Reply to: Preferred (compulsory) supplier umbrella & agencies?

[KLM]

You are forgetting though that CP are not an agency. Yes okay we all know they really are, but they sell themselves as a consultancy with a flexible and adaptable workforce. Their contracts therefore have to reflect this marketing position.

If you don't want to be an 'employee' in all but benefits don't use them, if you really don't care where the money comes from then they are fine, but don't whinge about how bad they are, you already know the score on these points when you talk to CP - so thats before the interview, i.e. before you've even spent a penny in costs.

Appreciate the comment but honestly.. I had no idea about this until after I had accepted the role and turned down three others. In fact I was not even aware that "agencies" might force you to change as I have only had good experiences in the 10 years I have been contracting.

I know that in the end it was my decision however I wasn't aware of all the facts at the time. Now being in possession of them I would agree with SantaClaus - as a means of getting work CP are to be avoided at all costs and I won't make that mistake again. If I find out that my entitlement to any benefit is compromised by their forcing me to change I will pursue it as I feel I should - how I get paid and who I use should remain my choice.

Rgds,
K

[boredsenseless]

I was contracting quite happily for a well know consultancy until said consultancy decided to move all contracts to CP.

CP didnt like my umbrella and tried forcing me to use one of theirs. They also told me that if I started a Ltd company, dividend payments were not allowed although this was completely unenforcable.


Basically, I would recommend to everyone NEVER to use CP. They will not budge an inch with regards to IR35 contracts. In my opinion they are the worst possible agency to deal with.

You are forgetting though that CP are not an agency. Yes okay we all know they really are, but they sell themselves as a consultancy with a flexible and adaptable workforce. Their contracts therefore have to reflect this marketing position.

If you don't want to be an 'employee' in all but benefits don't use them, if you really don't care where the money comes from then they are fine, but don't whinge about how bad they are, you already know the score on these points when you talk to CP - so thats before the interview, i.e. before you've even spent a penny in costs.

[SantaClaus]

I was contracting quite happily for a well know consultancy until said consultancy decided to move all contracts to CP.

CP didnt like my umbrella and tried forcing me to use one of theirs. They also told me that if I started a Ltd company, dividend payments were not allowed although this was completely unenforcable.


Basically, I would recommend to everyone NEVER to use CP. They will not budge an inch with regards to IR35 contracts. In my opinion they are the worst possible agency to deal with.

[privateeye]

There was mention of some regulations in the thread - what do they mean and if so is it worth me reminding them of this? Also who can I report them to for this?

Thanks to anyone that has any info!!!

K

I wonder how much your client actually knows about this - maybe worth asking.
I believe that CP are members of ATSCO so they and the DTI are first places to probably complain.

I suspect that by forcing you to use one of their suppliers they are in fact charging you for finding work - completely illegal. May need legal advice on that one. My gut feeling is that an individual agent within CP is getting a backhander from the umbrella - see if you can speak to someone else more superior at CP - call up pretending to be someone else say you are thinking of registerring but wish just to ask a couple of questions first such as preferred umbrellas. I know p4 pay £50 per contractor so it soon adds up.

I know some agents who do say that they suspect this approach to be completely illegal.

[boredsenseless]

So what you are saying Bored is that we should tell any agency offering a contract with these sort of conditions should be told to bog off??

No I'm saying you negotiate the conditions away, and then if they don't disappear you tell them to stuff it (unless you are desperate for the work). If everyone did it the conditions would no longer be included in any contract.

[KLM]

Computer People - Avoid at all costs

Hi All,

Found this thread with interest!

I started a contract with British Airways thru CP end of November. Had been happily using an Umbrella / composite company for 2 years previously. They refused to let me carry on using my preferred choice - said that the way this company operated was on the borders of being illegal. As you can imagine my preferred company were livid BUT it didn't matter how much I shouted they refused to budge saying that any kind of dividend payment was not something their legal department would allow or support. By this time I had turned down 3 other contracts and taken this one and time was moving on and it was about a week before I was due to start. They offered alternatives and surprise surprise the company I am now using, which is on the "happy" list with their legal team pays by dividends (!!!) with a smaller basic salary and a larger percentage in commission as well as having the most time consuming process for communicating, timesheeting and expenses!!!!

This also has another implication for me - which could be quite a big one and any advice that any one can offer would be VERY GREATLT APPRECIATED - I am currently 4.5 months pregnant ( )and by moving umbrellas it may have an impact on what my entitlements are (I was with old Umbrella / composite 2 years). I have an email from their legal department (new company) which infers that they feel safer if I use their preferred supplier and that is the only reason -that there are no "legal" implications for them or for their client (I was given to believe that BA would not tolerate this kind of arrangement and that it was to safeguard their client).

I am VERY unhappy about this.....! I wouldn't recommend CP at all given the way I have been treated but I really felt like I didn't have a choice but to continue with this contract (and them!!) given my pregnancy and the need to be working.

There was mention of some regulations in the thread - what do they mean and if so is it worth me reminding them of this? Also who can I report them to for this?

Thanks to anyone that has any info!!!

K

[Denny]

So what you are saying Bored is that we should tell any agency offering a contract with these sort of conditions should be told to bog off??

Yes. Apparently, more and more agencies are doing this and one has told me that it's only a matter of time before most agenices have listed umbrellas that are authorised by them.

You still have the option of having your own limited co. though so I suggest you do that instead of concede to having your own business run by the agency.

[John Galt]

They aren't making it based on services they are offering, they are simply stating that they wish to only pay their money to known types of businesses that have certain characteristics.

Its the umbrella not the agent that is offering the service, and its entirley your option whether or not to accept under the specified conditions.

That being said, they still have no right to know how you get paid in my opinion

So what you are saying Bored is that we should tell any agency offering a contract with these sort of conditions should be told to bog off??

[boredsenseless]

Im fairly sure that this would fall foul of the agency regulations (if you havent been a **** face and opted out that is) as they cannot make employment offers conditional on you taking up services they are offering.

But then again you have probably been forced to opt out thanks to PCG being a bunch of cnuts!

Mailman

They aren't making it based on services they are offering, they are simply stating that they wish to only pay their money to known types of businesses that have certain characteristics.

Its the umbrella not the agent that is offering the service, and its entirley your option whether or not to accept under the specified conditions.

That being said, they still have no right to know how you get paid in my opinion

[John Galt]

I'm outraged by the general concerns raised here, but not at all surprised.

Make it clear to all employment businesses that they are operating on behalf of their own clients, not our own umbrellas. Otherwise they would be agents, not employment businesses. No umbrella has any business at all offering agencies incentives to push business their way - their clients are us, the contractors, not the agencies.

Also make it clear that if they do insist on contractors using a preferred supplied umbrella that you will only do so on the basis that you are opted in not out of the agency regulations. Tell them that by telling you how to run your own business, you are engaging with them as a pseudo employee not an owner managed businesses or freelance set up. Tell them that their attempts to control over our business makes us inside IR35 automatically whether we accept their terms or not.

If all that fails tell them that you expect them to operate within certain boundaries that you set down by them and that it doesn't all operate their way. If they want to tell you how to run your operation tell them you too have your own terms and conditions they must abide by.

This whole freelance marlarky through agencies is getting too much. Effectively we're only self-employed when it suits the agency and client and then only when it involves all the disadvantages of running an own businesses - the risks etc,- but we are also employees when it suits them to provided we have no rights to protect us.

Talk about getting the worst of both worlds. Being self employed is no longer worth bothering about now that we're merely 'casual employees with no rights'.

Action is needed and fast. The sooner the better so we can regain our proper negotiating status and freedom to run our businesses as we choose.

[Lucifer Box]

I think Captain Jack has to take the credit for being the first to suggest getting the client to put pressure on the agent.

Time for a round of mutual back patting I think!

Well done, Xerxes. Credit where credit's due and all that!

[Xerxes]

I think Captain Jack has to take the credit for being the first to suggest getting the client to put pressure on the agent.

Time for a round of mutual back patting I think!

[Rebecca Loos]

that's right Lucifer (so it was you then!), that was the advice that was given then. It would work better.

[Lucifer Box]

I would amend Becs generally sound advice slightly. Rather than refusing the job, phone your client contact and tell them you are really looking forward to starting work with them, but that the agency is being obstructive. Nine times out of the ten the client will tell the agency to stop arsing round and give you what you want (as long as it's not unreasonable of course).

[Rebecca Loos]

I think somebody here earlier posted what I think is the right procedure when faced with such agents.

Do not protest or commit either way when speaking with the agent initially. Be vague and get the interview. By then, you'll probably be the agent's only candidate for the job.
If you get it (I mean you got interview and the client has told the agent they're happy with you and the agent wants to make you an offer), then the fun starts. Be strong and refuse to do any business with the agent's preferred supplier(s). The agent will be furious yes, but make it clear that it is your way or the highway (if they don't want to do it your way, then you just refuse the job). The agent will be faced with losing the contract (if you're his/her only candidate) and torn between their instructions and losing his/hers bonus, (s)he may well come round to your way of thinking.