Reply to: Job fell through as Agency not on Clients PSL

[kal]

I've not dealt with a HR department for at least 3 years. Project Co-Ordinators, Project office, administrators, yes, but HR is absolutely nothing to do with the people I engage - it's quite simple really.

Look up the difference between an employment agent, and an employment business.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-agencies-and-businesses

You'll notice there's no mention of limited company contractors, apart from the opt out. This is one of the reasons I won't work with contractors who don't opt out - you can't broker a business to business deal, with an opted in contractor.

Keep digging...

[eek]

+1, The less reputable the agency the more they try and strong arm you to sign over your rights (a lot of time its meaningless as you're past the stage where signing an opt-out actually is worth the paper its printed on but that doesn't stop the bloke who was knocking out mobile phones at Carphone warehouse a couple of months ago trying his best ).

As he knows no better.

[kal]

A couple of points:
- Roughly 3/4 of the contracts I do have clients where HR provide the interface between the client and the agency. They are HR in name only when dealing with contractors but they're still HR as they control the number of people in the building working. In fact, many of the companies I work for you'd not get a login without HR starting the ball rolling on the tied-in process.
- I refuse to opt-out, (pedant's note, you can't opt in), my contracts pass every legal review every time and the premium agencies I work for don't bat an eyelid when I refuse to opt out. Generally, in my experience, the poorer quality the agency, the more likely they are to demand and insist on an opt-out and it's an instant mark of suspicion when an agency asks me to do so. Why would an agency care about you being opted out unless they wanted to reserve the right to screw you over at some point?

+1, The less reputable the agency the more they try and strong arm you to sign over your rights (a lot of time its meaningless as you're past the stage where signing an opt-out actually is worth the paper its printed on but that doesn't stop the bloke who was knocking out mobile phones at Carphone warehouse a couple of months ago trying his best ).

[craig1]

I've not dealt with a HR department for at least 3 years. Project Co-Ordinators, Project office, administrators, yes, but HR is absolutely nothing to do with the people I engage - it's quite simple really.

Look up the difference between an employment agent, and an employment business.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-agencies-and-businesses

You'll notice there's no mention of limited company contractors, apart from the opt out. This is one of the reasons I won't work with contractors who don't opt out - you can't broker a business to business deal, with an opted in contractor.

A couple of points:
- Roughly 3/4 of the contracts I do have clients where HR provide the interface between the client and the agency. They are HR in name only when dealing with contractors but they're still HR as they control the number of people in the building working. In fact, many of the companies I work for you'd not get a login without HR starting the ball rolling on the tied-in process.
- I refuse to opt-out, (pedant's note, you can't opt in), my contracts pass every legal review every time and the premium agencies I work for don't bat an eyelid when I refuse to opt out. Generally, in my experience, the poorer quality the agency, the more likely they are to demand and insist on an opt-out and it's an instant mark of suspicion when an agency asks me to do so. Why would an agency care about you being opted out unless they wanted to reserve the right to screw you over at some point?

[The Agents View]

Well you are in minority of one with that opinion judging by other comments but are in denial I see. Good luck telling HR it's got nothing to do with them who you recruit for them on a contract basis. In fact I imagine your real world response to them is yes sir no sir, three bags full sir...

I've not dealt with a HR department for at least 3 years. Project Co-Ordinators, Project office, administrators, yes, but HR is absolutely nothing to do with the people I engage - it's quite simple really.

Look up the difference between an employment agent, and an employment business.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-agencies-and-businesses

You'll notice there's no mention of limited company contractors, apart from the opt out. This is one of the reasons I won't work with contractors who don't opt out - you can't broker a business to business deal, with an opted in contractor.

[kal]

I didn't say that was how they work.

I merely pointed out that this is how they should work.

As a contractor, you are a business. You are not a human resource, you are not an employee, you don't even have a job with the end client, you have an assignment, which your limited company has won, from an agent in many cases - business, to business.....You are an employee of your limited company, and only your limited company.

If you are a PAYE, fixed term contractor, that's absolutely the remit of a HR team, but if you are a limited company contractor, HR should be absolutely nothing to do with any kind of deal being done....It's like asking the canteen staff to run the accounts department.

If you can't grasp these simple concepts, then I suggest it is you who is not cut out for proper contracting.

Well you are in minority of one with that opinion judging by other comments but are in denial I see. Good luck telling HR it's got nothing to do with them who you recruit for them on a contract basis. In fact I imagine your real world response to them is yes sir no sir, three bags full sir...

[Taita]

I didn't say that was how they work.

I merely pointed out that this is how they should work.

As a contractor, you are a business. You are not a human resource, you are not an employee, you don't even have a job with the end client, you have an assignment, which your limited company has won, from an agent in many cases - business, to business.....You are an employee of your limited company, and only your limited company.

If you are a PAYE, fixed term contractor, that's absolutely the remit of a HR team, but if you are a limited company contractor, HR should be absolutely nothing to do with any kind of deal being done....It's like asking the canteen staff to run the accounts department.

If you can't grasp these simple concepts, then I suggest it is you who is not cut out for proper contracting.

HR approve and appoint agencies to the PSL. Hiring managers are told they can only get contractors through the PSL, as ordered by the Board. If they attempt to get around this house rule they get spanked. I cannot see you as an agent getting away with telling HR it has nothing to do with them and a stroppy contractor (who knows and insists on his rights even before he has been engaged) is likely to become unwanted very quickly!

[The Agents View]

I've missed TAV over the past year, just for theories like this one.

Yes, sorry I've been a bit quiet - I've been busy building an empire.....and ripping off stupid contractors.... (because that's all agents do, if you read this forum)

[The Agents View]

A naive and simplistic view of how business HR functions work, are you sure you're cut out to be an agent?

I didn't say that was how they work.

I merely pointed out that this is how they should work.

As a contractor, you are a business. You are not a human resource, you are not an employee, you don't even have a job with the end client, you have an assignment, which your limited company has won, from an agent in many cases - business, to business.....You are an employee of your limited company, and only your limited company.

If you are a PAYE, fixed term contractor, that's absolutely the remit of a HR team, but if you are a limited company contractor, HR should be absolutely nothing to do with any kind of deal being done....It's like asking the canteen staff to run the accounts department.

If you can't grasp these simple concepts, then I suggest it is you who is not cut out for proper contracting.

[Brussels Slumdog]

What most likely happened, is that agency asked another contractor for a reference. Agency managed to get the referee to interview you.
The agency tried to sneak in the backdoor to avoid the client's preferred supplier list.

[jmo21]

Done nothing wrong? Really? The agent had no right to source for that client (nothing signed to say he can do so) and has wasted the clients and contractors time hoping that he can shoehorn himself in, once found out he is pretending he has an actual interest and demanding compensation. He will lose, I would take the role either direct or with an agency on the PSL, the rogue pimp can do eff all about it. Oh and this has everything to do with HR since they are the gatekeepers of who does or does not do work for them.

that's not clear from the OP.

The manager at client co could have engaged the agent when he shouldn't have (because of the PSL).

And even if the agency had taken a flyer by putting a CV in, the manager should have rejected them immediately because of the PSL.

Not everywhere have a PSL believe it or not, and plenty that do, HR can still be booted into touch if the non-PSL agency have put forward the person you want

[TheFaQQer]

A naive and simplistic view of how business HR functions work, are you sure you're cut out to be an agent?

I've missed TAV over the past year, just for theories like this one.

[kal]

Not at all. From what I can make out from this thread, the hiring manager asked the agent to look for a resource, the agent did so. They then agreed everything, and HR got involved at the last minute, in something which is nothing to do with them.

If it was to do with them, they'd be vetting every supplier in the business, which would make them a procurement department.

HR is for permies - not contractors.

A naive and simplistic view of how business HR functions work, are you sure you're cut out to be an agent?

[The Agents View]

I am not taking about the OP I am referring to the agency, the agency has no right to work for HR in a recruitment role. All this doesn't change the fact that he has wasted both the OPs and clients time by trying to shoehorn himself in.

Not at all. From what I can make out from this thread, the hiring manager asked the agent to look for a resource, the agent did so. They then agreed everything, and HR got involved at the last minute, in something which is nothing to do with them.

If it was to do with them, they'd be vetting every supplier in the business, which would make them a procurement department.

HR is for permies - not contractors.

[kal]

kal didn't say "who work for them", they said "who 'do' work for them".

There is a difference;.

Indeed.