• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

And so it begins ... agencies into employers

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by CryingSheep View Post
    Not sure I'm getting what's going on here... So how this will be any different than a consultancy company, where you work as a full time employee and they 'sell' you to clients!?
    You really can't work it out? The answer has already been mentioned.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by FIERCE TANK BATTLE View Post
      Yes, perhaps, if this is the same - I had a very confusing e-mail, initially from an agency about work for a government body. I said I was interested, and they sent me a full spec (like 12 pages) of what they wanted building. I agreed that I could probably do that, so put me forward. Agency came back later and said the client was happy, and I'd be working for "recruitment agency consulting division". I was like, oookay, whatever that means.

      They then said we'll have a meeting on Thursday. I said hold on, I want to meet the client first I'm not accepting work without talking to them because their expectations might not be inline with this random document I've been sent. The agency was like ??????? and so I ended up taking another gig instead, which made them absolutely furious because apparently I'd agreed to start work (no sniff of an actual contract at this point) and they'd set up the first planning meeting with the client for Thursday (this was on Monday).

      I was like wtf.

      Contracting never works like that, I'm never gonna accept work if I haven't spoken to the client, even if it's via dodgy agency consulting arm ltd. That's how you start on day 1 and get totally shafted by things you can't even do or weren't expecting...
      And that's before you see this mythical contract - God knows what would have been in it...
      "I can put any old tat in my sig, put quotes around it and attribute to someone of whom I've heard, to make it sound true."
      - Voltaire/Benjamin Franklin/Anne Frank...

      Comment


        #13
        Long time lurker and contractor (21 years), and have been reading these with interest. Am currently at an Investment firm in Edinburgh with a heavy contract presence (not one of those discussed here already), and they are engaging outside council on the way forward and discussing with the contract community including myself (which is positive).

        However, a managed service model seems to the preferred approach for them at this point, the basis the agencies are selling it as the best option.

        I suspect this is based on an IR35 briefing pack I have obtained from one of the big agencies with some good diagrams and tables about options, costs etc. However, I don't appear to have permission to add attachments as yet (lack of posts I assume) so I can't add some of the content.

        Whole document subtly suggests the Managed Service model is the best option, and shows why clients may end up going that route

        I have also spoken to contacts from Alexander Mann, Lorien, Intelligent Consulting, and Allegis group, all of whom are proposing that they believe they can run a managed service model with outside IR35 contracts.

        Sounds positive, but they seemed less clear on how this worked when I asked about the fee payer making the decision, rather than them.

        However, I am meeting my Allegis contract again next week to see if then can shed any further light.

        So am not convinced as yet, but the fact they all think this model can work and are selling it as such to clients is interesting (regardless of the fact I would detest working for a managed service)
        Last edited by xar18; 13 August 2019, 09:59.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by xar18 View Post
          Long time lurker and contractor (21 years), and have been reading these with interest. Am currently at an Investment firm in Edinburgh with a heavy contract presence (not one of those discussed here already), and they are engaging outside council on the way forward and discussing with the contract community including myself (which is positive).

          However, a managed service model seems to the preferred approach for them at this point, the basis the agencies are selling it as the best option.

          I suspect this is based on an IR35 briefing pack I have obtained from one of the big agencies with some good diagrams and tables about options, costs etc. However, I don't appear to have permission to add attachments as yet (lack of posts I assume) so I can't add some of the content.

          Whole document subtly suggests the Managed Service model is the best option, and shows why clients may end up going that route

          I have also spoken to contacts from Alexander Mann, Lorien, Intelligent Consulting, and Allegis group, all of whom are proposing that they believe they can run a managed service model with outside IR35 contracts.

          Sounds positive, but they seemed less clear on how this worked when I asked about the fee payer making the decision, rather than them.

          However, I am meeting my Allegis contract again next week to see if then can shed any further light.

          So am not convinced as yet, but the fact they all think this model can work and are selling it as such to clients is interesting (regardless of the fact I would detest working for a managed service)
          the basis the agencies are selling it as the best option.
          No tulip sherlock. Best option for who? Only the agent surely.

          They are proposing a sham arrangement that just changes the upper contract between them and the client. They'll still be just providing bums on seats and if those bums on seats are fail any IR35 test it should still be inside. Agencies tried this with the Public Sector and on the whole failed. The few that did I am sure will be running a pretty poor model that puts the client at great risk.

          I'd be willing to bet the actual service they sign up for is nowhere near what a proper model should be to pass any basic test. No way are they set up to provide proper consultancy of fixed pieces of work based on deliverables.

          Might work, might not but it's nothing more than BAU under a different contractor. A clued up client isn't going to go near this.
          'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
            No tulip sherlock. Best option for who? Only the agent surely.
            Indeed. I had assumed that would be obvious to anyone reading it.

            Just thought some of that info might be of interest.

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by xar18 View Post
              Indeed. I had assumed that would be obvious to anyone reading it.

              Just thought some of that info might be of interest.
              All useful info. Keep close and keep and eye on it.
              'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

              Comment


                #17
                Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                No tulip sherlock. Best option for who? Only the agent surely.

                They are proposing a sham arrangement that just changes the upper contract between them and the client. They'll still be just providing bums on seats and if those bums on seats are fail any IR35 test it should still be inside. Agencies tried this with the Public Sector and on the whole failed. The few that did I am sure will be running a pretty poor model that puts the client at great risk.

                I'd be willing to bet the actual service they sign up for is nowhere near what a proper model should be to pass any basic test. No way are they set up to provide proper consultancy of fixed pieces of work based on deliverables.

                Might work, might not but it's nothing more than BAU under a different contractor. A clued up client isn't going to go near this.
                The changing of the upper / lower contract only happens with SOW, not MSP. As you say SOW is what the public sector tried which did solve some problems due to an oversight in the legislation (which has been corrected for April 2020).

                True SOW requires a consultancy approach and if the fee payer still engages limited contractors it just shifts responsibility to the fee payer and end clients would be wise to be wary of it as you say, due to the transfer of liability options in the April 2020 drafting.

                MSP is being propositioned not as a way to remove risk, but to manage the process. i.e. we'll do the audits, assessments, get insurance and ensure the contracts are aligned with working practices. It generally involves more of a client presence so gives the agency more opportunity to influence working arrangements and so the idea (when done well) is not a sham but a management process which guides clients on what they should and shouldnb't do, takes on the admin, insures the risk and manages the overall recruitment process.

                It can be a good solution and I can see it being popular - there are drawbacks of course but for contractors if it means the client is educated by someone else on how to engage them and they can engage on an outside IR35 basis it's probably a good thing.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                  Agencies tried this with the Public Sector and on the whole failed. The few that did I am sure will be running a pretty poor model that puts the client at great risk.
                  Come to think of it maybe that's what my arrangement was, being the public sector. It was a good rate for public sector, though. But perhaps they avoided IR35 by setting themselves up as a 'consultancy' to shoulder the risk, or something. I don't know if IR35 issues would then be between me and the consultancy instead of me and the end client, or if there's some other logic in doing this. It smelled fishy so I bailed.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by ComplianceLady View Post

                    MSP is being propositioned not as a way to remove risk, but to manage the process. i.e. we'll do the audits, assessments, get insurance and ensure the contracts are aligned with working practices. It generally involves more of a client presence so gives the agency more opportunity to influence working arrangements and so the idea (when done well) is not a sham but a management process which guides clients on what they should and shouldnb't do, takes on the admin, insures the risk and manages the overall recruitment process.
                    That's another 50 quid off our day rates then...
                    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                    Comment


                      #20
                      MSP is being propositioned not as a way to remove risk, but to manage the process. i.e. we'll do the audits, assessments, get insurance and ensure the contracts are aligned with working practices. It generally involves more of a client presence so gives the agency more opportunity to influence working arrangements and so the idea (when done well) is not a sham but a management process which guides clients on what they should and shouldnb't do, takes on the admin, insures the risk and manages the overall recruitment process.
                      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                      That's another 50 quid off our day rates then...
                      You'll save on insurance though, surely you won't need to sets of liability insurance if they're covering it right

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X