Forced Opt-out of Agency Regulations

**cojak** · 30 March 2007, 16:48

It's a matter of choice - I always go for opt-out.

**Denny** · 30 March 2007, 17:15

Originally posted by InPrincipal

Has anyone had experience of being coerced into signing an opt-out clause in a contract? I choose not to because I have no interest in signing away my rights and believe it is better for client and contractor to opt-in.
Obviously, the additional admin burden for agencies and the fact that they can't incorporate hand-cuff clauses and are also liable for paying you whether the client does or not, means they are VERY keen for contractors to opt-out. However, it is illegal for them to force this and I am reporting one to the DTI for so-doing. Anyone else had any experience of this?

Sometimes it is implied by getting you to sign the form before they pass your CV to an account handler to assess who will be put forward to the client or not. Then when they've coerced you to sign it they write back a polite notice making it unequivocally clear that you have 'chosen' to opt out.

To be honest, I find this question asked less and less now. I suspect that the EBs are forcing clients to agree to restrictive clauses in their own agreements with the clients in return for a lower margin payable - so it doesn't matter if we opt in or out now as the matter is taken out of our hands. We still can't go direct anyway, if the client is legally bound by these agreements with their preferred supplier EBs.

Not sure how legal this sort of thing is though.

**InPrincipal** · 30 March 2007, 17:24

If you opt-in, the EB can't put these restrictive clauses in the client contract, or in your own contract. If they do, they are unenforceable. Most clients are delighted by this as it saves them money. I've just won serious brownies with mine as they didn't know the score and I've forced the agent to rewrite both contracts.

Moral of the story is never to sign anything until you are happy to accept an offer and have the contract in your hand.

**Sockpuppet** · 30 March 2007, 17:26

Originally posted by InPrincipal

Moral of the story is never to sign anything until you are happy to accept an offer and have the contract in your hand.

I'd say the moral is more like "opt out of EB regs" if your contract is a goodun. If you think the agency will still you then don't.

I opt out. I have no interest in "forcing" the agency to pay me if the client doesnt. In my contract and on the invoices I have standard terms of 7 days payment. Works for me.

**InPrincipal** · 30 March 2007, 17:51

Originally posted by Sockpuppet

I'd say the moral is more like "opt out of EB regs" if your contract is a goodun. If you think the agency will still you then don't.

I opt out. I have no interest in "forcing" the agency to pay me if the client doesnt. In my contract and on the invoices I have standard terms of 7 days payment. Works for me.

Maybe I'm being a donut but what's in it for you? Or do you have a soft-spot for agents?

If contractors presented a united front in not allowing disreputable agents to force the opt-out, they would have no choice but to use opt-ins. We do have the power people, we are the money after all.

**ASB** · 30 March 2007, 18:13

Originally posted by InPrincipal

If you opt-in, the EB can't put these restrictive clauses in the client contract

You sure about that??

I thought the EB and client could still agree whatever commercial terms they felt like, thus whilst according to the letter of the law the client is allowed to take on the workseeker direct after 8 weeks or whatever the practical commercials already agreed may give the client a strong disincentive to do so.

**Sockpuppet** · 30 March 2007, 18:28

Originally posted by InPrincipal

Maybe I'm being a donut but what's in it for you? Or do you have a soft-spot for agents?

Payment. I have a contract saying i am paid 7 days after invoice. Nothing to do if the client doesnt pay etc. My contract is with the EB not the client.

**Denny** · 30 March 2007, 18:33

Originally posted by InPrincipal

If you opt-in, the EB can't put these restrictive clauses in the client contract, or in your own contract. If they do, they are unenforceable. Most clients are delighted by this as it saves them money. I've just won serious brownies with mine as they didn't know the score and I've forced the agent to rewrite both contracts.

Moral of the story is never to sign anything until you are happy to accept an offer and have the contract in your hand.

Most companies won't bother to challenge what they've agreed, if they are broadly happy with the PSL EB. Usually it's HR or SC that control the hiring managers' decisions on these things. You were probably lucky on this occasion.

If they weren't having to follow these rules, we would still be inundated with opt out notices prior to consideration for representation. As I've already said, these are not so forthcoming now as they were a 2-3 years ago.

**Denny** · 30 March 2007, 18:35

Originally posted by InPrincipal

Maybe I'm being a donut but what's in it for you? Or do you have a soft-spot for agents?

If contractors presented a united front in not allowing disreputable agents to force the opt-out, they would have no choice but to use opt-ins. We do have the power people, we are the money after all.

I don't think that 'power to the people' would go down too well on this forum and you are likely to be pelted with tomatoes and called a tree hugging socialist.

Most of the contractors on here have been brainwashed to agree with their own oppression and exploitation and fully welcome it, even if it is at the expense of the rest of the contracting community to would prefer to fight back against these measures and against the exploits of other parties who benefit from treating contractors like dirt.

No prizes for guessing what I mean here....

Forced Opt-out of Agency Regulations