Reply to: Bad Agents/Agencies

[Drei]

Looks like I need to start socialising a lot more

[Taita]

Ep. pls, I'm a Fawlty Towers guru and Sib never said that!

Bas and Sib are entitled to a personal life and not all scenes have been broadcast!

[stek]

As Sybil told Basil, Don't be an a£$" all your life, take a day off!

Ep. pls, I'm a Fawlty Towers guru and Sib never said that!

[Taita]

Having not used one for 4 years now I beg to disagree...

As Sybil told Basil, Don't be an a£$" all your life, take a day off!

[northernladuk]

Actually my point was that there is more than one way of working and it doesn't always involve going through an agent, granted the majority of roles are through agents but it we don't engage with end clients and provide them with an alternative avenue of resourcing their projects without using agencies nothing will ever change. Surely this is all part of the 'being a business' and a 'proper contractor'.

Ah. Yes I see. Reading it back now its see how that point was being made

[SlipTheJab]

It's not an attitude it's a response to your short sighted 'I'm all right jack so it must be right' post.

Irregardless of the way I am engaged I can still see what the OP you responded to was saying and he wasn't wrong.

Actually my point was that there is more than one way of working and it doesn't always involve going through an agent, granted the majority of roles are through agents but it we don't engage with end clients and provide them with an alternative avenue of resourcing their projects without using agencies nothing will ever change. Surely this is all part of the 'being a business' and a 'proper contractor'.

[northernladuk]

If you take that attitude nothing will change. It's not luck BTW, its called networking, this is my 3rd role on the trot agent free, am finishing up in a month and already have a couple of agent free possibilities lined up through my contacts, more and more roles are being sourced direct now via sites like Linked In and Stack Overflow, lets face it recruitment is an industry built on smoke and mirrors run by shysters, I would rather not deal with them.

It's not an attitude it's a response to your short sighted 'I'm all right jack so it must be right' post.

Irregardless of the way I am engaged I can still see what the OP you responded to was saying and he wasn't wrong.

[MrMarkyMark]

If you take that attitude nothing will change. It's not luck BTW, its called networking, this is my 3rd role on the trot agent free, am finishing up in a month and already have a couple of agent free possibilities lined up through my contacts, more and more roles are being sourced direct now via sites like Linked In and Stack Overflow, lets face it recruitment is an industry built on smoke and mirrors run by shysters, I would rather not deal with them.

Increasingly even if the role makes the job boards it's already filled. Networking is indeed key, point being, when there is a glut of supply clients would rather have known quantities and will pay good money for them.

[SlipTheJab]

So you got lucky and are in a fairly uncommon situation and now you think an entire industry doesn't count?

Even if you are not using one now it's not hard to recognise they are an essential part of what we do.

If you take that attitude nothing will change. It's not luck BTW, its called networking, this is my 3rd role on the trot agent free, am finishing up in a month and already have a couple of agent free possibilities lined up through my contacts, more and more roles are being sourced direct now via sites like Linked In and Stack Overflow, lets face it recruitment is an industry built on smoke and mirrors run by shysters, I would rather not deal with them.

[ShandyDrinker]

Is it the hiring manager who has told you this, face to face, or is it what an agent claims the hiring manager has said?

That's a cynical point of view but perhaps a fair one given the way some agents/agencies act. As I've heard it from 3 separate end clients for roles I've recently applied for I don't think they're all in cahoots unless of course it's part of the standard patter.

If you have 3 or 4 clients that you do business with, you don't need to break any handcuff clauses. Once one contract is starting to wind down, phone round your other clients (or contractors on their sites) and enquire about work.

It's only via one that I've got the handcuff clause and would be fine with going via the agency again to obtain work for that client.

Many clients are currently either shedding staff or have hiring freezes on for contractors so that's not always possible. I've certainly been following up on that angle.

At times it is necessary to go out and secure new business and for me that means working with agencies as a necessary evil.

[WTFH]

I don't necessarily think it's as cut and dried as you're suggesting.

In fairness to the agents I've spoken to that isn't the case. It's once it gets to the hiring managers it is a problem.

Is it the hiring manager who has told you this, face to face, or is it what an agent claims the hiring manager has said?

Aside from one client which was direct (on and off for about 4 years) the other contracts have been via agencies with the associated handcuff clauses - it then depends on your appetite for risk as to whether you will challenge those clauses (which I've been prepared to do in the past). It goes without saying that you should build up good relationships with clients as that's good business sense but if the clients have no work available, with the best will in the world you still need to use agencies and/or advertise from time to time depending on your niche.

If you have 3 or 4 clients that you do business with, you don't need to break any handcuff clauses. Once one contract is starting to wind down, phone round your other clients (or contractors on their sites) and enquire about work.

[ShandyDrinker]

You've been told that by agents, not clients.

Clients care more about your ability to deliver on time than how long you are on a site for. Do a good job, deliver on time, build up good relationships with clients, then you can bypass the agents.

I don't necessarily think it's as cut and dried as you're suggesting.

In fairness to the agents I've spoken to that isn't the case. It's once it gets to the hiring managers it is a problem.

Aside from one client which was direct (on and off for about 4 years) the other contracts have been via agencies with the associated handcuff clauses - it then depends on your appetite for risk as to whether you will challenge those clauses (which I've been prepared to do in the past). It goes without saying that you should build up good relationships with clients as that's good business sense but if the clients have no work available, with the best will in the world you still need to use agencies and/or advertise from time to time depending on your niche.

[northernladuk]

Having not used one for 4 years now I beg to disagree...

So you got lucky and are in a fairly uncommon situation and now you think an entire industry doesn't count?

Even if you are not using one now it's not hard to recognise they are an essential part of what we do.

[SlipTheJab]

Agents are your customers. Without them you don't have any business.

I know there are pubs where the landlord bans some customers. At an up market pub in the next village the landlady discourages riff-raff. The sheer snobbery of the place attracts me.

However in most lines of business you don't turn away customers. You can judge whether they may buy or are time wasters You can judge whether they are going to be demanding or troublesome but don't get into the mindset of 'are they good?' like you might rate a waiter, a burrito or a hairdresser.

An agent who talks to you is better than any that doesn't. An agent who puts you forward is ten times 'better' again. An agent who bumps up your price when the client chooses you is manna from heaven.

All the rest of the bulltulip is not them being a good agent but you being a good candidate.

Having not used one for 4 years now I beg to disagree...

[Cirrus]

Follow the Money

Gonna get straight to the point, is there a post where we can find Agents/Agencies to avoid and ones that are actually decent?

Agents are your customers. Without them you don't have any business.

I know there are pubs where the landlord bans some customers. At an up market pub in the next village the landlady discourages riff-raff. The sheer snobbery of the place attracts me.

However in most lines of business you don't turn away customers. You can judge whether they may buy or are time wasters You can judge whether they are going to be demanding or troublesome but don't get into the mindset of 'are they good?' like you might rate a waiter, a burrito or a hairdresser.

An agent who talks to you is better than any that doesn't. An agent who puts you forward is ten times 'better' again. An agent who bumps up your price when the client chooses you is manna from heaven.

All the rest of the bulltulip is not them being a good agent but you being a good candidate.