Reply to: Agent increasing their cut

[IT contract agent]

walk away - out of order for an agent to do that. if he needs more money he should get it from the client.

why no name and shame?

[shaunbhoy]

You could always suggest to the client that they get the agency removed from their preferred suppliers list (PSL) then you may well be free to take up the position through another agency on the PSL. Not sure if that is possible as IANAL mind you!

[Mailman]

Something similar is true of marriages that have got to the point of divorce, but that doesn't stop legal action taking place.

Depends on the costs involved, the likely outcome doesnt it and whether the action would have any other affect on the current business relationship etc.

I mean, if Mr and Mrs Expat havent a penny between them then there is going to be no point in Mrs Expat taking you to the cleaners is there

Denny,

Excellent reply by the way.

Mailman

[expat]

I remember Dodgy saying ages ago that if the relationship between the agent and the contractor has gotten to the point where the contractor is leaving then no amount of threatening will change the fact the relationship is dead.

Mailman

Something similar is true of marriages that have got to the point of divorce, but that doesn't stop legal action taking place.

[Denny]

I'm tired of this opt-in or your a moron rubbish that spews from your keyboard.

Opting-in only proves you are too damn wet to manage your own business and contracts without running back to tony amnd his nanny state crying when someone finds someon better, cheaper or just more likeable.

If you are a strong candidate with good skills and a great track record opting in is a waste of time. It just proves even more that you are a disguised employee and not a business in your own right.

What a load of tosh. I presume then that you never use recruiters to source any of your work (whoops! business).

Why is opting in a waste of time if you do source work through recruiters?

Let me remind you that recruiters sourcing contractors refer to themselves as 'employment businesses' not introduction businesses. I assume then, that what you are really criticising is contractors using recruiters at all rather than
merely opting in when they do use them. If the odds are stacked against us as being viewed as 'owner managed' from the start whether we are limited or not, with terms and conditions that apply to everyone, the business name implies 'employment' then it's surely more businesslike to ensure that we manage the risks associated with being in business in the first place. What I'm trying to say is this: if you can't beat them do more than just join them. Also make sure you are as risk free as possible too by ensuring payment is not only there but on time too rather than not at all if the client/EB decides to screw you. That's not being a wimp or adoopting pseudo employee attitude that's having a wise business head where it counts and can be enforced.

Keep an eye on the Shout 99 thread under 'expert advice' there is a good question about this matter on there. It's not yet answered though.

[Mailman]

OK Mailman, let's assume for a moment that you are correct. The agency still has a clause with the client, and a quick letter threatening legal action will "most likely" discourage the client from continuing the relationship with the contractor. No client is going to risk court action, they will simply find another contractor from another agency.

That would depend on whether the contract was with the client OR with their preferred supplier and size of the client etc or more importantly whether any such clause exists in the first place.

Then there are also a number of other variables here that would affect whether the agent would waste time, money and effort on a course of action that would result in nothing being achieved for them and most likely end any formal business relationship that may have existed etc.

Most likely in this case the best course of action is to speak to the client and ask whether you can change agents. If your agents are the sole provider of resources then you are buggered. If they arent then your manager may put you on to HR for further advice about moving to new agents (as they may have a list of agents they prefer you to work through).

I remember Dodgy saying ages ago that if the relationship between the agent and the contractor has gotten to the point where the contractor is leaving then no amount of threatening will change the fact the relationship is dead.

Mailman

[Mordac]

OK Mailman, let's assume for a moment that you are correct. The agency still has a clause with the client, and a quick letter threatening legal action will "most likely" discourage the client from continuing the relationship with the contractor. No client is going to risk court action, they will simply find another contractor from another agency.

[Mailman]

>Even if you are opted out you most likely will be fine as exclusion clauses are usually written so poorly that they are unenforceable.

Stop making sweeping statements when you don't know what you're talking about. The agency has the same contract with the client, so he will not "likely be fine". Far from it. Are you a fcuking lawyer? Exclusion clauses may be poorly written, but they are only illegal if they contravene the law, and that's the crucial point.

Not at all, even lawyers (who have posted advice here) have admitted that in general exclusion clauses are so poorly written that they are unenforceable.

Have a look at the exclusion clause in your contract and I bet it goes on about not being able to work for the client BUT I bet what it doesnt say is where you cant work for them.

For exclusion clauses to be enforceable they MUST be specific in where you cannot work.

But then again, as some learned goon has already said here...this adice is worth about as much as was paid for it

Mailman

[Mailman]

If you are a strong candidate with good skills and a great track record opting in is a waste of time. It just proves even more that you are a disguised employee and not a business in your own right.

Whether you are a strong candidate or not makes absolutely no difference when agents stiff you Although I suspect from your reply that you enjoy being bent over a cart by agents

If you don't agree why not take a look at someone like EDS or LOgica or CAP, when they contract to a big bank do they say oh and we'd like to opt-in so that you can't get rid of us if we are rubbish.

Comparing an individual contractor to a multi-billion dollar multination is apples and oranges. Firstly, those morons at EDS will ALWAYS have a hell of a lot more clout then any individual contractor will ever have.

Secondly, opting in isnt going to mean you have job security...thats not the objective of the regulations (which are to remove the dodgy feckers who call themselves agents, pitty PCG gave them a back door!).

No they walk in with big balls and say we'll do the work you'll love us and you won't want rid of us.

Because they can...Id like to see how long you last if you ever tried the same rubbish EDS always pulls! [here we go, some rubbish story of yours about what you did in ancient times is about to be posted and we will all go ohhhhhhhhh, ahhhhhhh ]

(Oh and yes I know that opt-in opt-out doesn't apply to these guys, but hey doesn't that prove my point even more a real company isn't covered by these regulations)

Again, EDS is a REAL company...just like every contractor who runs his/her own limited company, and thats regardless of whether you are opted in or out!

Mailman

[tim123]

Thank them for the services they have provided for the initial contract and tell them that you understand that they can not afford to continue the arrangement at the present rate. It is with regret that you accept their withdrawl from the business agreement and hope you can do business with them in the future.Thank them for their generosity in releasing you from the terms of the initial contract.

When they say they havent state that you will gladly carry on at the agreed rates then.

IANAL.

What a pity that contract law doesn't work like that.

tim

[boredsenseless]

This is only partly correct and really depends on a number of factors;

1. Whether you are opted in our out.
2. Whether there is a clause in your contract that allows the agents to be managed out of the business relationship.
3. Whether the agent is a preferred supplier....and the list goes on.

What is missing here is whether you are opted in or out.

If you are opted out then you are a f*cken moron and dont deserve the benefit of my adice

If you are opted in then you are sweet, especially since most likely your contract doesnt make any mention of the agents being managed out of the business relationship (usually through a short extension of several months).

Even if you are opted out you most likely will be fine as exclusion clauses are usually written so poorly that they are unenforceable.

Mailman

I'm tired of this opt-in or your a moron rubbish that spews from your keyboard.

Opting-in only proves you are too damn wet to manage your own business and contracts without running back to tony amnd his nanny state crying when someone finds someon better, cheaper or just more likeable.

If you are a strong candidate with good skills and a great track record opting in is a waste of time. It just proves even more that you are a disguised employee and not a business in your own right.

If you don't agree why not take a look at someone like EDS or LOgica or CAP, when they contract to a big bank do they say oh and we'd like to opt-in so that you can't get rid of us if we are rubbish. No they walk in with big balls and say we'll do the work you'll love us and you won't want rid of us.

(Oh and yes I know that opt-in opt-out doesn't apply to these guys, but hey doesn't that prove my point even more a real company isn't covered by these regulations)

[bfg]

Notsure what you are saying

If they are increasing BY 33% from some low percentage on a high rate you are in a different position if they are going TO 33% on a low rate.

Assuming it is somewhere in the middle like going from 15% to 20% on a mid-level rate for your skill set then tell 'em "Thanks, but no thanks" and be prepared to walk out the door. After all, if it is only a mid-level rate then who wants to be shafted by dropping it by 5% when there are plenty more out there.

I will put it this way, you are a business not a charity and you only owe them what they pay for. If they won't pay you owe them nothing.

[Mordac]

A very good point Mailman, but I'm making the assumption that if the agency behaves in this way come renewal time, then I'm willing to bet they made the OP opt out as a condition of being put forward for the original contract in the first place.

>Even if you are opted out you most likely will be fine as exclusion clauses are usually written so poorly that they are unenforceable.

Stop making sweeping statements when you don't know what you're talking about. The agency has the same contract with the client, so he will not "likely be fine". Far from it. Are you a fcuking lawyer? Exclusion clauses may be poorly written, but they are only illegal if they contravene the law, and that's the crucial point.

[Mailman]

Yes, they can do what they like. So can you. Including not signing it. You won't be able to go direct, because there will be a clause in your contract saying you can't go direct (or through another agency) for x months (usually 3, 6 or 12).

This is only partly correct and really depends on a number of factors;

1. Whether you are opted in our out.
2. Whether there is a clause in your contract that allows the agents to be managed out of the business relationship.
3. Whether the agent is a preferred supplier....and the list goes on.

What is missing here is whether you are opted in or out.

If you are opted out then you are a f*cken moron and dont deserve the benefit of my adice

If you are opted in then you are sweet, especially since most likely your contract doesnt make any mention of the agents being managed out of the business relationship (usually through a short extension of several months).

Even if you are opted out you most likely will be fine as exclusion clauses are usually written so poorly that they are unenforceable.

Mailman

[Fungus]

If the client sources contractors from multiple agencies, then you have some bargaining power, as the agency will be in competition with others to satisfy the client's requirements. In that case, turn down the extension, and they should play ball again. I guess it's risky, but I would probably do that as I don't like being turned over.

In fact many clients create preferred supplier relationships with agencies, and in return for giving the agency preferential treatment, the agency agrees to reduce its cut to a modest level e.g. 15%.

Are you skilled in a specialist area or do you have client specific knowledge e.g. of their code base? If so then you have an even stronger bargaining position. However, if you are easily replaced, well ...

I wonder why the client agreed to the agency increasing their cut? It seems odd. Is the agent providing the client with sexual favours?

Sounds to me like the client - or at least the finance/contract person - is wet.