Computer Futures, enormous trouble with contract, stopping me from getting a job!

dannny1 · 29-10-2013 12:47PM #1

I am currently coming to the end of a contract done through Computer Futures. The company I work for want to keep me on, but don't want to go through computer futures (budget issues). Now computer futures are saying that in order for the company to hire me they want 21,000, effectively barring the company from hiring me.

Has anyone came up against this crap? Computer futures have profited greatly from my work since January and are now barring me from getting more work over money they will never see!

And here's me thinking that there would be some gratitude for the money I have been making them while they sat on their holes.. AND here's me thinking they were in the business of finding people work. Let people be warned when a recruiter says thay it's a contract and there 'may be a chance of a permanent position' at the end of it, it will be contingent on the company paying the recruitment agency an exorbitant amount of money..

I would love to know if anyone has came up against this before??

Thanks

Giblet · 29-10-2013 12:52PM

Quit the job.
Then reapply.

dannny1 · 29-10-2013 12:54PM

Can't, they have in the contract that they can either pay them x amount (21,000) or not hire me in any capacity whatsoever for 12 months after the contract ends.

irishgrover · 29-10-2013 12:58PM

what are the T&C's of your contract with CF. Is there specifically an exclusion period? Also, do you know what the T&C's are between CF and your current placement company? They may also be exclusion period there?

Graham · 29-10-2013 01:05PM

This is fairly standard whenever a company wishes to hire someone supplied through an agency as a contractor.

The fee is generally calculated as a percentage of the offered salary and benefits the same as when an agency places a permanent employee with a new company.

You will probably find in your contract with the agency that you agreed not to work or solicit work directly with the company you are working with. The company you are working with will have agreed not to solicit you to work directly for them. Usually this is for 12 months on both sides.

agriva8 · 29-10-2013 01:09PM

I had similar a few years ago. I was coming to the end of my contract with a client and they wanted me to stay, but couldn't afford the contract rate (CF were making a larger than normal % from me as this was a high-profile company).
I was happy to stay, even if the perm. rate was slightly below industry average, it was interesting work.
CF would not let me work for the client directly for 6 months; this was specialized work, and very few people in the country were interested or had the skill.
The client and I had to part company, leaving me without work for the best part of 4 months. :mad:

dannny1 · 29-10-2013 01:10PM

The T&Cs do state that. The company wish to extend my working here for an extra 4 months, budget constraints preclude them from paying CF their cut, which is quite substantial.

From my perspective they are blocking the company from hiring me for money they are v=never going to see anyway. I mean, what is the point of that condition in a situation where the company want to hire the contractor, but can't afford to pay the recruiter that amount.

Does the figure 21,000 not seem a bit much considering they want to keep me for another 4 months only? What, in the first place, is the point of these conditions in the contract apart from lessening the chance of me finding work?!

I have made computer futures a lot of money through this contract, I find there current position on this unreasonable.

dannny1 · 29-10-2013 01:12PM

agriva8 wrote: »

I had similar a few years ago. I was coming to the end of my contract with a client and they wanted me to stay, but couldn't afford the contract rate (CF were making a larger than normal % from me as this was a high-profile company).
I was happy to stay, even if the perm. rate was slightly below industry average, it was interesting work.
CF would not let me work for the client directly for 6 months; this was specialized work, and very few people in the country were interested or had the skill.
The client and I had to part company, leaving me without work for the best part of 4 months. :mad:

This is the exact position I am finding myself in, I find it absolutely ridiculous. At the start I was told by CF that there would be a 'good chance' of permanent work, never was it mentioned that this was precluded on the company paying them such a huge amount of money!

srsly78 · 29-10-2013 01:15PM

Yeah this is pretty standard. It's the hiring companies own fault for using recruitment agents.

In the past I contacted a large company directly about a job and they really wanted to hire me. However their HR department insisted I go through a recruitment agency, which meant them taking a whopping 30% cut for doing nothing!?

dannny1 · 29-10-2013 01:18PM

srsly78 wrote: »

Yeah this is pretty standard. It's the hiring companies own fault for using recruitment agents.

In the past I contacted a large company directly about a job and they really wanted to hire me. However their HR department insisted I go through a recruitment agency, which meant them taking a whopping 30% cut for doing nothing!?

This is exactly the percentage Computer Futures are taking.

It makes more sense for recruitment agencies to put in these conditions in order to continue passing around contractors and profiting from our work, while impeding contractors ability to gain permanent employment.

I have made them so much money this year, and they had to do absolutely nothing for it.

srsly78 · 29-10-2013 01:21PM

30% is robbery in the current market. My last contract had a 15% markup for the agency (as revealed accidentally by a screenshot of timesheet

).

Graham · 29-10-2013 01:24PM

Your only hope is the company you are working with and the agency can negotiate on the percentage.

Unless you discover that neither you or the company you are working with had signed anything agreeing to these terms initially.

dannny1 · 29-10-2013 01:27PM

Graham wrote: »

Your only hope is the company you are working with and the agency can negotiate on the percentage.

Unless you discover that neither you or the company you are working with had signed anything agreeing to these terms initially.

It is my understanding the company I work for have tried to negotiate on the figure, they have also offered Computer Futures free marketing services at events the company runs etc. to no avail.

I just think Computer Futures are being terribly unreasonable.

Graham · 29-10-2013 01:31PM

dannny1 wrote: »

It is my understanding the company I work for have tried to negotiate on the figure, they have also offered Computer Futures free marketing services at events the company runs etc. to no avail.

I just think Computer Futures are being terribly unreasonable.

Did you and the company you are working with sign any legal documents agreeing not to solicit each other to work directly when you started your current contract?

srsly78 · 29-10-2013 01:34PM

The problem is the employer and the recruitment agency would have signed an agreement as well, so that's two contracts with exclusivity clauses. The agencies know how to secure their position, and are willing to get litigious.

kippy · 29-10-2013 01:36PM

Probably worth looking into some legal advice - I assume only a solicitor with experience in employment law would be able to decipher the various contracts at play.
It might be worth a couple of hundred euro on your behalf OP to get some proper advice on this.

Beano · 29-10-2013 01:39PM

dannny1 wrote: »

This is exactly the percentage Computer Futures are taking.

It makes more sense for recruitment agencies to put in these conditions in order to continue passing around contractors and profiting from our work, while impeding contractors ability to gain permanent employment.

I have made them so much money this year, and they had to do absolutely nothing for it.

They had to find you the job. How is that nothing? Not to defend Computer Futures but what they are doing is standard for all recruitment agencies.

And to clarify something. A recruitment agency is not in the business of finding people work. They are in the business of finding employees for companies. Think about who pays the recruitment agencies. It is the company that pays them. They are the client of the recruitment agency. You are the product that the agency is selling.

Graham · 29-10-2013 01:41PM

Beano wrote: »

You are the product that the agency is selling.

This

Up until now the company have been renting you, now they want to buy.

Beano · 29-10-2013 01:43PM

kippy wrote: »

Probably worth looking into some legal advice - I assume only a solicitor with experience in employment law would be able to decipher the various contracts at play.
It might be worth a couple of hundred euro on your behalf OP to get some proper advice on this.

It probably isn't. If it was possible to get out of these contracts the company itself would have taken legal advice to save themselves €21,000. So either they haven't because they know from experience that it is a waste of money or they have and they have been told they haven't a leg to stand on.

dannny1 · 29-10-2013 01:49PM

Graham wrote: »

This

Up until now the company have been renting you, now they want to buy.

That's not accurate, they want to continue renting my services I provide from me, not from the recruitment agency. The recruitment agency is asking for more money that it is reasonable to pay for an extra 4 months work

Devi · 29-10-2013 01:50PM

What’s the exact wording on the contract? Does it specifically say ‘employ’? If so can you not start your own company and have the employer sub contract work to that company. Don’t know if that will work but that’s the kind of loop holes you want to be looking for.

dannny1 · 29-10-2013 01:54PM

Beano wrote: »

They had to find you the job. How is that nothing? Not to defend Computer Futures but what they are doing is standard for all recruitment agencies.

And to clarify something. A recruitment agency is not in the business of finding people work. They are in the business of finding employees for companies. Think about who pays the recruitment agencies. It is the company that pays them. They are the client of the recruitment agency. You are the product that the agency is selling.

I don't care if it's 'standard'. My point is the agency is being unreasonable. They know the company cannot pay what they are asking. I am looking for work again after the contract ends, I cease to be the agency's product. It's not like they can put me back on the shelf and advertise me to other clients, I won't deal with again, either will the company I work for, all for a sum of money they will never see. Everyone walks away from the situation for nothing, at no gain to anyone, for a sum of money, I re iterate, the recruiter will never see.

dannny1 · 29-10-2013 01:57PM

dannny1 wrote: »

That's not accurate, they want to continue renting my services I provide from me, not from the recruitment agency. The recruitment agency is asking for more money that it is reasonable to pay for an extra 4 months work

If I was 'their product' I would have no choice as to whether I work another contract for them, or get another position through them, or not. Obviously I do have a choice. It's to no advantage to the recruiter to ask for a prohibitive sum of money in order for the company to retain my services sans recruiter, a situation the company have made it clear they can't afford anyway!

dannny1 · 29-10-2013 01:58PM

Devi wrote: »

What’s the exact wording on the contract? Does it specifically say ‘employ’? If so can you not start your own company and have the employer sub contract work to that company. Don’t know if that will work but that’s the kind of loop holes you want to be looking for.

That I can't provide services 'directly or indirectly', which is pretty tight in fairness.

Stheno · 29-10-2013 02:00PM

dannny1 wrote: »

That I can't provide services 'directly or indirectly', which is pretty tight in fairness.

You've no real options then either the company pay CF or you can't work for them.

Devi · 29-10-2013 02:02PM

dannny1 wrote: »

That I can't provide services 'directly or indirectly', which is pretty tight in fairness.

Ah ok. Not a lot you can do then bar renegotiation.

GBXI · 29-10-2013 02:09PM

dannny1 wrote: »

I don't care if it's 'standard'. My point is the agency is being unreasonable. They know the company cannot pay what they are asking. I am looking for work again after the contract ends, I cease to be the agency's product. It's not like they can put me back on the shelf and advertise me to other clients, I won't deal with again, either will the company I work for, all for a sum of money they will never see. Everyone walks away from the situation for nothing, at no gain to anyone, for a sum of money, I re iterate, the recruiter will never see.

Why don't CF and the client continue the arrangement for the extended 4 months?

I understand that the client don't want to keep you on permanently (just for another 4 months), so it seems very odd to me that the client would have signed T&Cs with CF saying that if you are to be kept on for an additional period of time (that isn't in a perm capacity) the client will then have to pay 30% of an annual salary.

Beano · 29-10-2013 02:14PM

dannny1 wrote: »

I don't care if it's 'standard'. My point is the agency is being unreasonable. They know the company cannot pay what they are asking. I am looking for work again after the contract ends, I cease to be the agency's product. It's not like they can put me back on the shelf and advertise me to other clients, I won't deal with again, either will the company I work for, all for a sum of money they will never see. Everyone walks away from the situation for nothing, at no gain to anyone, for a sum of money, I re iterate, the recruiter will never see.

there is more at stake for the recruitment agency than just this particular piece of money. They want to maintain their business model. Giving discounts on their fees because a company has decided that they cant afford them is not part of that model.

If i was you the people i would be pissed at are the company you are working for. Every company that uses recruitment agencies knows how this works. The time for negotiation is at the start. They seem to have handled this very poorly

srsly78 · 29-10-2013 02:15PM

Yeah, everyone wants to try to play "hardball". Hardball for the OP in this case is to walk away.

scorn · 29-10-2013 02:20PM

If the client was in a postition to offer further placements through CF then CF are shooting themselves in the foot by taking this stance.

On more than one occasion my current 'employer' (i.e. the company I contract to) have requested a cut in their slice as my contract was renewed several times. This they did, as it meant that I was still generating revenue for them and that there was a liklihood of the company needing further staff in the future.

To be honest, I feel the OPs gripe is valid - there shoudl have been a middle ground negotiated somehow. Unless the company got really hard-nosed about not also being willing to meet somewhere in the middle with the agency. The OP could also have offered to reduce his rate if it's only for 4 months...

drumswan · 29-10-2013 02:22PM

dannny1 wrote: »

That I can't provide services 'directly or indirectly', which is pretty tight in fairness.

Ive always wondered about the legality of clauses such as this. Definitely worth seeking legal advice.

Computer Futures, enormous trouble with contract, stopping me from getting a job!

Comments