Reply to: Why does the agent present the contractual terms?

[Wanderer]

They don't even need to spend the £150 when they can nick one of a contractor who bothered to get it reviewed.

[SueEllen]

Yes, but if they have their standard contract reviewed and IR35 proofed for 150 quid then they can reuse this standard contract at least 100 times and save themselves and a load of their contractors from a bunch of arguments so it's good value innit.

They don't even need to spend the £150 when they can nick one of a contractor who bothered to get it reviewed.

[malvolio]

What?

I Never Knew Such Poverty Existed...

Somebody's taking the Michael. They've also been reading the PCG fora, where this originated.

[d000hg]

Inkspe

What?

[Boo]

if you're getting £400/day

Inkspe

Boo

[Wanderer]

So now the agent is spending £150 against an income of £12k, not £85k. What their actual gross profit is on that, I have no idea, let's say £6k since TAV stated 10% is bare minimum for viability. So the agency is standing to make a profit of £6k, and you're standing to make a profit of £48k. £150 is now more like 2.5% of this, rather than the 0.2% you seemed to posit.

Yes, but if they have their standard contract reviewed and IR35 proofed for 150 quid then they can reuse this standard contract at least 100 times and save themselves and a load of their contractors from a bunch of arguments so it's good value innit.

The question of the working practices remains of course, but at least the contractor now has a fighting chance. If the contract is no good then they are dead in the water.

[d000hg]

Hmm, £85k for 6 months... 85000 / (6*20) = £708/day. Seems high... if you're getting £400/day the agency is maybe charging £500/day giving a total contract value of £60k.
But of that £60k the agent takes £12k and you take £48k.

So now the agent is spending £150 against an income of £12k, not £85k. What their actual gross profit is on that, I have no idea, let's say £6k since TAV stated 10% is bare minimum for viability.

So the agency is standing to make a profit of £6k, and you're standing to make a profit of £48k. £150 is now more like 2.5% of this, rather than the 0.2% you seemed to posit.

[Boo]

Our business administers around about 3000 contractors - now imagine the size of the team we would need if we let everyone on our books use their own variations of contracts!?!

Well, a contract review by a solicitor will take about an hour and cost about £150 so in the context of a 6 month contract, face value £85k ish, that seems eminently reasonable.

Boo

[SueEllen]

Just had this with my new contract, QDOS pointed out 1 clause that needed sorting, the agent agreed, said they'd had this flagged before, and even had a way around it ready.

So why not do that the first time? Beats me!

They obviously want to keep contract review companies and solicitors in business.

[jmo21]

Just had this with my new contract, QDOS pointed out 1 clause that needed sorting, the agent agreed, said they'd had this flagged before, and even had a way around it ready.

So why not do that the first time? Beats me!

[malvolio]

You probably have on-call tape-changing services being delivered to the same contract as programme management.

There's a difference? Gosh! </agent>

[thunderlizard]

I hate to explain this to you, but you'll never get anyone of any scale to accept this. Our business administers around about 3000 contractors - now imagine the size of the team we would need if we let everyone on our books use their own variations of contracts!?!

It would be bigger, yes, but not so big as to deserve 2 exclamation marks. Most companies that work on business-to-business contracts have a contracts team to sort out things like that. It would mean that the 3000 contractors -who are probably doing specialist jobs - could be working to contracts that suit what they are actually doing, and you'd be able to generate some decent value, rather than just taking a percentage for bum-on-seat time. You probably have on-call tape-changing services being delivered to the same contract as programme management.

[BolshieBastard]

so, in the case that someone at say Bauer & Cottrell review the contract and come up with some significant pointers towards making it IR35 friendly, if the contract is ammended would you then use this as a base contract fromthen onwards (i.e roll it out at next review to all contractors) to save future negotiations or do you end up with possibly upto 3000 slightly different contracts?

I can answer that! Do they ****! They may agree to the changes (best 200 quid I spent getting B&C to review my current contract) for individuals who use such intermediaries, but everyone else wont be offered this as a template.

They'll make all sorts of excuses about it not fitting anyone else so their original must still be used.

[malvolio]

Of course, you could just issue me with a Purchase Order with the payment terms on the back...

Do you have detailed multi-page contracts and subsidiary schedules with everyone whose services you use?

The whole problem centres on clients and agencies treating us as temporary workers and therefore trying like hell to avoid any of the employer responsibilities that implies and that none of us want. So, treat us as B2B suppliers, like your cleaners. How hard is that?

[The Agents View]

If every contractor brings their own contract, that's a nightmare. It must take an hour to properly review a contract, and the agency would have to have one person doing this all the time.

It would make sense if agencies would agree to use something like PCG template, that way they still know the contract is sound. Agencies could also put their standard contract online for review.

I don't actually have this problem, because we use a PCG approved contract.

SE: The response is right - whether its right or wrong, my attitude would be that this is our contract, if you want it changed, you do the legal bits - ie you pay for a solicitor, assuming it's not turning around and making wild requirements up, then I can probably accomodate it somehow - but I don't have people who can evaluate this change - and I will need a Director level person to sign it off.....