Reply to: hourly rate beware?

[realityhack]

Cease.

[MyUserName]

Oh, brave man, fighting in the girls team are we ? But if a liar like you says a thing, that don't make it so, eh ?

Boo

Well, why don't you come down and fight some of our girls?

As it happens the fighting is not differentiated by gender so, yes - I have fought against girls. There are some very tough ones too.

Beat me in a fair fight and I will retract my statement, until then you are obviously are a sockie troll. Unless a mod requests otherwise.

[Boo]

Well that is better than what you originally wrote but the remark stays unless an admin asks for it to be changed or - I am fighting in templecombe on June 1st. If you come down and beat me I will change the comment.

Oh, brave man, fighting in the girls team are we ? But if a liar like you says a thing, that don't make it so, eh ?

Boo

[No2politics]

hourly rate beware?

I don't know what you mean by "model" but I am talking about the usual client-agency-contractor nexus.

My point is just exactly what I said :

The only person providing any value for the client is the contractor.
Therefore any money payed by the client belongs to the contractor.
The agency does not provide value. They are just an overhead.
So their proportion of the take needs to be reduced as far as possible.

Boo

You are arguing in a vacuum man. Not connecting the dots! Bit slow on the uptake I see. I'm surprised others have shown this much patience with you.

How can you say that contractors are the only ones providing the value. Client needs contractor. Agent finds contractor. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

[MyUserName]

You are completely wrong and I demand that you remove your remark.

Boo

Well that is better than what you originally wrote but the remark stays unless an admin asks for it to be changed or - I am fighting in templecombe on June 1st. If you come down and beat me I will change the comment.

[Boo]

Give it up, you have been rumbled

You are completely wrong and I demand that you remove your remark.

Boo

[MyUserName]

Are you sure you're cut out to be a contractor ?



And kindly refrain from making baseless accusations. I have only ever posted on these forums as Boo.

Boo

Give it up, you have been rumbled

[Boo]

I am just speechless.....

Are you sure you're cut out to be a contractor ?

ERm Boo.... I think you have logged on the wrong account. You should have replied using the Ninja account....

As it was Boo's sockie I can still give neg rep so that's ok.

And kindly refrain from making baseless accusations. I have only ever posted on these forums as Boo.

Boo

[northernladuk]

Well someone got banned on this thread for 'For arguing and not showing respect* in the Professional Forums.'... and it wasn't me

As it was Boo's sockie I can still give neg rep so that's ok.

[MyUserName]

none of it really matters as I have a gig I like/wanted and for a rate I wanted/am happy with.

This ^^^^^^

[kevpuk]

Not really wanting to get involved....but:

I am a few weeks into my first contract, a 6-month gig with large Insurance company. Now, I got introduced to this role by an Agent (actually, whilst on my way up to interview, another Agent I get on with called to see if I was interested in the very same role) which is good, as I would not have come by it without an Agent.

I had decided on my Daily Rate, and this was within what the Agent would 'accept' - based on what they receive from ClientCo - so off I toddle to interview. For me, I really liked the sound of the gig and then spent a few days nervously waiting.....they were seeing a few other candidates, and I am pretty confident some were cheaper (this is based on the other Agent telling me that the rate *they* were talking was going to struggle to quite match my required..). My Agent was very decent throughout, keeping me posted and so forth. I had strong. positive feedback from ClientCo, via Agent, the very next day; within a few days, literally a few hours after the last candidate had been seen, the Agent was on the phone a couple of times in the evening to first check that I would still be interested if ClientCo offered, then immediately calling ClientCo to see if it was a go-er.....and it was, and Agent called me back and I accepted verbally STC.

Anywhoo...the point of all this is that - for me, at least - the Agent has been an integral part of this assignment for me. Now I am at ClientCo, I have some interesting facts - ClientCo do not hire direct (ever), ClientCo pays a fair bit more than I see, meaning the Agent does OK and also apparently HR receive around 12% 'kickback' too. I was a little surprised about the HR bit, but - you know what - none of it really matters as I have a gig I like/wanted and for a rate I wanted/am happy with.

That said, come extension time, there may be some decent scope for re-negotiation

[northernladuk]

I don't know what you mean by "model" but I am talking about the usual client-agency-contractor nexus.

My point is just exactly what I said :

The only person providing any value for the client is the contractor.
Therefore any money payed by the client belongs to the contractor.
The agency does not provide value. They are just an overhead.
So their proportion of the take needs to be reduced as far as possible.

Boo

ERm Boo.... I think you have logged on the wrong account. You should have replied using the Ninja account....

[northernladuk]

The reason clients use agencies is because the HR and senior management get kickbacks from the agencies who fill the roles. It has nothing to do with value.

Boo

I am just speechless.....

[Boo]

The agencies perform a role which takes time and expertise

No they don't. The agent places an advert on jobserve then uses a piece of computer software to winnow the results based upon a keyword search. Those CVs that pass are then scanned by the agent and the contractor is phoned up to see if they are a) cheap, b) cheap, c) cheap,...,x) cheap, y) available and z) competent. The cheapest of the available contractors' CVs are then anonymised and sent to the client.

The reason this is not of any value to the client is that the process of telling the agent what words to use as the basis of the search takes longer than winnowing the CVs.

The reason clients use agencies is because the HR and senior management get kickbacks from the agencies who fill the roles. It has nothing to do with value.

Boo

[Boo]

What model are you using?
What point are you making?

I don't know what you mean by "model" but I am talking about the usual client-agency-contractor nexus.

My point is just exactly what I said :

The only person providing any value for the client is the contractor.
Therefore any money payed by the client belongs to the contractor.
The agency does not provide value. They are just an overhead.
So their proportion of the take needs to be reduced as far as possible.

Boo