Reply to: Agency regulation

[TheOmegaMan]

Look calm down DA. You are a clueless uncompetititve fu*kwit and you feel threatened. I understand your ignorance, I can empathise with your confusion.

You have felt the whirlwind that is Jabber. Some don't even get this far.

OK to be honest most get a lot further but then you are an agent.

[DodgyAgent]

Actually the retail market is distorted too. Should the tobacco industry be able to sell ciggies to children - there certainly is a demand.

There is a demand to shoot tw**s like you but it is illegal to do so. Now that is what I call a distortion.

[TheOmegaMan]

Actually the retail market is distorted too. Should the tobacco industry be able to sell ciggies to children - there certainly is a demand.

[DodgyAgent]

Try and think please.

There are so many agencies precisely because the market is so distorted. Fewer agencies actually competing against each other would be better. Competing on quality of service rather than how much they can manipulate the market.

I am not moaning about companies or agencies. They exist because the market is not formally regulated. I am proposing regulation of the agency system funded by the agencies.

Markets do not distort themselves. Why is the market distorted more than say the retail market? (who needs tesco sainsbury lidl all in one town?). Markets only get distorted when people try and control them (like governments) so for instance when govt introduces compliance/health & Safety regulations then only the big boys can afford to pay the extra costs. The food retail market is now dominated by Tesco/northern foods partly because food standards agencies have put small manufacturers (jams, cheeses etc) and retailers out of business with laws, many of which are totally unnecessary.

If you actually bothered to look at what happens when regulations are imposed by govt you will find always that the big boys get stronger and the smaller ones whither and die.

You still have not really told anyone what the distortion is, why it is desirable to change it? Why would fewer agencies be better? better for who? explain in detail please. The great thing about our industry is that there are no dominant agencies which keeps everyone on their toes. Why on earth would you want to create an industry that is so protected (which would be the outcome of regulation ie that famous law of unintended consequences).

The problem is not the market, the problem is you and your twisted dislike for recruitment agents. Your dislike is fine but turning your hatred into a (self) righteous moral crusade that is full of hysterical contradictions makes you look ridiculous.

[TheOmegaMan]

It is not people's work that is important it is managing and understanding your customer. There are genuine reasons for big companies to do what they do and you nor I have no right to moan about it. my solution is to deal with the problem as a business challenge whereas yours is to moan and whine about agencies.

Try and think please.

There are so many agencies precisely because the market is so distorted. Fewer agencies actually competing against each other would be better. Competing on quality of service rather than how much they can manipulate the market.

I am not moaning about companies or agencies. They exist because the market is not formally regulated. I am proposing regulation of the agency system funded by the agencies.

[DodgyAgent]

Many have little choice when looking for a contract - they have to use an agency - and they are uniformly crap - that is why I try to avoid using them. I am lucky I am in a niche, most are not so fortunate.

I think people's work is important. And rather than foistering the pimps who run the slave trade I would rather reform them to everyone's advantage.

Calm down DA. Your livelihood is only threatened if you are a complete and utter shyster.

At the last count there were 3000 agencies why is that not enough.? If you are referring to PSLs using the same old large agencies that no one likes then I am as frustrated as you are. There is a reason for this which is that large companies want security and to be able to aggregate demand accross their entire company to leverage discounts on agency fees whilst feeling reassured that the suppliers are big enough to meet their requirements. To get on to t hese lists the agencies need to go through drawn out tendering processes for which they employ teams of people. Smaller agencies do not have the time or resources to join in with the tender process.

It is not people's work that is important it is managing and understanding your customer. There are genuine reasons for big companies to do what they do and you nor I have no right to moan about it. my solution is to deal with the problem as a business challenge whereas yours is to moan and whine about agencies.

Let me tell you something; agencies are two a penny. If you want to do business with a company there is always a way, you just need to use your wits and understand the client and his problems.

[TheOmegaMan]

Many have little choice when looking for a contract - they have to use an agency - and they are uniformly crap - that is why I try to avoid using them. I am lucky I am in a niche, most are not so fortunate.

I think people's work is important. And rather than foistering the pimps who run the slave trade I would rather reform them to everyone's advantage.

Calm down DA. Your livelihood is only threatened if you are a complete and utter shyster.

[DodgyAgent]

Your statements are illogical DA.

I am not talking about setting up an agency or gaining personal control; I am talking about regulating existing agencies through a tariff. Initially some agencies will probably pass the levy onto the client and because clients have no choice but to use an agency they will comply. The regulator will be responsible to the industry as a whole, not to government just as in the financial services.

However, some smarter agencies will not pass on the cost on and rely on their own abilities to create a good service. Moreover they will be cheaper than other agencies and so will gain business. However should they not comply with regulations they will be fined and so their prices must increase and they will lose business.

This is a free competitive market. The client will benefit from better placements, the contractor will benefit from better service, only the sh*te agencies will lose. Now, where is your complaint DA ?

Why not try this? If the agency is tulipe then dont use it. Or is that either a bit complicated for you, or are are clients and contractors too stupid to make such judgements for themselves?

We are talking about developing computer systems or you guys getting work we are not talking about an individual dying through incorrect diagnosis or treatment (doctors), or someone being wrongly imprisoned (lawyers).or an old lady being conned out of her pension (FSA) We are talking about writing computer systems. Have you heard of any case where someone has died, been poisoned had their livelihoods destroyed, sent to Guantanamo Bay, made to spend half an hour listening to you just because an agent has spelt a job advert incorrectly?

No of course we have not, so regulating an industry that does not need regulating (except to satisfy your own inadequacies) is completly unnecessary.

YOU/WE ARE NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH live with it.

[TheOmegaMan]

The government sets up the regulator - the regulator includes representatives from the industry, contractors, clients etc. FFS it is not rocket science.

[Euro-commuter]

Government should function to encourage truly competitive markets where alternatives are available. We can do this by explicit regulation of recruitment agencies.

Who is "we", paleface?

Government...regulation...truly competitive markets....
....it....does....not....compute....

[TheOmegaMan]

Your statements are illogical DA.

I am not talking about setting up an agency or gaining personal control; I am talking about regulating existing agencies through a tariff. Initially some agencies will probably pass the levy onto the client and because clients have no choice but to use an agency they will comply. The regulator will be responsible to the industry as a whole, not to government just as in the financial services.

However, some smarter agencies will not pass on the cost on and rely on their own abilities to create a good service. Moreover they will be cheaper than other agencies and so will gain business. However should they not comply with regulations they will be fined and so their prices must increase and they will lose business.

This is a free competitive market. The client will benefit from better placements, the contractor will benefit from better service, only the sh*te agencies will lose. Now, where is your complaint DA ?

[DodgyAgent]

Some of us feel a moral responsibility to improve our country. You clearly would like things to stay as they are which makes you either a reccon or incredibily stupid (or both).

I don't want to ban agencies, just regulate them. This is the model for many other industries so it is hardly radical.

The pomposity of your remarks is quite breathtaking. The problem you have with agencies is nothing to do with any great moral crusade that you think needs to be waged (on behalf of who?) it is more to do with your own personal inadequacies. You presume (along with your fellow delinquent Denny who at least has the saving grace of being able to talk sense when she leaves personal prejudices out of her arguments) to know what is best not only for your fellow contractor but also what is best for the clients.

You would not dare test your proposals in a free market environment by setting up an agency run according to your lines (in the full knowledge that it would go bust within a month), you would rather that some silly little politician with absolutely no idea of how business should be run, should come along and regulate an industry according to your own bigoted views.

You whine and moan for control to be passed over to you (and nor do you represent any sort of majority view of contractors) in this way despite glaring evidence to show (from eastern bloc communism to present day nationalised indutries and public services) that governemt run institutions just do not work (which is essentially what you are advocating).

Now if you think that these poor hapless clients (in other words multi billion £ global corporations such as HSBC, BP, Shell) are hapless victims of dodgy businesses (two bob a year recruitment agencies) then you are at best naive and or plain stupid.

Does it occur to you that your total lack of understanding of how business works (ever heard of supply and demand?) would create nightmares for hapless hiring managers should you ever ever be allowed to deal directly. And according to your pathetic little Utopian vision there would be no agents as we would rather turn our hands to selling second hand cars than run a business under your Stalinist regime.

No. Companies have developed sophisticated processes to prevent nerds like you from boring the pants off their employees. We may be uneducated spivs but this is what it takes to make the world go round in your market. Live with it or prove that your way is right by doing it. Otherwise shut up.

[TheOmegaMan]

Oh I can be nice too - but I save that for clients.

[boredsenseless]

Some of us feel a moral responsibility to improve our country. You clearly would like things to stay as they are which makes you either a reccon or incredibily stupid (or both).

I don't want to ban agencies, just regulate them. This is the model for many other industries so it is hardly radical.

I refer you to my earlier comment regarding insults

[TheOmegaMan]

Then exactly what is the problem and why are you bothered

Some of us feel a moral responsibility to improve our country. You clearly would like things to stay as they are which makes you either a reccon or incredibily stupid (or both).

I don't want to ban agencies, just regulate them. This is the model for many other industries so it is hardly radical.