Second Tier Supplier Verbally Offering Contract but Stalling on Day Rate Second Tier Supplier Verbally Offering Contract but Stalling on Day Rate - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    Do you fully understand the Legislation? Is there anything there that means so much you'll push back on the agent?
    For me firstly it's the concern about the risk of non-payment i.e if opted out they don't have to pay me if I don't have a completed timesheet or if the end client doesn't pay them. The agency is very small (c30 staff) and, although I was initially dealing with just the recruitment consultant who contacted me about the gig, all further communications were with their MD, one of the owners of the agency, which seems rather over the top... the MD getting involved with individual gigs. It raises questions.. does the company have cash flow problems? Will they pay me on time?

    Secondly there is the restriction clause... after contract completion I am not able to engage directly with the client for 12 months. Ideally I'd like the opportunity to deal directly with the preferred supplier or end client if renewed instead of through the sub- agent so that I don't have that extra "middle man" to deal with and the extra margin they'd take on my day rate. Not sure how I'd do that though as the contract is still with the preferred supplier, not sub-agent.... they're just getting the fee for finding me.

    I agree, opting in could increase the work of the agency and effectively increase the time it takes to onboard me, as I'd have more hoops to jump through, particularly with the bank. At the moment their method of onboarding is more of a 'fast-track approach' to get me started in about half the time as I'm urgently needed.
    Last edited by ziggystardust; 18th May 2019 at 08:08.

  2. #12

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    39,456

    Default

    There are many many threads on here about the effectiveness of being opted in but in summary.

    Quote Originally Posted by ziggystardust View Post
    For me firstly it's the concern about the risk of non-payment i.e if opted out they don't have to pay me if I don't have a completed timesheet or if the end client doesn't pay them. The agency is very small (c30 staff) and, although I was initially dealing with just the recruitment consultant who contacted me about the gig, all further communications were with their MD, one of the owners of the agency, which seems rather over the top... the MD getting involved with individual gigs. It raises questions.. does the company have cash flow problems? Will they pay me on time?
    To date I haven't seen a single non payment thread that has been resolved by flashing the opt in card for a start. Also, the concerns you raise are bigger than opt in. Sounds like you are worried the agent is going to have cash flow issues or go bump. Opt in won't help you here. It will only cover getting paid with no timesheet which will just be your last invoice if there is a dispute. If the agency can't or just won't pay you you'll have to go legal. Being opted in is far from a magic bullet to getting paid.
    Secondly there is the restriction clause... after contract completion I am not able to engage directly with the client for 12 months. Ideally I'd like the opportunity to deal directly with the preferred supplier or end client if renewed instead of through the sub- agent so that I don't have that extra "middle man" to deal with and the extra margin they'd take on my day rate. Not sure how I'd do that though as the contract is still with the preferred supplier, not sub-agent.... they're just getting the fee for finding me.
    And again. No handcuff situation on here has been resolved by being opted in. A 12 month handcuff isn't enforceable anyway but regards of your status the agency is likely to cause a fuss and the client won't want to get it to a legal fight so likely you'll just get dropped anyway.
    Often when a client is through an agency its very unlikely they'll deal direct even if your agency goes bump. They'll just fina another agent. If your client doesn't deal direct with contractors then opt in isn't really helping. Lots to be discussed about handcuffs but the bottom line is nearly every handcuff situation is dealt with through negotiation.
    I agree, opting in could increase the work of the agency and effectively increase the time it takes to onboard me, as I'd have more hoops to jump through, particularly with the bank. At the moment their method of onboarding is more of a 'fast-track approach' to get me started in about half the time as I'm urgently needed.
    It would also increase the financial risk to the agent as they may have to pay you if the client doesn't pay and also risks losing their revenue stream with no handcuff and it sounds from what you say there is no way a small agency can work like that.

    I'd think very careful before making a fuss over opt in in this situation.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  3. #13

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    39,456

    Default

    And just to say, all the above and what you are hoping for hinges on the agency understanding the legislation and being willing to apply it correctly and I can almost guarantee they won't do either.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

  4. #14

    More fingers than teeth

    BlasterBates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    1922 Commitee
    Posts
    13,744

    Default

    I agree with nothernladuk, the opt in is not worth risking a contract. I think you will lose the contract by creating a lot of hassle between the agency and the client. A contract that doesn't explicitly mention opting in isn't necessarily opted in, it could be an expensive legal challenge. A contractor not under the direction and control of the client isn't covered by the regulations.
    I'm alright Jack

  5. #15

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladuk View Post
    And again. No handcuff situation on here has been resolved by being opted in. A 12 month handcuff isn't enforceable anyway but regards of your status the agency is likely to cause a fuss and the client won't want to get it to a legal fight so likely you'll just get dropped anyway.
    Often when a client is through an agency its very unlikely they'll deal direct even if your agency goes bump. They'll just fina another agent. If your client doesn't deal direct with contractors then opt in isn't really helping.
    I understand but in this situation the client is actually the agent i.e my client is sub- agent, their client is the agent and the agent's client is the end client. So they're both getting a sizeable chunk in margin from my day rate. Are you saying that there's still a chance that I could renew direct with agency 2 (not sub- agent) anyway? I've now opted out by the way....

  6. #16

    My post count is Majestic

    northernladuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    39,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ziggystardust View Post
    I understand but in this situation the client is actually the agent i.e my client is sub- agent, their client is the agent and the agent's client is the end client. So they're both getting a sizeable chunk in margin from my day rate. Are you saying that there's still a chance that I could renew direct with agency 2 (not sub- agent) anyway? I've now opted out by the way....
    It's possible but very much depends on the situation. If you are trying to cut out agent 2 purely to save on their margin then absolutely not. The handcuff is there to protect their revenue stream and any loss incurred by them will mean the handcuff is slam dunk. Even opted in the agent is going to fight tooth and claw for their money and is likely to kick up such a stink they'll scupper the whole deal first.

    The wiggle room comes where the other party cannot prove they are losing anything. You can't restrict workers just because you've had your nose put out of joint. It just won't stand up in court.

    But as I said, the best way out is negotiation. Agent 2 might fold on the handcuff to keep agent 1 happy and protect a bigger revenue stream. This has happened a lot on here but only Agent to Client. I would have thought agent to agent is a very tenuous relationship.

    Who knows, but opt in is not your golden bullet.

    Perversely enough you've already been introduced to the client so an Opt in afterwards is questionably not valid anyway. I'd be willing to bet if it really came down to the nitty gritty you'd find you are technically opted in, but the agent won't agree. That's the stupid thing about this whole legislation. Agents just don't know how it works. They will argue it's 'before supply' but I am sure this is only for when the contractor is already known to a client already. A new contractor would come under the 'introduction' heading.
    Last edited by northernladuk; 20th May 2019 at 08:55.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •