Which of the IBs make contractor opportunies visible openly to all?

[Taita]

Very true but I still can't help wondering that with all the fees paid by one bank for the hundreds of contractors they have, Why doesn't it beef up HR or buy into a recruitment agency because surely there must be enough cash saved to employ a dozen ex-agents, control the quality and hire direct?

As for if this is good or bad for contractors? is another thread.

There are probably no megabonus opportunities to be had in the HR dept.

[nomadd]

The best contributions here would be from existing Contractors who don't require a bold font to get their point across.

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

I think we can all agree that the worst thing about this scenario is if Banks abuse their power and try to drive the rates much lower and with less favorable Ts&Cs. Indeed I for one don't trust them because I believe that whatever elite team they setup, there will always be the temptation to dilute the quality of specialist staff employed. That aside, there is no denying that bypassing a few of the rouge agents and dealing directly with the Client is a very attractive proposition, with timely payments and direct access to the Team if things go wrong or slightly astray.

The best contributions here would be from existing Contractors working directly for Clients and are able to share both experiences.

Good on ya lad.

[Moscow Mule]

What is it with you and bold font???

Are you sure you're cut out for this forum lark?

[northernladuk]

What is it with you and bold font???

[BS1397]

You post shows a surprising level of naivety of the whole process and business model.

Hardly Naive, So unless you are a De-facto expert on the subject or a HR/Finance Director able to explain objectively and in details this "Business Model" you refer to then I suggest you be gracious and allow others to express an opinion be it from a "Naive" or an "Expert" alike. It is not a requirement that you agree with me or others but it is common courtesy that you don't make a statement of ridicule followed by wrong assumptions, especially in this trivial case where no one here can change the system.

Why not go the whole hog and ask why do banks use so many contractors when they could get permies cheaper intead.

Again, Where did that come from? We all know what happened to the Greek economy after years of effectively employing virtually everyone in the country as a Permie for the State. Every perk was protected and paid for on the never never, no risk or enterprise.

The whole idea is not to beef up HR but instead slim it down and outsource the process. They then use position power to nail the agents to the best margin they can. Banks don't want to 'buy in' to agents. It isn't their business. They do however have very close ties. I don't know if it has changed but the last place I was at had agency staff located on site and even had it's own title so was part of the organisation.

I see very large overstaffed HR Depts in Banks and other top organizations providing basic advice to Perm staff on Employment Contracts, Pay-rises, Maternity Leave, Pensions (non-financial advice), BUPA Cover, Holidays and Internal Disputes as well as organizing general Events & Communication.
Oh, and preparing Job Specs for Agencies, and arranging Interviews (so basically they already do overlap with some of the agency work).

To follow your logic to it's conclusion, HR might as well be outsourced entirely to keep the head count ultra low, no doubt the usual suspects will bid fiercely to win this business at the lowest possible margin (not unless it is farmed out to India for much cheaper still)? That would most likely give a poor level of service to the Contractor, Does this satisfy your business model?

Do you also understand the complexity of becoming a prefered supplier, particularly in banking? You don't just raise an invoice and send to them you know. You do remember you are a supplier don't you?

Yes I do Headmaster, but if an in-house specialist recruitment team exists then by default this becomes null & void, and there will be (as already in existence) agreed procedures for handling payments

I think we can all agree that the worst thing about this scenario is if Banks abuse their power and try to drive the rates much lower and with less favorable Ts&Cs. Indeed I for one don't trust them because I believe that whatever elite team they setup, there will always be the temptation to dilute the quality of specialist staff employed. That aside, there is no denying that bypassing a few of the rouge agents and dealing directly with the Client is a very attractive proposition, with timely payments and direct access to the Team if things go wrong or slightly astray.

The best contributions here would be from existing Contractors working directly for Clients and are able to share both experiences.

[BS1397]

HRD's dont want to fanny around getting thousands of cv's for perm and contract positions. The little darlings cant cope with that lot so farm the contractor first stage gathering out to agencies.

I see you have been introduced to my users.

[BS1397]

Correct. For legal reasons they generally won't engage contractors directly.

Now that is something I wouldn't mind learning more about?

Even if they did advertise their contracts on the website they would be overrun with agencies anyway.

True, They stand no chance in the CV stampede, HR staff are not setup for it mentally or by numbers in the current structure

What they tend to do is get a small number of agencies on a preferred supplier agreement and on a small margin (say 5-10%) and recruit all their contractors that way. It's worth finding out who the preferred suppliers are to the clients you are looking to work for, though it can be tricky because ALL agencies will claim they are on the preferred suppliers list.

Yes, This is certainly my understanding from talking to my line manager, but the % was a tiny bit higher, but that is unique to this Bank

Are these legal reasons related to employment law or another area?

[Wanderer]

Looks like most banks seem to get their contractors through agencies.

Correct. For legal reasons they generally won't engage contractors directly.

Even if they did advertise their contracts on the website they would be overrun with agencies anyway.

What they tend to do is get a small number of agencies on a preferred supplier agreement and on a small margin (say 5-10%) and recruit all their contractors that way. It's worth finding out who the preferred suppliers are to the clients you are looking to work for, though it can be tricky because ALL agencies will claim they are on the preferred suppliers list.

[nomadd]

Or maybe some banks do put them out. Or in a different place?

No, they don't.

[northernladuk]

Very true but I still can't help wondering that with all the fees paid by one bank for the hundreds of contractors they have, Why doesn't it beef up HR or buy into a recruitment agency because surely there must be enough cash saved to employ a dozen ex-agents, control the quality and hire direct?

As for if this is good or bad for contractors? is another thread.

You post shows a surprising level of naivety of the whole process and business model. Why not go the whole hog and ask why do banks use so many contractors when they could get permies cheaper intead.

The whole idea is not to beef up HR but instead slim it down and outsource the process. They then use position power to nail the agents to the best margin they can. Banks don't want to 'buy in' to agents. It isn't their business. They do however have very close ties. I don't know if it has changed but the last place I was at had agency staff located on site and even had it's own title so was part of the organisation.

Do you also understand the complexity of becoming a prefered supplier, particularly in banking? You don't just raise an invoice and send to them you know. You do remember you are a supplier don't you?

[BolshieBastard]

Very true but I still can't help wondering that with all the fees paid by one bank for the hundreds of contractors they have, Why doesn't it beef up HR or buy into a recruitment agency because surely there must be enough cash saved to employ a dozen ex-agents, control the quality and hire direct?

As for if this is good or bad for contractors? is another thread.

HRD's dont want to fanny around getting thousands of cv's for perm and contract positions. The little darlings cant cope with that lot so farm the contractor first stage gathering out to agencies.

[BS1397]

Banks get their contractors through agencies. The only time I've heard a contractor go direct is if they are known and respected by the hiring manager.

Very true but I still can't help wondering that with all the fees paid by one bank for the hundreds of contractors they have, Why doesn't it beef up HR or buy into a recruitment agency because surely there must be enough cash saved to employ a dozen ex-agents, control the quality and hire direct?

As for if this is good or bad for contractors? is another thread.

[cojak]

Banks get their contractors through agencies. The only time I've heard a contractor go direct is if they are known and respected by the hiring manager.

[myco]

Looks like most banks seem to get their contractors through agencies. I get tonnes of job descriptions for from agents - but never see the same one on the banks own website. What I do see there are only the perm ones.

Perhaps I just missed 'em. Or maybe some banks do put them out. Or in a different place?