Reply to: Direct contacting

[Spacecadet]

They do indeed. And if they have the choice of getting that person from a one man band, or from a business which manages all of the risk associated with taking any form of "person" on, they will invariably go down the route of paying a touch more, and having the risks managed, unless there is a significant cost benefit - which means NOT paying the contractor the agency margin.

Again, I will re-iterate, from my experience of working direct, clients have been willing to pay more. I have also had discussions with clients whom I've worked with through an agency wanting to interview other contractors who I know and take them on direct and then "split the agency difference" (Clients words in quotes)

Please read posts, before throwing your toys out of the pram.

I did read the posts. All your experience seems to revolve around the client-agency-contractor model. I on the other hand have plenty of experience of both!

Eligibility to work in the UK. - technically the ltd companies duty, but a MEGA problem if things slip through.

When the client meets me its quite clear that I am eligible to work in the UK

Reference checking - Who will you blame if the person turns out to murder people?

Client is always welcome to contact previous of clients of mine but they've never asked for them!

De-Motivation If a client didn't pay your bill for 90 days, how productive would you be? An agency takes that problem away.

My first gig through an agency was also my biggest payment nightmare. I was broke and needed the money but they thought it was ok to f**k with the novice contractor.
Clients can occasionally be a bit slow in paying, but then I'm usually on good terms with those who can kick the finance clerks into getting the BACS payment made.

Payment errors Mistakes happen - if they happen with an agency relationshop, you claim it back - try getting money out of a one man band because its been paid incorrectly!!

As vectraman said, this is a stupid reason

These are just a few of the potential risks. I'm not saying the agency model is perfect, but it does reduce risk, and pass the buck for certain businesses. We all know that financial people (who basically run businesses really) like risk aversion.

They were ridiculous reasons.

Clients use agencies for 2 main reasons:
1. Stream lines payments i.e. 1 monthly invoice, not 75
2. Outsources technical HR. The HR dept. in most companies have no idea about hiring technical people and the hiring managers have no time to go hunting for contractors.

My reason for using agencies:
Outsources the sales. I don't have the time or the inclination to go cold calling potential clients for several weeks and in that respect agencies provide a very valuable role. I have no problems with the margin (within reason) and perfectly agree that if people aren't happy with the rate then shouldn't take the contract.
Contractors should know what they should expect as a day rate, there are at least 2 websites which aggregate the rates for the various skill sets.

I don't have a problem with agents, as I've become more established as a contractor I find the vast majority of them to be pleasant and to the point and I haven't had a blatant fishing call in almost 2 years!
I also have the opinion that they provide a valuable service. The IT contractor market WOULD be a lot smaller if it wasn't for them.

[VectraMan]

Well it is easy to chase payment with the client, as you are on the site. You can just ask the developement manager or someone with higher authority, what's happening with the payment.

It's also more likely that a client would try to delay payment to an offsite supplier who's providing a questionable benefit, than to "one of the team" they see on site every day providing an essential service.

[rd409]

Eligibility to work in the UK. - technically the ltd companies duty, but a MEGA problem if things slip through.[/QUOTE]
WYS. It is the duty of the ltd company. End of. Did the parliament get prosecuted last year when they found illegal cleaners working there? No.

Reference checking - Who will you blame if the person turns out to murder people?

What makes the company so sure the a safely vetted person won't murder? The probability of this is very rare, so completely rubbish argument. There are places where reference check is mandatory, and I am sure the client wont take the word from the agency, and do the check by themselves.

De-Motivation[/B] If a client didn't pay your bill for 90 days, how productive would you be? An agency takes that problem away.

Well it is easy to chase payment with the client, as you are on the site. You can just ask the developement manager or someone with higher authority, what's happening with the payment. And again, we have numerous examples of people having payment issues with agencies. So agency or not, this is completely luck.

Payment errors Mistakes happen - if they happen with an agency relationshop, you claim it back - try getting money out of a one man band because its been paid incorrectly!!

Why would a contractor risk a "Contract" for some money? And according to me it is completely opposite. If there is a incorrect payment with the agency, you would have to chase, the accounts, finance and millions of people in the agency before they can even confirm if the payment was an error. And then wait for the whole hierarchy to approve the payment. With one man company, it's easy to spot an extra payment, and just reverse the same at a short notice.

[The Agents View]

You mean when I'm submitting references, I should only use people who don't know about my murders? Damn. I knew there was something I'd been doing wrong.

This is an interesting point, if a little tongue in cheek.

But I check references personally, and if you can't provide them (ie you try to avoid a company because you screwed it) then your contract won't get through the system....end of....

I know it's not true across the industry, but it certainly should be!

[The Agents View]

I'm elligible to work in the UK, and what does an agent actually do to ensure a contractor is elligible that a client couldn't do?



I've never given references to any agent. Most of us are smart enough to know not to do that.



Perhaps, but if the contractor had agreed 90 day terms they ought to be fully productive. I recently found out my last agent only gave 30 day terms to the client, which is what I would have said if I'd been working direct.



That's a stupid reason. If I was in the client's position, I'd be far more worried about the agent doing that sort of thing than an individual I knew personally.

What else have you got?

Right now - a stack of roles on my desk that need sorting before I go home, so I'll be back over the weekend with the full version

As for checking eligibility - here, we have a direct checking system with the Home Office, but that's not what most people have - most use the bog standard Passport checked approach - there's nothing that CAN'T be done, but the RISK is that it doesn't get done because of lack of understanding - as I say - big businesses don't like risk.....(and small companies can't usually afford contractors!)

[thunderlizard]

Reference checking - Who will you blame if the person turns out to murder people?[B]

You mean when I'm submitting references, I should only use people who don't know about my murders? Damn. I knew there was something I'd been doing wrong.

[VectraMan]

Eligibility to work in the UK. - technically the ltd companies duty, but a MEGA problem if things slip through.

I'm elligible to work in the UK, and what does an agent actually do to ensure a contractor is elligible that a client couldn't do?

Reference checking - Who will you blame if the person turns out to murder people?

I've never given references to any agent. Most of us are smart enough to know not to do that.

De-Motivation If a client didn't pay your bill for 90 days, how productive would you be? An agency takes that problem away.

Perhaps, but if the contractor had agreed 90 day terms they ought to be fully productive. I recently found out my last agent only gave 30 day terms to the client, which is what I would have said if I'd been working direct.

Payment errors Mistakes happen - if they happen with an agency relationshop, you claim it back - try getting money out of a one man band because its been paid incorrectly!!

That's a stupid reason. If I was in the client's position, I'd be far more worried about the agent doing that sort of thing than an individual I knew personally.

What else have you got?

[The Agents View]

What the client wants is an established, technically sound consultant.

They do indeed. And if they have the choice of getting that person from a one man band, or from a business which manages all of the risk associated with taking any form of "person" on, they will invariably go down the route of paying a touch more, and having the risks managed, unless there is a significant cost benefit - which means NOT paying the contractor the agency margin.

Please read posts, before throwing your toys out of the pram.

As for the risks - I had an in-depth explanation, but I got logged off the board, so this is the abridged version.

Risks include:

Eligibility to work in the UK. - technically the ltd companies duty, but a MEGA problem if things slip through.
Reference checking - Who will you blame if the person turns out to murder people?
De-Motivation If a client didn't pay your bill for 90 days, how productive would you be? An agency takes that problem away.
Payment errors Mistakes happen - if they happen with an agency relationshop, you claim it back - try getting money out of a one man band because its been paid incorrectly!!

These are just a few of the potential risks. I'm not saying the agency model is perfect, but it does reduce risk, and pass the buck for certain businesses. We all know that financial people (who basically run businesses really) like risk aversion.

[Spacecadet]

If you were a major business, looking to engage a contractor, and you had the choice of an established, financially sound agency, or a one man band, then to take the risk of using a one man band, the client would, and in all cases I've ever heard of, DO, want some kind of incentive to do it.

The only way to make direct contracts worth their while for a client, is to cut out the agency margin, to make the cost to the client lower. If it were a case of "the price is the same, but it's all going to the contractor", most large, risk averse (especially in this climate) clients, who are likely to use contractors, would put a middleman in, to manage the financial side of things, and remove countless other issues with the likes of IR35 and AWD.

I'd like to challenge this as complete and utter nonsense.

What the client wants is an established, technically sound consultant.

And I know from experience that going direct is more profitable for me than going through an agency.

[VectraMan]

If you were a major business, looking to engage a contractor, and you had the choice of an established, financially sound agency, or a one man band, then to take the risk of using a one man band, the client would, and in all cases I've ever heard of, DO, want some kind of incentive to do it.

What exactly is the benefit to the client of using a financially secure agency over a one man band? Either way it's the "one man band" doing the work, and the client isn't the one taking any risk.

[thunderlizard]

and remove countless other issues with the likes of IR35 and AWD.

I agree about the end client wanting to keep the agent's margin: but this bit?
The Agency Workers Directive only applies when there is an agency involved, hence the name. Surely that would add "countless other issues", not remove them. And from what I've seen of agency contracts, they involve much more IR35-problematic fettering of the contractor than a contractor's own contract would.

[The Agents View]

CUK's Guide to Going Direct

"Going direct effectively puts more money into your pocket than going via an agent"

I'd like to challenge this as complete nonsense.

If you were a major business, looking to engage a contractor, and you had the choice of an established, financially sound agency, or a one man band, then to take the risk of using a one man band, the client would, and in all cases I've ever heard of, DO, want some kind of incentive to do it.

The only way to make direct contracts worth their while for a client, is to cut out the agency margin, to make the cost to the client lower. If it were a case of "the price is the same, but it's all going to the contractor", most large, risk averse (especially in this climate) clients, who are likely to use contractors, would put a middleman in, to manage the financial side of things, and remove countless other issues with the likes of IR35 and AWD.

[Contractor UK]

Further reading..

CUK's Guide to Going Direct

[northernladuk]

I'm not sure there's any real benefit or extra safety to the client of having an agent. They're shouldering an unknown risk either way.

Agreed but what I meant was if you can't cut it and leave the client goes and bollocks the agent who then puts the leg work in to 4 suitable candidate. The client doesn't want to take someone new on who is a risk and in the worst case the client has to re-advertise, sort through tons of CV's. re-interview and go through the whole process again. At least with an agent they just call, get some CV's and interview quickly.

[BoredBloke]

I was on the preferred supplier list to GSK for about a year and never once had a late payment. They paid 30 days after they got the invoice and were spot on time wise. I then worked direct for Valeant in the US and in the end left being owed just over £30,000 in fees and expenses. I billed them in the September and eventually got paid in April.

Not done it since!