Client changing contractors to FTC

[missinggreenfields]

It depends on the upper contract.

I've managed to see a few upper contract agreements between clients and agents when I've been on-site. (Most of them have been the purposely left in eye shot on the desk/photocopy variety but one I was actually given it. It was in meeting on how to get rid of a supplier and they were checking whether when they engaged a new one this upper contract was better. ) Anyway a lot of them state if the contractor has opted-out and the client wants to take them on permanently they have to pay a fee of some sort.

I wish you'd stop arguing with facts and evidence. It's much easier to just shout that there's no way that a client would have to pay, based on nothing.

[SueEllen]

Don't see why they should. The contract role has evaporated so the agent will no longer have a hand in it. It's not like the client is deciding to swap so has to buy the agent out.

It depends on the upper contract.

I've managed to see a few upper contract agreements between clients and agents when I've been on-site. (Most of them have been the purposely left in eye shot on the desk/photocopy variety but one I was actually given it. It was in meeting on how to get rid of a supplier and they were checking whether when they engaged a new one this upper contract was better. ) Anyway a lot of them state if the contractor has opted-out and the client wants to take them on permanently they have to pay a fee of some sort.

[northernladuk]

FTCs don't normally provide benefits AFAIK. It's just a straight salary.

So all of the cr@p and none of the reward.

You sure about that?

https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contra...ployees-rights

Employers must also ensure that fixed-term employees get:
the same pay and conditions as permanent staff
the same or equivalent benefits package
information about permanent vacancies in the organisation
protection against redundancy or dismissal

Certainly aren't the same but it's not none.

[SueEllen]

FTCs don't normally provide benefits AFAIK. It's just a straight salary.

So all of the cr@p and none of the reward.

Depends on the company.

I remember one of my mates on a FTC years ago got loads of redundancy pay when the company had to sack a load of people.

[Lance]

As for agency bung. If the client is turning all their contractors to FTC then I can't see how they could avoid an agreement with the agency. Particularly as the agent would continue to get money (fixed pricing) for any contractor that stays on.

But I don't know.

I'll keep my ear to the ground and report back.

[Lance]

Now that the OP has actually revealed a bit of fairly important information then yes. My comment may not be quite so solid.

My apologies. It slipped my mind as I'm not obsessed with PS having not done any since 2005.

[northernladuk]

What's it got to do with the government, or are you making wild assumptions yet again?

Bearing in mind the amount of focus on Govt depts with the MoD already moving over it's hardly a wild assumption is it. You ought to be asking the OP to put a few more facts in his posts. Someone was going to have to make an assumption based on his post. :eye:

Also bearing in mind the lack of detail most people put in to posts most of what we does have an element of assumption to it.. Yet again? LOL what a nob.

Without knowing what the contract between client and agency about the supply of labour states, it's a huge leap to say that they won't need to pay anything to extricate themselves from the relationship.

Now that the OP has actually revealed a bit of fairly important information then yes. My comment may not be quite so solid.

[ChimpMaster]

FTCs don't normally provide benefits AFAIK. It's just a straight salary.

So all of the cr@p and none of the reward.

[missinggreenfields]

Don't see why they should. The contract role has evaporated so the agent will no longer have a hand in it. It's not like the client is deciding to swap so has to buy the agent out. The need for a contractor is no longer there so the agent is done. It would be pretty outrageous for the agent to demand a buy out for nothing more than claiming dibs on the guy. No one wins but the agent in a case like that and I'd like to think the Govt has enough clout to tell them to piss off.

What's it got to do with the government, or are you making wild assumptions yet again?

Without knowing what the contract between client and agency about the supply of labour states, it's a huge leap to say that they won't need to pay anything to extricate themselves from the relationship.

[Lance]

To be clear. This is not a government or PS body.

This is pensions and protections.

[northernladuk]

My client are now starting to switch their contractors to FTC.
I heard a rumour about this possibility 3 months ago. Today I got confirmation of a PM being offered FTC only at renewal.
Apparently this will be direct. So I guess the agency will require a bung.

Don't see why they should. The contract role has evaporated so the agent will no longer have a hand in it. It's not like the client is deciding to swap so has to buy the agent out. The need for a contractor is no longer there so the agent is done. It would be pretty outrageous for the agent to demand a buy out for nothing more than claiming dibs on the guy. No one wins but the agent in a case like that and I'd like to think the Govt has enough clout to tell them to piss off.

I don't know if the rate is going to be competitive, but I doubt it.

Indeed

Makes no odds to me as I'm done in a few weeks and I'll not be taking a renewal. So pretty good timing for me.

Do they think the market is so bad that people will accept this? Or has some berk in HR come up with a cunning plan? Or are the deluded enough to think that an FTC offers some form of job security?

The govt agencies aren't pleased about this either but they have no choice. I am sure there will be a couple of cases where it just suits peoples situations and as much as they will grumble they will take it, even if it's just to stay off the bench while the rush dies down but it will be no where near the numbers required to keep things running as they are.

Will be interesting for you to watch this one pan out as your exit looms.

[Lance]

My client are now starting to switch their contractors to FTC.
I heard a rumour about this possibility 3 months ago. Today I got confirmation of a PM being offered FTC only at renewal.
Apparently this will be direct. So I guess the agency will require a bung.
I don't know if the rate is going to be competitive, but I doubt it.

Makes no odds to me as I'm done in a few weeks and I'll not be taking a renewal. So pretty good timing for me.

What I don't get is what businesses think they'll gain.
I assume that it'll be PAYE and therefore sick/holiday pay on tops of employer NICs. So they're going to have to pay less to the contractor to make it cost neutral (or less).

Do they think the market is so bad that people will accept this? Or has some berk in HR come up with a cunning plan? Or are the deluded enough to think that an FTC offers some form of job security?