

[Mike Telecoms]

Can you elaborate? I am potentially about to get a contract with an Agency in the S3 Group (starts with the letter H) and was wondering what problems you found.

[TheMonkey]

No no no - it is true. I have proof!

[Mordac]

It is true though.