Reply to: Agency requesting passport / references etc with no concrete job interview lined up !

[The Agents View]

And a lot of them would argue what you do.


I think you are.


They all say that.

I can count the number of honest agents I've met on two fingers. And that's because they don't work in the area I work in so have no professional dealings with them.

I don't doubt that to be fair.

I don't have any professional dealings with you as far as I know. I think you guys sometimes need to remember is that it's not necessarily dishonesty all of the time - rather differing agendas, or perhaps agendas which will never work in harmony.

[SueEllen]

You mis-understand. The people we get given as referees, work for the competition. They are therefore spotty oiks, who do nothing other than administer contracts.

I am a specialist in what I do, and therefore add value to the supply chain.

And a lot of them would argue what you do.

It doesn't matter if that is the reality of the situation, if they work for the competition, they are spotty oiked contract administrator. Otherwise, how on earth would I sell my "consultative value"

My god I think I'm going native......

I think you are.

With regards to your "lighter note" - I'm nothing if not honest. (this is not a prompt for anyone to reply with "you're nothing") <sigh>

They all say that.

I can count the number of honest agents I've met on two fingers. And that's because they don't work in the area I work in so have no professional dealings with them.

[thunderlizard]

If you work for a big outsourcing business for example, as a permanent employee, you are subcontracted out in exactly the same way as your limited company employs you in a contract situation.

The opt in then, is automatic, unfortunately the only company you can sue for breach of these rights, is your own limited company.

It all seems like a vicious circle to me, because there has to be one rule for all - afterall, your Fujitsu, IBM, CapGem, type organisations, are ultimately just bigger versions of your limited companies surely??? In which case, you are opted in by being a limited company employee.....??

I think I might have just confused myself........

You are basically right: if Fujitsu did seek work via an agency, then the agency regulations would apply, and Fujitsu (as the "work-seeker") and its employees would be covered by the regulations unless they opted out of them. There's nothing in the regulations about the size of the work-seeker. However, since no agent in the country (except yourself) seems to be able to cope with the concept that a contractor's company might have more than one person working for it, agents would never actually hire Fujitsu (or they'd end up photocopying 30,000 passports). Because the agency regulations only apply to agencies (hence their name), the situation never arises.

[The Agents View]

I thought your argument was that Agents provided some added value to the mix and built good relationships with contractors so they could market their skills etc?

You mis-understand. The people we get given as referees, work for the competition. They are therefore spotty oiks, who do nothing other than administer contracts.

I am a specialist in what I do, and therefore add value to the supply chain.

It doesn't matter if that is the reality of the situation, if they work for the competition, they are spotty oiked contract administrator. Otherwise, how on earth would I sell my "consultative value"

My god I think I'm going native......


With regards to your "lighter note" - I'm nothing if not honest. (this is not a prompt for anyone to reply with "you're nothing") <sigh>

[Wodewick]

If I'm taking a reference for you, I want to take one from someone who you've worked for, not the spotty oik who administers your contract.....

I thought your argument was that Agents provided some added value to the mix and built good relationships with contractors so they could market their skills etc?

On a lighter note

(don't quote me - i'm not certain of this!)

I think I might have just confused myself........

Honesty rears its head!

[Wanderer]

In addition, you are employed by your company or umbrella - not by the client, and not by my agency - the agency can make it a condition of the contract between the two companies, to supply an individual that is opted out I believe (don't quote me - i'm not certain of this!)

You should probably check with your legal team and see what they say, Regulation 32 (9) refers to this situation.

If you work for a big outsourcing business for example, as a permanent employee, you are subcontracted out in exactly the same way as your limited company employs you in a contract situation. It all seems like a vicious circle to me, because there has to be one rule for all - afterall, your Fujitsu, IBM, CapGem, type organisations, are ultimately just bigger versions of your limited companies surely??? In which case, you are opted in by being a limited company employee.....??

I think I might have just confused myself........

Yes, you have.

Have a read of the regulations - they protect self employed workers and workers who supply their services through a one man LTD company.

[Boo]

maybe the solution is to get written references which you can provide on application

The solution is to give the previous agent as the reference instead of your client. This is a particularly gratifying conversational trou-de-loup if you have managed to get the agent to explain to you that "I am your client so there is no reason for you to know my margin".

Boo

[The Agents View]

With one agency calling? there would be no real issue

But a contractor is likely to be in contact with more than one agency when looking for a new role, every one of those agencys will want the contacts, everyone of those agencys will ring those contacts (more than once in many cases), every one of those agents will try to sell their services to the contact (a very small percentage will actually do a proper "reference check", none will not try to use it for a sales lead).

Angry contacts will promptly call the contractor and tell him to stop giving out their details (but already too late as they will continue getting calls from all those agents for next few years)

This is why reason number one why we do not give references up front, because very quickly we would have none

This is the joy of having this board - Of course I only see it from my perspective, and therefore knowing that I always go down the route of just taking the reference. Having thought about it from the other side of the fence, I can appreciate how this could rub your contacts up the wrong way. It's a catch 22 situation really - officially we are meant to take these, but if we take them, then when you do get a gig, you can't get the references......

So this is a conundrum - maybe the solution is to get written references which you can provide on application, allowing the agent to take up verbal confirmation straight after you've been offered a gig?

If anyone wants a template for use which should satisfy most requirements, then PM me and I'll send you one.....

[Not So Wise]

Why is there such an issue with agencies pitching to your previous client? .

With one agency calling? there would be no real issue

But a contractor is likely to be in contact with more than one agency when looking for a new role, every one of those agencys will want the contacts, everyone of those agencys will ring those contacts (more than once in many cases), every one of those agents will try to sell their services to the contact (a very small percentage will actually do a proper "reference check", none will not try to use it for a sales lead).

Angry contacts will promptly call the contractor and tell him to stop giving out their details (but already too late as they will continue getting calls from all those agents for next few years)

This is why reason number one why we do not give references up front, because very quickly we would have none

[The Agents View]

Regulation 32(13) provides that an employment agency or employment business may not make the provision of its work-finding services conditional upon either a limited company or the worker to be supplied giving notice to opt out of the Regulations.

No agency makes work conditional upon a limited company - this is why you will always be offered the umbrella route - it's the other route. What we can do though, is choose who we do business with - so if I turn around and say that we refuse to do business with your sole trader business, because there is too much risk involved, then I am perfectly entitled to do this. In addition, you are employed by your company or umbrella - not by the client, and not by my agency - the agency can make it a condition of the contract between the two companies, to supply an individual that is opted out I believe (don't quote me - i'm not certain of this!)

I enter negotiations in good faith. If the other party acts in bad faith then I reserve the right to demand my statutory rights at a point provided for in the statute. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which party is being underhand or acting in bad faith here

Am I wrong to think the mentality is wrong here? (im open to thoughts on this).

If you work for a big outsourcing business for example, as a permanent employee, you are subcontracted out in exactly the same way as your limited company employs you in a contract situation.

The opt in then, is automatic, unfortunately the only company you can sue for breach of these rights, is your own limited company.

It all seems like a vicious circle to me, because there has to be one rule for all - afterall, your Fujitsu, IBM, CapGem, type organisations, are ultimately just bigger versions of your limited companies surely??? In which case, you are opted in by being a limited company employee.....??

I think I might have just confused myself........

[Wanderer]

Is your word completely worthless then ?

The regulations protect the worker once they have started working. So a worker is free to opt out before the interview stage then they save themselves and the agency a lot of work doing identity/qualification checks and taking up references. In my opinion, the regulations are pretty much red tape rather than protection at this stage and there is possibly a benefit to both parties if the worker opts-out at this stage.

If a contract is offered (and that's a big if), then the opt-out is reconsidered as part of the contract negotiations. The agency regulations are your statutory rights, a worker should never feel obliged to sign away this protection. To my thinking, an agency could only tacitly threaten to withdraw a contract offer if the worker refused to opt-out. Anything else would probably land them in some serious legal and ethical difficulties. Regulation 32(13) provides that an employment agency or employment business may not make the provision of its work-finding services conditional upon either a limited company or the worker to be supplied giving notice to opt out of the Regulations.

Even if the agency were adamant that the worker must should stay opted out, the worker could sign and return the contract, organise the start date and then fax them the opt-in letter just before they started work.

I enter negotiations in good faith. If the other party acts in bad faith then I reserve the right to demand my statutory rights at a point provided for in the statute. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide which party is being underhand or acting in bad faith here.

[Boo]

PSL's change, preferred suppliers change, opinions change - having an additional route through to the client, can never be a bad thing.

But having an agent put their preferred candidate forward against you at a lower rate when they happen to hear about it before the agent that put you in last time is a bad thing though.


Boo

[The Agents View]

FTFY but it's rarely as good as we would expect from our end



But that is the attitude we expect hence our further resistance to send our managers info on to you so you don't do a selling job on him.

If you read it ALL again, you'll notice that my experience suggests that a selling job isn't necessary - I gain more business from not doing the sales job, and simply referencing and asking the right kind of questions. Most people are bright enough to think "actually i like this style, I'd like to have this person check people out on my behalf as well".

We're never all going to agree on this subject - end of.

[northernladuk]

Id like to point out that I'm quite impressed with my ability to place contractors with clients being of non brain, to me it all looks like junk on the screen - but its come out better than I expected

FTFY but it's rarely as good as we would expect from our end

PSL's are tosh - I don't know a single PSL that I can't get around if the client wants to use me.

But that is the attitude we expect hence our further resistance to send our managers info on to you so you don't do a selling job on him.

[The Agents View]

Id like to point out that I'm quite impressed with my ability to use the quote feature - being of non coding brain, to me it looked like junk (the code, not the content) on the screen - but its come out better than I expected