A Quick question

[Contracting Rob]

No dice

So agency gets 50%.

OK, instead of simply saying no, why not say you'll accept for 80% more than they are offering? That would give you 90% of what the client is paying.

Because:

1. They advertised a contract position - not a temporary employee role;
2. They never informed me that they would be acting as agents until long after they should have;
3. I can afford not to;

The "agency" don't know anything of my concerns, as I haven't spoken to them about it. Once an agreement is met with the other company, I think I will ask them if it is possible to extricate themselves from the agency agreement and contract directly, perhaps meeting in the middle. The agency would be paid for doing nothing more than sending out invoices which I can send myself...

I just feel that what they do is completely pointless, not to mention a waste of everyone's time and money. I am particularly annoyed at the subterfuge which has been the main feature of my dealings with them. Never once have they actually described themselves as an agency or recruitment consultancy, as far as I am concerned, they simply advertised a contract for a fee.

[wendigo100]

So agency gets 50%.

OK, instead of simply saying no, why not say you'll accept for 80% more than they are offering? That would give you 90% of what the client is paying.

[Contracting Rob]

As I thought!

I've reviewed their (the company who advertised the role) standard contract which they give their clients, and there is a clause about contracting directly which states that the fee is still payable if contracting directly.

However, this fee would be payable whether or not they contract with me directly or with the contractors themselves. The issue here is that the rate of payment (being a daily rate) is far lower than that which the company contracting are actually paying (regardless of any finders fee). I want to contract directly, but feel that the company may not wish to do so for fear of charges etc. If I contract with the "recruiting company" I lose out, and the contracting company pays over the odds. If I contract directly, I can suggest my own terms and work them into any contract as agreed.

On the same point, I'm pretty sure that any contractual arrangement between the "recruiting company" and the contracting company (their 'client'?) cannot be a valid contract, at least not those terms which seek to prevent future actions.

On this issue, my point is this: as there can be no contract without consideration, where is the consideration in this contract? Until there is a confirmed appointment/assignment/contract or whatsoever they wish to call it, no fees are payable or have been paid: THERE IS NO CONTRACT = no obligation to act (on the part of the company I wish to contract with directly).

But in any case, if a workaround cannot be found on this issue, there is no way I shall sign over nearly 50% of the fee for doing a contract to a company who are providing no ostensible service other than listing the job on a website and arranging an interview. Quite simply, they can find another dupe...

[threaded]

Almost certainly a contract between the end client and the agency, and in this contract it'll say that once someone is offered they have to use the agency or pay some other way.

Your point 4 is par for the course. Agency usually skim around 10% to 30%. Although in the past I have been made aware of a couple at 85%.

[Contracting Rob]

I've recently found a contract opportunity in Australia, which I'm in the process of negotiating.

I've come across what I see as a potential problem! Here is the basic story:

1. I saw an advertisement about an IT contract which suited me perfectly;
2. I phoned about the role, and it was confirmed that I seemed ideal;
3. I met with the company who needed the contractor (i.e. not the company who advertised the role);
4. I discovered that the contract was for a substantially larger sum than that of which I had first been informed;
5. The company who ran the advertisement to which I applied contacted me asking how the meeting went, and asking to be "kept in the loop" also stating that were I to be offered the contract I would do it as an employee of their company and to arrange to meet to "do the paperwork";
6. I am pretty sure the contract will be offered in a couple of days.

Essentially, I want to know this: is it likely there is any contractual obligation for the company offering the contract to do so through the company to which I applied. I know that there is no contract existing between myself and either body, but I also know that if I do what the first company (i.e. the advertisers of the role) want, I stand to lose out, as does the contracting company, as the full contract payment will be paid, but I will receive hardly any of it.

Is there any likelihood of a legal (contractual) reason why I should not contract with the company myself, cutting out the middle man and making extra myself (perhaps even saving the contracting company some money too!)?

Given that I have recently obtained an ABN as a sole trader, this is what I'd like to do: contract myself as a contractor - NOT an employee of said (irrelevant) company! Does anyone know of any stipulations which may hinder the contracting company from entering into an agreement with me given that we were introduced (indeed, this is the only service they have provided) by a third party company?

As a side issue, I see this type of behaviour as wholly unethical! The company who set up the meeting have never once mentioned this until the 11th hour, and it is only because I have a legal background that I discovered the actual terms of the contract offered for myself. I don't want to be an employee of a company which is almost entirely useless to both me and those for whom I work. If I did, I'd sign up for an employment agency...