Reply to: Linkedin.com - Client - Agency triangle. FFS!

[cojak]

Anyway I've learnt my lesson and from now on will take special care not to upset the sponsors.

Thanks for that sly dig, darrenb. Actually we don't have sponsors on the website, we have advertisers of whom the rules apply on the forums as much as any poster (and I have infracted representatives).

But S3 is not an advertiser.

Just to clear that matter up - and I refused a request to uninfract you btw...

[GB9]

From experience I can confirm that Mr. Hallett is indeed a man of his word.

[Andy Hallett]

Linkedin.com - Client - Agency triangle. FFS!

After all these years finally earned my first infraction, but can't seem to locate the tattoo-coupon-thingummy under my account.

Anyway I've learnt my lesson and from now on will take special care not to upset the sponsors.

Hi Darren,

I have been reading the site for years and took a very deliberate decision to 'come out' last year and start posting. I do so with a genuine interest in the industry. Whilst I accept that many contractors do see SThree as notorious, I have to balance against all the positive engagement with clients and contractors I have had over my 14 years.

In a lot of ways we have grown up as a company. When I joined in 1999 we numbered a few hundred and were pretty much a UK based IT company. Fast forward to 2013 and we are multi-sector in 18 countries with a workforce of over 2000 people.

I'd be interested in any experiences you have had with SThree brands that haven't met your expectations, and when provided with evidence I will act - a number of forum members could support me on that.

Happy to discuss on a new thread here (this one has veered off topic), via PM or in person.

[darrenb]

After all these years finally earned my first infraction, but can't seem to locate the tattoo-coupon-thingummy under my account.

Anyway I've learnt my lesson and from now on will take special care not to upset the sponsors.

[cojak]

Surprised that nobody has pointed out that Mr. Hallett is a director at the notorious SThree Group. Yes, it's in his profile, but casual readers of the forum could easily get the impression that his posts are intended to benefit contractors rather than agents. It's a highly insidious process.

Andy has been completely upfront regarding who he works for and has given helpful advice to posters here.

You will treat all posters with respect on the Professional forums please.

[BolshieBastard]

Surprised that nobody has pointed out that Mr. Hallett is a director at the notorious SThree Group. Yes, it's in his profile, but casual readers of the forum could easily get the impression that his posts are intended to benefit contractors rather than agents. It's a highly insidious process.

Er what? He's declared in a few threads he works for the S3 Group. And its in his profile so wtf more do you expect him to do?

You need to wind your neck in a bit.

[darrenb]

...

Surprised that nobody has pointed out that Mr. Hallett is a director at the notorious SThree Group. Yes, it's in his profile, but casual readers of the forum could easily get the impression that his posts are intended to benefit contractors rather than agents. It's a highly insidious process.

[Andy Hallett]

Linkedin.com - Client - Agency triangle. FFS!

...a lot of people that have been on the other side would agree that it is way less hassle to set up a new supplier than dealing with "know nothing" people to get key competencies to work on business critical systems – rather than risking getting an amateur that screws everything up, on the expense of getting a well-regarded wizard (that was cut of by the know-nothing people, because they wanted a better margin for themselves).

For office workers - fine. Use an agency if you have to "bulk recruit". For IT specialists - go direct and use the ones you currently have on board to assess the next coming in before they leave. In a few minutes they would deliver so incredible much more in terms of CV assessment/ interviewing, than 95% of the agents would ever be able to achieve – they simply lack the competence!

It’s nothing but a misconception that there is more hassle with the admin than getting the crucial core bits of the business right! Again - it's bad habits by lazy HR people. The business should put more pressure on HR to get their thumbs out and do the standard paperwork (that is easy enough to do because of systems supplied by people like us), so that the non-standard bits can function well.
I respect your view, but it is a little bit because people too easily hold on to this misconception that the bad habit persists.

Also, client has almost as many agencies as contractors, as there seem to be a never ending list of these nonsense businesses and they all sending through CV:s.
Another benefit is that a contractor would commit to the client to a larger degree if they actually owned the client relationship (and this is where it has all gone wrong) – it is very annoying to them when a contractor just bails out and goes to the next contract prematurely – just because they don’t have any client relationship to care about.

All considered – there are in fact no benefits with using an agency. It is well and truly ONLY bad habits!
It is partly because of these habits that the UK IT utilisation and sophistication level is way below where it should be; in international comparison we’re not in a very flattering position (in one study we’re at number 22 from the top). Partly this is because the IT industry is controlled, not by the people that possess the knowledge, but by the people who don’t – useless, low educated and low achieving middlemen!


LET’S CHANGE THAT BAD HABIT and make UK IT one of the best in the world – something it is very far from today, but certainly has the potential to be!

You sound a pretty decent professional contractor, you are let down by a small number of your peers though. You only have to glance through the threads on here about the guys looking to exit their contracts because they offered got 25p an hour more on another contract.

My personal view is that there will be increasingly more direct contracts with business networking sites, but the majority of contracts will always be via safe intermediaries to give the buyers at End Client protection.

"Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM"

[d000hg]

Did you try Jigsaw?

[darrenb]

...a lot of people that have been on the other side would agree that it is way less hassle to set up a new supplier than dealing with "know nothing" people to get key competencies to work on business critical systems – rather than risking getting an amateur that screws everything up, on the expense of getting a well-regarded wizard (that was cut of by the know-nothing people, because they wanted a better margin for themselves).

It’s nothing but a misconception that there is more hassle with the admin than getting the crucial core bits of the business right! Again - it's bad habits by lazy HR people. The business should put more pressure on HR to get their thumbs out and do the standard paperwork (that is easy enough to do because of systems supplied by people like us), so that the non-standard bits can function well.
I respect your view, but it is a little bit because people too easily hold on to this misconception that the bad habit persists.

Also, client has almost as many agencies as contractors, as there seem to be a never ending list of these nonsense businesses and they all sending through CV:s.
Another benefit is that a contractor would commit to the client to a larger degree if they actually owned the client relationship (and this is where it has all gone wrong) – it is very annoying to them when a contractor just bails out and goes to the next contract prematurely – just because they don’t have any client relationship to care about.

All very true. Clients need to deal directly with the people who are keeping their systems going (in a spirit of collaboration), rather than using this highly artificial approach of pushing costly middlemen in the way. It is a fear-driven strategy that leads to a totally absurd situation, riddled with dozens of inefficiencies and conflicts of interest of which you have listed a handful.

I would say that about 95% of truly independent contractors would agree with what you have written, logozz, and maybe 50-60% of the people on this particular forum.

[logozz]

I think that....

I think you have hit the nail on the head Cojak. It's a pain in the arse to set up new suppliers, agree new contracts and to get grief when payments are 17 seconds late.....

[AH has a Eureka moment on a new product for the market]

...a lot of people that have been on the other side would agree that it is way less hassle to set up a new supplier than dealing with "know nothing" people to get key competencies to work on business critical systems – rather than risking getting an amateur that screws everything up, on the expense of getting a well-regarded wizard (that was cut of by the know-nothing people, because they wanted a better margin for themselves).

For office workers - fine. Use an agency if you have to "bulk recruit". For IT specialists - go direct and use the ones you currently have on board to assess the next coming in before they leave. In a few minutes they would deliver so incredible much more in terms of CV assessment/ interviewing, than 95% of the agents would ever be able to achieve – they simply lack the competence!

It’s nothing but a misconception that there is more hassle with the admin than getting the crucial core bits of the business right! Again - it's bad habits by lazy HR people. The business should put more pressure on HR to get their thumbs out and do the standard paperwork (that is easy enough to do because of systems supplied by people like us), so that the non-standard bits can function well.
I respect your view, but it is a little bit because people too easily hold on to this misconception that the bad habit persists.

Also, client has almost as many agencies as contractors, as there seem to be a never ending list of these nonsense businesses and they all sending through CV:s.
Another benefit is that a contractor would commit to the client to a larger degree if they actually owned the client relationship (and this is where it has all gone wrong) – it is very annoying to them when a contractor just bails out and goes to the next contract prematurely – just because they don’t have any client relationship to care about.

All considered – there are in fact no benefits with using an agency. It is well and truly ONLY bad habits!
It is partly because of these habits that the UK IT utilisation and sophistication level is way below where it should be; in international comparison we’re not in a very flattering position (in one study we’re at number 22 from the top). Partly this is because the IT industry is controlled, not by the people that possess the knowledge, but by the people who don’t – useless, low educated and low achieving middlemen!


LET’S CHANGE THAT BAD HABIT and make UK IT one of the best in the world – something it is very far from today, but certainly has the potential to be!

[Andy Hallett]

Linkedin.com - Client - Agency triangle. FFS!

^^^ Thanks for the reply.

[PrimulConsulting]

Interesting concept. Would be interested to find out how well subscribed it was. The one question I would have is would contractors be prepared to put their rep on the line by teeing up unknown club members?

If the owners were serious about scaling the business then there are numerous bolt-ons I could think of as a way of monetising it without changing the core philosophy.

Hi Andy
Re:Reputation on the line.
The member is not saying that they know the contractor applicant personally. They are passing CVs to their client for the client to review along side those from Recruitment Agencies. In a number of cases we have found that the members are a better match for 2 main reasons:
(1) The recruitment agency commission gets split between contractor and client so the client gets a slightly better contractor (the contractor a slightly better rate)
(2) The member knows the client and the role so is better positioned than an external agent to determine what exactly the client needs. But the client decides either way, not the member. Usually clients are simply happy that their contractor has helped them out!

Re Monetising. The club is set up, by contractors, for the benefit of contractors. If the bolt-ons are to the benefit of members then that would be great. If it allows a reduction in commissions then even better. There is no plan to "monetise" beyond covering running costs. What we do at present with "bolt-ons" like contractors accountants or contractor mortgages is negotiate discounts for members (and if that's in the form of a commission it tends to be paid back to the member)

[Andy Hallett]

Linkedin.com - Client - Agency triangle. FFS!

I think you have hit the nail on the head Cojak. It's a pain in the arse to set up new suppliers, agree new contracts and to get grief when payments are 17 seconds late.....

[AH has a Eureka moment on a new product for the market]

[cojak]

Many clients just can't be arsed with the hassle of dealing with contractors directly.

I like going direct but I won't cut my nose off to spite my face. If direct contracts turn up, great. But if they don't I'll use agents if it means I keep invoicing.