Reply to: Do decent agents exist? where???

[tim123]

And last but not least contractors who think like employee's, these are the ones who put up with crazy contracts T*C's, agencys dictating how/who the company (Umbrella or ltd) can be paid and how the company can pay the individual so forth

And while the last group continue to exist in any meaningfull number, first two groups will not change, because quite simply they do not need to

As I have pointed out many times before, I'd love to be a supplier of a specific service and not be a pseudo-employee subject to the whims of my client.

But the reality is that this is what the clients for my skillset want and if I want to work, that's what I have to put up with. If I wont come in, sit at a desk and solve whatever problem he dumps on my desk today, he'll just find someone who will, and if the freelance community 'strike' that someone will come from a software house.

Many times I have sat down with a client and offered to do (an identified) agreed package of work for an agreed price, client's just ain't interested. It is too much work for them to package up and monitor a 'small' job and they usually aren't prepared to give a 'large' job to a one-man-band however well they know you.

Good luck to those of you who do have clients who will do this. But it is unreasonable being critical of those who don't.

tim

[Fungus]

To answer the original question my experience is that a significant number of agents acting for permanent positions (or rather, permanent until the next restructuring) are lying crooks. Some will send you 100 miles to an inappropriate job on the basis of a stack of lies. Then when the client finds out that your skills don't match, the agent will abuse you. This is because all they care about is getting payment for fitting you up, errmmm, finding you a job. Some get paid for interviews and these are even worse. The sort of people who do these jobs are often not that bright, and maximising bums on seats maximises income.

Contracting agents have a longer term relationship with you, and hence they have more reason not to piss you off. They are still not what I would call honest, and if they can they will take a massive cut, though clients often fix the agents percentage to prevent this. But they are probably of the same species as contractors, unlike recruiters for permanent jobs who are related to snakes.

I am forever amazed at how agents can with a straight face tell you that a job is wonderful, that employees love the company, and they are doing really well. In one case I met numerous (ex-)employees of the company in question and was told by all of them that the company had a serious problem with employees insulting/abusing each other, a problem retaining staff, and no job prospects for existing staff. Some/most agents lie 100% and have zero integrity. How can anyone spend their day telling bare faced lies?

Fungus.

[sappatz]

agencies

only a naive would ask this question
you can already be happy if the agency pays on time and respects the contract (unlike many london-based cowboys)

[Denny]

Actually when I think about it we're all a bunch of idiots for even tolerating this cant (sic).

So it is contractors that should be telling agents what's ok and what's not, not the other way around.

Finally, someone who has got their head screwed on the right way.

HELLO the rest of you!!

We're businesses in our own right, not temp employees. So what's next on the agenda?

Giving agencies a list of our own terms and conditions.

Asking for a CV handling fee when they want to keep our CV on their database (after all, it's there to promote their own businesses, not ours most of the time). Aren't we in this game to make money? Plus, it would make us automatically fit for IR35 exemption if we treated ourselves as business prior to hiring not just afterwards.

Not just pandering to the agency numbers game and passively accepting the 'we deal with all contractors in this way' bog standard bulltulip with contract thrown in to match. No darling, that's not approopriate at all. We're not knee deep in the 1920s depression with labourers hanging around outside the gates of the labour exchange with some manager coming out at 7am in the morning and pointing a finger at those first in the queue and saying 'you, you, you.' There is no numbers game. Having the skills required is only part of the reason we get the represented for roles -there's the interviews for the face fits barrier and the right cultural fit, and the rates. These are all individually tailored to match specific contractors not just anyone.

[expat]

Actually when I think about it we're all a bunch of idiots for even tolerating this cant (sic).

How often does a contractor's dubious financial affairs get an agent into trouble? By contrast, if your agent goes down the tubes, it's pretty certain that some of your money will go with him. So it is contractors that should be telling agents what's ok and what's not, not the other way around.

[Not So Wise]

Now who's destroying their own argument?

What argument of my own am i destroying? I am not claiming all contractors are "honest", hell i know beyond reasonable doubt many are not.

But it can be construed he IS claiming that all contractors that go though ltd's (or his chosen umbrellas) are "honest", this is so far from the truth it's laughable.

Lets say he is honest in what he says, by shuting the door on all umbrellas (except ones he checked out) because they could be "dishonest", by leaveing it open to all ltd's he is doing the equivilant to shuting one gate in the fence, while leaving the other 100 gates wide open.

So how does this protect him from this imaginary trouble he could get in from hector? Simple answer...it does not in the slightest, it's a totally pointless exercise.

The only way he could protect himself would be either
a) Force all contractors to use his umbrellas and not ltds
or B) Force all ltds to open their books to him.

But we all know no way he would do that, because that would actually cost him (most likely so much he would be out of buisness), while this half assed measure only costs the contractors who are stupid enough to do what he says and probably makes him a tidy sum in backhanders as well.

[Not So Wise]

Agencies either cant or wont do this. Which it is I dont know.

From my experience, majority of case's won't
Some case's though cannot

Latter is normally the larger institutions who insist on contracts that make the contractor look like employee (they don't care about contractor taking a massive hit because of it) so agencys mirror the T&C on the contract with the contractor (so to not leave themselves totally exposed)

Actually problem in our industry is 3 fold:

Clients that don't view contractors as "suppliers" but rather as employee's..with none of the normal downsides.

Agencys that think like recruitment agencys instead of a introductions service combined with factoring facilities

And last but not least contractors who think like employee's, these are the ones who put up with crazy contracts T*C's, agencys dictating how/who the company (Umbrella or ltd) can be paid and how the company can pay the individual so forth

And while the last group continue to exist in any meaningfull number, first two groups will not change, because quite simply they do not need to

[malvolio]

If anything, contractors running their own ltd's are even more likely to actually break the law (either unintensionally or willfully) than any umbrella that most likely has more than professional accountant and the better ones with accountants specialsing in tax's , where as many contractors with ltd's have no professional advise at all.

Now who's destroying their own argument?

I don't break any laws in the way I run my company; I employ a fairly expensive accountant to make sure I don't. However, puresly as an example, there is more than one umbrella company using inventive ways of describing expense policy to encourage their clients to make illegal claims and commit tax evasion, while simultaneously denying that they do so.

Either way, that's not the point. If we have B2B, we don't need all the current crap. It's really is that simple.

[Not So Wise]

In that case we sought and recieved assurance that the contractor would pay the relevant levels of tax in the UK and comply to any other wishes from my client (which usually come from large corporate legal departments and can be quite detailed). I have never had any problem with contractors over this situation - they tend to see where I'm coming from.
....
In fact I'd rather that you would all set up your own limited companies.

And there you defeat your main arguments, that we object to, in the very same post

Translation:
"I don't want contractors using any old umbrella in case they don't consider themselves under IR35 and not pay (overpay) the maximum tax. But if they go Ltd i don't care as it has nothing to do with me"

So unless you are trying to dictate how contractors run their own ltd's as well you are talking complete, total, utter bolloxs

If anything, contractors running their own ltd's are even more likely to actually break the law (either unintensionally or willfully) than any umbrella that most likely has more than professional accountant and the better ones with accountants specialsing in tax's , where as many contractors with ltd's have no professional advise at all.


That only leaves one of two possible conculsions about you:
a) You are stupid, because while "covering your ass" with umbrellas you have left yourself wide open with ltd's

b) All your arguments about making sure contractors pay "what they should" in tax's is complete utter tosh and it is much more likely you are getting back handers from your umbrellas

Looking at the current trend with agencys i favor option "B"

[malvolio]

I dunno, leave you alone for two days and you find a whole new enemy... As I said a while back -

This is at the heart of the whole debate. If clients and agents started to treat contractors as suppliers and not temps, a huge amount general FUD would be swept away. Your reply above is entriely correct from your perspective, but in reality I would have no problems at all if the agent took a fee for getting me the work and a further fee for acting as the invoicing factor to smooth my cashflow. That is all we really want you to do.

Mr Hoops and Mr Dodge have signally failed to answer that point, but that is not the issue. It is the unwillingness of the bulk of the agencies to throw away 15 years of ever-more complex contractual rubbish and stop feeding complete FUD to the end clients that is doing the damage, nothing else.

If you don't believe you're wasting everyone's time, go read the Muscat ruling when it comes out and you may well find that employment rights may still accrue despite all the panolpy of agencies and LtdCos and contractual statements.

I try to work like a business, as best I can in this particular market place. I would be more than happy to do all my work against a standard Purchase Order to a fixed cost for a fixed deliverable or an equivalent amount of time. Chances of anyone ever giving me one? Nil.

[Mindomoo]

Which was my point (2)

Agencies either cant or wont do this. Which it is I dont know.

Until they can be convinced to do this, I see no easy solution.

[Dundeegeorge]

Of course there's an easy solution

Its a case of this:

1. Agents get hastle from the client due to IR35 inspections

2. Agents cant or wont give true IR35 free contracts

3. Agents are under pressure to stop the hastle in (1) above

4. Hence they want to pay more attention to how we are paid (even though its non of their business) in order to try to ensure we pay 65% tax and give the clients an easy life.

Sadly, i see no easy solution.

Contracts which demonstrate the fact of a business-to-business relationship between the contractor and the client, not an employee-employer one.
DUR

[Mindomoo]

Imho........

Its a case of this:

1. Agents get hastle from the client due to IR35 inspections

2. Agents cant or wont give true IR35 free contracts

3. Agents are under pressure to stop the hastle in (1) above

4. Hence they want to pay more attention to how we are paid (even though its non of their business) in order to try to ensure we pay 65% tax and give the clients an easy life.

Sadly, i see no easy solution.

[expat]

That must be the first true words ever spoken by an agent.

So that's the second?

[DodgyAgent]

I So I think its pointless me being here. .

That must be the first true words ever spoken by an agent.

What irks me about them is that they set themselves up by trying to put corporate gobbeldeygook spin on everything they say. They make no attempt to engage in any sort of intelligent debate.

Here am I trying my hardest to sort you lot out. The last thing I need is other agencies giving you losers ammunition to fire back at me.