nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

dannny1

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

Find more posts tagged with

contracting

computer futures

Quick Links

Comments

Graham

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

At the moment the company have no contractual relationship with you. They have a contract with the agency for your services.

Realistically you have 3 choices:

1) Continue as a contractor
2) The company pays the agency
3) Walk away

él statutorio

In my company I've seen this situation before.

The way we handled it was we told the agency that if they wanted us to hire any more contractors from them then they had to let that employee join us full time with out any penalty. We would constantly have at least half a dozen or so contractors working from that agency. They played ball and we got the employee we wanted.

kippy

Beano wrote: »

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.

So why hire the OP in the first place or indeed offer him a permanent job.......

It's of more benefit that seeking advice online I would wager, albeit with the additional cost of same.
IE, a definitive answer from someone familiar with such cases.

micosoft

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.

OP - please try at least to look at it from their point of view. If they were to say "OK" then every client of theirs could say after the first month - "he/she looks good, let's just pay them direct and dump agency". Thats the end of the business model.

Both you and the company signed up to these terms and conditions. The problem is that the company did not budget appropriately and I can guarantee that if they really needed you for 4 months they'd find the 30%. IMHO they are the ones at fault here and it's simply not fair to expect a agency to give up what is in effect their primary income to suit some company who was supplied with exactly what they want. The time to "negotiate" was at the start. Nothing unreasonable about it - thats the way business works. As for future business? What happens next time they want a contractor? Demand they work direct after a week?

If you really want you could send your CV into every IT manager in Dublin. Set up a ltd company and accountant to sort out your tax affairs. And hope that the companies in question are looking for someone and willing to trawl through every CV sent in (in this climate that means 100's a month). Or you could just hire an agency.....
FYI I'm a manager in a company and hire in contract employees.

dannny1

Beano wrote: »

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

It's not a discount, the company wish to not use the recruiters at all.

The fees they charge change on how much they can get, sometimes its 30% of a daily rate, sometime 15%. They also lie to the contractor about this all the time, with this current contract I was told it was 15, then subsequently discovered it's 30.

The company have been naive.

There business model is barring me from work at absolutely no advantage to any party. In four months I would have been more then willing to use the recruiter again for another contract, now I won't. I am absolutely sure the company won't use them again either. This was the first time they decided to use a recruitment agency to find a contractor, I would agree it's been a handled badly.

Graham

dannny1 wrote: »

There business model is barring me from work at absolutely no advantage to any party.

No it's not barring you, it's just going to cost. The fact remains that this is something that all parties agreed to prior to the commencement of your existing contract.

Beano

dannny1 wrote: »

It's not a discount, the company wish to not use the recruiters at all.

The fees they charge change on how much they can get, sometimes its 30% of a daily rate, sometime 15%. They also lie to the contractor about this all the time, with this current contract I was told it was 15, then subsequently discovered it's 30.

The company have been naive.

There business model is barring me from work at absolutely no advantage to any party. In four months I would have been more then willing to use the recruiter again for another contract, now I won't. I am absolutely sure the company won't use them again either. This was the first time they decided to use a recruitment agency to find a contractor, I would agree it's been a handled badly.

So they want it for nothing? what a bunch of numpties.

agriva8

IIRC, there was no such clause in the contract between CF and myself. I only discovered it by talking to the hiring manager at the client.

dannny1

micosoft wrote: »

OP - please try at least to look at it from their point of view. If they were to say "OK" then every client of theirs could say after the first month - "he/she looks good, let's just pay them direct and dump agency". Thats the end of the business model.

Both you and the company signed up to these terms and conditions. The problem is that the company did not budget appropriately and I can guarantee that if they really needed you for 4 months they'd find the 30%. IMHO they are the ones at fault here and it's simply not fair to expect a agency to give up what is in effect their primary income to suit some company who was supplied with exactly what they want. The time to "negotiate" was at the start. Nothing unreasonable about it - thats the way business works. As for future business? What happens next time they want a contractor? Demand they work direct after a week?

If you really want you could send your CV into every IT manager in Dublin. Set up a ltd company and accountant to sort out your tax affairs. And hope that the companies in question are looking for someone and willing to trawl through every CV sent in (in this climate that means 100's a month). Or you could just hire an agency.....
FYI I'm a manager in a company and hire in contract employees.

21,000 to allow the company to hire me for an extra 4 months?! The term of the contract has to be met, I don't disagree with this, but they are not releasing me from a contract, they are setting conditions for after the contract ends. The company want to hire me AFTER the contract ends, the recruiter are asking for an extortionate amount of money to allow this. So companies couldn't just feck the contract and hire the contractor as you describe, I am talking about a certain condition within the contract which takes effect AFTER the contract ends.

I agree with us signing up to the T&C's, but I think you misunderstood the situation, and despite the T&C's I think the recruiter is acting unreasonably.

I set up the accountant etc. myself, so they had nothing to do with that. The only way to get a job is not to just mail your CV indiscriminately to IT managers such as yourself...

Graham wrote: »

No it's not barring you, it's just going to cost. The fact remains that this is something that all parties agreed to prior to the commencement of your existing contract.

True, but the contract has ended, and the amount they are asking for does not make sense. I agree they have to protect their business model, but I have completed the first contract and an extension, they are no setting terms for after the contract ends, terms which I feel are unreasonable.

Beano wrote: »

So they want it for nothing? what a bunch of numpties.

They are willing to pay something, just not THAT much.

Beano

Just to clarify something for me. This €21,000 you are referring to. Is this the commission that CF expect to receive for the 4 month extension? Or is it the total cost to the company for the 4 months?

dannny1

Beano wrote: »

Just to clarify something for me. This €21,000 you are referring to. Is this the commission that CF expect to receive for the 4 month extension? Or is it the total cost to the company for the 4 months?

It is how much the recruiters want in order to exempt the company from the condition which states that they cannot hire me, or procure and service from me, either directly or indirectly, for 12 months after the contract ends.

Beano

I'm not sure we are getting the full picture. If the company only want you for the next 4 months then sure they can pay the agency fee for those 4 months. Which would be a LOT less than €21,000 (assuming you are not on absolutely massive daily rate). So presumably the company want to keep you on for longer than those 4 months?

dannny1

Beano wrote: »

I'm not sure we are getting the full picture. If the company only want you for the next 4 months then sure they can pay the agency fee for those 4 months. Which would be a LOT less than €21,000 (assuming you are not on absolutely massive daily rate). So presumably the company want to keep you on for longer than those 4 months?

The company have a project which has been estimated to take 4 months, but wish to have the option to extend it depending on how everything goes. They are not happy with the agency fee as it stands and wish to hire me without having to pay the agency fee. Money is tight enough.

They want rid of the recruitment agency so they, and I, have a lot more flexibility and options.

Whichever way you look at it, and considering they have been earning a percentage on top of my daily rate for 10 months already, 21,000 is a huge amount to place someone in a position such as mine.

srsly78

They aren't charging you that money, they are charging your employer. I bet your employer tries to pass it on to you tho via pay cut.

fergalr

Beano wrote: »

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.

srsly78 wrote: »

They aren't charging you that money, they are charging your employer. I bet your employer tries to pass it on to you tho via pay cut.

I wish people wouldn't keep saying 'its the company that pays the recruiter' and 'you are the product'.

On the 'its the company pays the recruiter':

The recruiter, as a broker, takes a cut. The cut comes from a combination of the employer and the employee in effect - its taken from that transaction.
Even if the money only leaves the employers bank account, both the employer and the employee pay, in effect.

The idea is that the recruiter adds value by helping both the employer and employee find more valuable trades (i.e. better matched skills) than they otherwise wouldn't.

If this is not the case for you, then *stop using recruiters*.

If it is the case, then stop complaining.

On the 'you are the product':

Its a two sided market.

The recruiting company is selling their ability to find staff, to the employer.
But they are also selling their ability to find jobs, to the contractor.

The recruiting company is selling to both parties.

OP: Read any contracts you sign in future.

If this sort of thing is coming as a surprise to you, then either a) someone is pulling shenanigans (check your contract) or more likely b) you didn't do your job properly when you signed up (the first part of which was to read your contract).

What you should do is tell the employer and recruitment agency the terms under which you are willing to stay, and let them take it or leave it. The recruiter might not negotiate, as they have a reputation to protect, as they have to optimise not across just you, but across all possible future employer-employee pairs who will try and negotiate.

If they don't take those terms, then walk. And read your contracts the next time.

Beano

fergalr wrote: »

I wish people wouldn't keep saying 'its the company that pays the recruiter' and 'you are the product'.

On the 'its the company pays the recruiter':

The recruiter, as a broker, takes a cut. The cut comes from a combination of the employer and the employee in effect - its taken from that transaction.
Even if the money only leaves the employers bank account, both the employer and the employee pay, in effect.

No they dont. If a worker agrees a contract with an agency they agree a daily rate. The agency fee is paid on top of that by the hiring company.

fergalr wrote: »

On the 'you are the product':

Its a two sided market.

The recruiting company is selling their ability to find staff, to the employer.
But they are also selling their ability to find jobs, to the contractor.

The recruiting company is selling to both parties.

It is far from being as two-sided as you seem to believe. All recruitment agents care about is having enough CVs to submit for a job. They dont care about any individual. They just care that one of the CVs they submit gets hired. They are not your friend. You are definitely the product.

Dave!

dannny1 wrote: »

The company have a project which has been estimated to take 4 months, but wish to have the option to extend it depending on how everything goes. They are not happy with the agency fee as it stands and wish to hire me without having to pay the agency fee. Money is tight enough.

They want rid of the recruitment agency so they, and I, have a lot more flexibility and options.

Whichever way you look at it, and considering they have been earning a percentage on top of my daily rate for 10 months already, 21,000 is a huge amount to place someone in a position such as mine.

They've been able to afford you, including the agency fee, for this long, so they can surely afford it for another 4+ months... If they're anticipating in the next few months not being able to pay for you what they've been paying you to date, then maybe you shouldn't be getting too comfortable there!

Sounds to me like your employer is trying to cut costs, which obviously they should always be interested in doing - but instead of accepting that they signed a contract stipulating what you outlined in the OP, they're seemingly putting the responsibility on you to help them cut costs.

Have a read of whatever you signed with CF, but really it's between the employer and them, so they should be the ones thinking about paying for lawyers or whatever. You just tell them you'd be happy to keep working for them at the current rate, and then start putting the feelers out for another job - perhaps not through CF this time!

awec

dannny1 wrote: »

The company have a project which has been estimated to take 4 months, but wish to have the option to extend it depending on how everything goes. They are not happy with the agency fee as it stands and wish to hire me without having to pay the agency fee. Money is tight enough.

They want rid of the recruitment agency so they, and I, have a lot more flexibility and options.

Whichever way you look at it, and considering they have been earning a percentage on top of my daily rate for 10 months already, 21,000 is a huge amount to place someone in a position such as mine.

If you look at it from their point of view - the place you currently work is looking to take their product (you) and not pay them for it.

Recruitment firms make their money through their cut - if there were no rules in place to prevent what you are trying to do whats to stop companies just hiring all the decent contractors after a few weeks and screwing over the recruitment firms?

fergalr

Beano wrote: »

No they dont. If a worker agrees a contract with an agency they agree a daily rate. The agency fee is paid on top of that by the hiring company.

The agency fee comes from the value of the contract.

If the agency doesn't create more value (by better matching) then they take, their excess take comes from both employer and employee.

If workers and employers were as efficiently matched, without recruiters, workers would get paid more. (some disclaimers apply).

There's no point saying that the fee is paid by the hiring company.

That'd be like the government deciding to quadruple emploper's PRSI and saying 'oh, nothing is being taken from the worker' - both the worker and the employer would lose money.

To think otherwise, just because the money would come from the employer's account, would be a very naive way of looking at things.

Beano wrote: »

It is far from being as two-sided as you seem to believe. All recruitment agents care about is having enough CVs to submit for a job. They dont care about any individual. They just care that one of the CVs they submit gets hired. They are not your friend. You are definitely the product.

Recruiters depend on a good supply of job seekers, in order to get their cut.

Just because someone is ignoring one side of the market doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The substandard service they are perceived as offering is probably leaving money on the table.

musicfan1ie

Hey OP, not sure of your status but as you're using CF, I'm assuming you have a limited company, as this is ther way of operating. So that it's one ltd company to them and then onto another ltd company (the client).

Their purpose is to avoid an employer / employee link where possible. If this is your case, I suggest that you set up a new company and apply directly to your client for a newly named role - avoid the same title. You can then close down your old company. Their relationship would be with the old entity,, of which your its employee. Then, you will join your new company.

If you're a standalone guy, getting paid payroll by CF. I suggest you set up a ltd company. Not your fault if they were to second you into your current clients premises for a fee

srsly78

Do you really think they missed out on silly tricks like that? As already mentioned in thread the legalese will say something like "directly or indirectly".

musicfan1ie

srsly78 wrote: »

Do you really think they missed out on silly tricks like that? As already mentioned in thread the legalese will say something like "directly or indirectly".

Depends on who signed the contract. If it's with Company X, that's who their contracts with. They can't stop Company Y hiring anyone and contracting them out. It would be a monumental breach of company law. Remember in a ltd company, the OP is an employee of Company X, not CF.

dannny1

awec wrote: »

If you look at it from their point of view - the place you currently work is looking to take their product (you) and not pay them for it.

Recruitment firms make their money through their cut - if there were no rules in place to prevent what you are trying to do whats to stop companies just hiring all the decent contractors after a few weeks and screwing over the recruitment firms?

I have completed the contract which is in place, I am talking about what happens AFTER a contract has been honored. You're misunderstanding the situation, the contract itself stops the situation which you outline.

Graham

Do the terms of your contract not cover the 12 months after completion of your existing assignment?

dannny1

Graham wrote: »

Do the terms of your contract not cover the 12 months after completion of your existing assignment?

I'm not getting into a semantic argument, the situation is quite clear through the thread.

The terms of the contract preclude me from working for the company for 12 months after the term of the contract, the contract between the recruiter and the company precludes the company from hiring me for same term.

The recruiter is willing to waive this condition on payment of a figure that is, in my opinion, completely unreasonable in order to place a candidate in a position such as mine, for the term outlined.

Graham

If you think the figure is unreasonable then do you not have the option to continue the existing contract under the same terms?

stevenmu

I understand your frustration OP, but I think you have to look at it from CFs point of view as well. The company you work with came to CF and purchased a service from them, they are CFs paying customer. CF then put you in a position of trust with their customer. By shutting them out of the loop, you are effectively leveraging the position that they put you in to steal their customer.

Keep in mind as well that if CF had not placed you with this company in the first place, you would probably not have this offer from them now.

dannny1

I won't be answering any more to this thread, we are just repeating ourselves. Thanks.

dazberry

dannny1 wrote: »

The recruiter is willing to waive this condition on payment of a figure that is, in my opinion, completely unreasonable in order to place a candidate in a position such as mine, for the term outlined.

If CF are making say €100 on your daily rate to the company, then at an average of 220 days per year worked that's 22k they'll not "earn" next year. I'd would guess the calculation is based on something like that. The fact that it's for 4 months is irrelevant (I did a 3 month contract that lasted 7 1/2 years). Simply put, if its for less than a year the company would be best keeping the existing arrangement, if it's for more than it would be worth looking at (subject to cashflow), otherwise they can't afford you.

BTW: This exact same thing happened in a company I worked in who tried to take on a couple of contractors permanently, there was a lot of moaning and gnashing of teeth but in the end they had agreed to it from the get-go by signing the contracts so they had to pay it.

D.

Gheadphone

Your company has been naive and not planned for an expanded project. I feel bad for you but i see this as a problem with your company, not the agency. All agencies work this way.

Either -convince the company to pay the agency
OR -Find another contract

Maybe go back directly to the company once the cool off period has elapsed.