Discussion
After spending several days trying to get a few contractors together for a client (now thankfully sorted) - is there any particular reason why these guys don't advertise themselves directly instead of an agency? I have to say the worst thing about the whole experience is the middle-men that you need to deal with.
Surely there must be a good reason?
Surely there must be a good reason?
Not sure which industry you're in, but in mine (Investment Banking IT), banks won't deal with contractors directly. I assume this is because of the overhead of setting up legals, contractuals and accounts with multiple companies. They will have a Preferred Suppliers List which is a group of agencies they are set up to deal with and they release roles to those agencies who then put them on job sites which is generally how the contractors then get to hear that roles are available.
Generally, the way the market works, the job is advertised to the worker not the other way round.
Generally, the way the market works, the job is advertised to the worker not the other way round.
Edited by mattdaniels on Saturday 13th November 11:55
The problem for large companies who employ agencies to supply contractors is that they think this saves them money.
Firstly, there isn't much legal work for a company to do. They formulate a standard contract and make small amendments such as name, rate, role and duration for each individual. People tend to be engaged for months at a time, so these contracts aren't being produced at 100 a day even if they engage many contractors.
Secondly, agencies normally have no experience of the skills required. They don't undertand the basics of what experience is really required or even the terminology of the role in question.
Thirdly, the agency typically deals with the procurement department in a large company. Procurement are always looking for the lowest rate, so the agency finds someone with the lowest rate. What ends up happening is that instead of one multiskilled person filling the role, three people are required but of course they cost less - per person. Result is in total it costs the company much more for alot less and generally leads to project failure.
Agencies are a very unecessary overhead and they cost companies and their IT projects huge amounts of wasted money.
Edited to add that most companies will refuse to even talk to a contractor directly, they'll always point them in the direction of an agency. I also thing there are some very sizeable backhanders going on between individuals in procurement departments and these agencies or 'body shops' which is a much more appropriate name for them.
Of course once engaged through an agency they make sure you can never go direct to the company who needs your services in the first place anyway, for at least 12 months after your contract ends. It's a very, very manipulated and corrupt market.
Firstly, there isn't much legal work for a company to do. They formulate a standard contract and make small amendments such as name, rate, role and duration for each individual. People tend to be engaged for months at a time, so these contracts aren't being produced at 100 a day even if they engage many contractors.
Secondly, agencies normally have no experience of the skills required. They don't undertand the basics of what experience is really required or even the terminology of the role in question.
Thirdly, the agency typically deals with the procurement department in a large company. Procurement are always looking for the lowest rate, so the agency finds someone with the lowest rate. What ends up happening is that instead of one multiskilled person filling the role, three people are required but of course they cost less - per person. Result is in total it costs the company much more for alot less and generally leads to project failure.
Agencies are a very unecessary overhead and they cost companies and their IT projects huge amounts of wasted money.
Edited to add that most companies will refuse to even talk to a contractor directly, they'll always point them in the direction of an agency. I also thing there are some very sizeable backhanders going on between individuals in procurement departments and these agencies or 'body shops' which is a much more appropriate name for them.
Of course once engaged through an agency they make sure you can never go direct to the company who needs your services in the first place anyway, for at least 12 months after your contract ends. It's a very, very manipulated and corrupt market.
Edited by Silver993tt on Saturday 13th November 16:33
Silver993tt said:
The problem for large companies who employ agencies to supply contractors is that they think this saves them money.
Firstly, there isn't much legal work for a company to do. They formulate a standard contract and make small amendments such as name, rate, role and duration for each individual. Peolple tend to be engaged for months at atime, so these contracts aren't being produced at 100 a day.
Secondly, agencies normally have no experience of the skills required. They don't undertand the basics of what experience is really required or even the terminology of the role in question.
Thirdly, the agency typically deals with procurement in a large company. Procurement are always looking for the lowest rate, so the agency finds someone with the lowest rate. What ends up happening is that instead of one multiskilled person filling the role, three people are required but of course they cost less - per person. Result is it costs the company much more for alot less and generally leads to project failure.
Agencies are a very unecessary overhead and they cost compannies and their IT projects huge amounts of watsed money.
I agree. As with most 'boutique' consultants (ok, ok, one-man bands) I get work through word of mouth. But big firms aren't interested in contracting with V8mate Ltd, so I have to contract with them via a friendly household name whi is on their framework supplier list to get the work. Firstly, there isn't much legal work for a company to do. They formulate a standard contract and make small amendments such as name, rate, role and duration for each individual. Peolple tend to be engaged for months at atime, so these contracts aren't being produced at 100 a day.
Secondly, agencies normally have no experience of the skills required. They don't undertand the basics of what experience is really required or even the terminology of the role in question.
Thirdly, the agency typically deals with procurement in a large company. Procurement are always looking for the lowest rate, so the agency finds someone with the lowest rate. What ends up happening is that instead of one multiskilled person filling the role, three people are required but of course they cost less - per person. Result is it costs the company much more for alot less and generally leads to project failure.
Agencies are a very unecessary overhead and they cost compannies and their IT projects huge amounts of watsed money.
This results in a minimum 20% hike in my fees as I don't see why I should take the hit on my portion to pay the middleman (who played no role in securing me the work in the first place; he's just an invoicing conduit)
fomb said:
Surely there must be a good reason?
A lot of contractors are not good at cold calling and trying to market their services. It also takes a lot of time. and wnhen you say advertise... where? .. there ae so many sites etc.You will be surprised how many contractors are on PH, so perhaps next time post in the jobs of business sections here and avoid that middle man
lestag said:
fomb said:
Surely there must be a good reason?
A lot of contractors are not good at cold calling and trying to market their services. It also takes a lot of time. and wnhen you say advertise... where? .. there ae so many sites etc.You will be surprised how many contractors are on PH, so perhaps next time post in the jobs of business sections here and avoid that middle man
The bunch I currently work for are taking a measly 8% and I say good luck to them. They made the process of securing the contract very easy indeed, they approached me out of the blue without me having to spend time marketing myself (echoing lestag's point above), plus they acted fairly to resolve initial concerns I had about the contract T&Cs and - above all else - they pay me swiftly and reliably, on time, every time. This latter point is, I'm afraid, more than I can say than about a majority of 'direct' clients I've worked for.
Edited by theboss on Sunday 14th November 21:18
theboss said:
The bunch I currently work for are taking a measly 8% and I say good luck to them. They made the process of securing the contract very easy indeed, they approached me out of the blue without me having to spend time marketing myself (echoing lestag's point above), plus they acted fairly to resolve initial concerns I had about the contract T&Cs and - above all else - they pay me swiftly and reliably, on time, every time. This latter point is, I'm afraid, more than I can say than about a majority of 'direct' clients I've worked for.
Agents like these are worth their weight in gold, it is a shame that they are rare.As an owner of a small IT consultancy I share V8Mate's feelings on the worth of agents who take a disproportionate fee for being payment processors when they have had no input into winning the work.
A recent client of mine decided to hire 3 recruitment consultants (proper ones, not shiny suited monkeys) directly to resource for a large project. They are paid a good rate and after deducting all associated costs, save the client over £75k per month (it is a big project!) in agency fees.
theboss said:
lestag said:
fomb said:
Surely there must be a good reason?
A lot of contractors are not good at cold calling and trying to market their services. It also takes a lot of time. and wnhen you say advertise... where? .. there ae so many sites etc.You will be surprised how many contractors are on PH, so perhaps next time post in the jobs of business sections here and avoid that middle man
The bunch I currently work for are taking a measly 8% and I say good luck to them. They made the process of securing the contract very easy indeed, they approached me out of the blue without me having to spend time marketing myself (echoing lestag's point above), plus they acted fairly to resolve initial concerns I had about the contract T&Cs and - above all else - they pay me swiftly and reliably, on time, every time. This latter point is, I'm afraid, more than I can say than about a majority of 'direct' clients I've worked for.
Edited by theboss on Sunday 14th November 21:18
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff