Are agency's destroying this country ?

sexki11en

jay_1978 wrote: »

I agree the banks are really screwing us all, The only problem I have is I have to use these agency's, The work I do which is FLT driving is run by agency's now. I think its not right that I am forced into a job where I could be gone the next week or when work slows down. I have a feeling of security if its a actual company who are employing me and not some agency, You are correct that agency's have pros and cons for some folk but I personally don't want to use them but I have no choice.

But that's not the agencies fault, it's the companies fault. Most companies who use FLT drivers are seasonal which is why they use agencies. They can take as many people on as they need to see them through their peak, then let them go when they don't need them. Supply & demand.

It's the companies who are causing this not the agencies. I think you'll find there are hardly any companies using agencies at the moment (apart from your line of work) as they have to pay for the service.

I think it's a bit rediculous to say agencies are the reason so many people are unemployed! It's because there are no jobs.

SK x

sexki11en

jay_1978 wrote: »

In my case the agency just stopped finding work, They would find work for a few month which is what happened in my case then they just stopped calling, This is because they use you for that period of time then get more people on the books and do the same with them and that's how it works.

I find this VERY hard to believe. If you find a good worker, you hang on to him/her for dear life because good, reliable workers are near on impossible to find. The only way I would stop calling someone who had worked regularly for me is if they had let me down in any way.

jay_1978 wrote: »

I also hear that the agency's get money from the gvment for getting people signed up, Not sure if that's true or not but it sounds right.

Completely untrue. I absolutely love some of the rumours that start about agencies. I only wish half of them were true.

SK x

sexki11en

GotToChange wrote: »

Also - I have heard frome a VERY reliable source that pretty soon agency staff must be taken on by an employer after a 12-week period. Or laid off - and the same person cannot be set back on for a certain length of time.

You need a new reliable source.

Agency workers will have the same rights as permanent workers after 12 weeks and it's already in force now. This does not mean you will be a permanent worker, you will still be a temp and can be let go at any time but you will have the same rights. Employers will not like this and will simply get around it by offering 3 month perm contracts.

SK x

RacyRed

sexki11en wrote: »

I find this VERY hard to believe. If you find a good worker, you hang on to him/her for dear life because good, reliable workers are near on impossible to find. The only way I would stop calling someone who had worked regularly for me is if they had let me down in any way.

SK x

Really? And what do you consider a good, reliable worker to be? Someone who will slog their guts out time and time again working for a fraction of what the company are paying the agency?

There is a massive difference between recruitment and contract employment agencies.

Recruitment agencies sift candidates to fill permanent positions, and are paid a percentage of the agreed salary. They make life easier for candidates and employers. They also tend to have some care for candidates, after all, they want you to use them again the next time you want to change jobs.

Temp and contract agencies work solely for themselves. Their purpose is to provide the required skills at the lowest rate possible to companies and give those companies the convenience of not having to worry oo much about employment law, they can "hire and fire" at will - the contracts are with the agency, not the employee. Companies agree a rate with the agency and a % of that is paid to the employee, this can vary massively and is where the agency make their money.

With temp and contract agencies you have no job security, they can and do stop providing work if the pay rate you negotiated with them is reviewed and considered to be too high. Pay rates drop as unemployment rates increase and the job market becomes flooded. Drying up work from agencies is usually a simple matter of economics, they have found someone else with your skill sets who will work for a lower pay rate.

In the meantime, those of us having to rely on agencies for work find ourselves in a downward spiral of working harder and longer hours for less and less pay, added to a total lack of job security.

Agencies rarely drop the % they keep, it is the workers who take the pay cut. If there were not so many exploitative agencies trying to cash in just now companies would have to take on more permanent staff.

Look at the recent disputes where companies have seen fit to demand that their work force accept changes to their contracts or have them torn up and be made redundant. What is it makes companies think that this is acceptable behaviour in the 21st century?

Agencies telling them not to worry about the work force, there is always someone else deperate enough to take the job on, no matter what the terms.

So yes, agencies do make a contribution to the demise of our economy by adding to the insecurity felt by the work force/spending public.

WhiteHorse

Many employment agencies use a variety of tricks - advertising non-existent vacancies, or continuing to advertise vacancies that were filled some time ago, and so on. All are intended to get you on their books.

I've always found that agencies that make a habit of this sort of thing are actually less likely to deliver.

hartcjhart

RacyRed wrote: »

Really? And what do you consider a good, reliable worker to be? Someone who will slog their guts out time and time again working for a fraction of what the company are paying the agency?

There is a massive difference between recruitment and contract employment agencies.

Recruitment agencies sift candidates to fill permanent positions, and are paid a percentage of the agreed salary. They make life easier for candidates and employers. They also tend to have some care for candidates, after all, they want you to use them again the next time you want to change jobs.

Temp and contract agencies work solely for themselves. Their purpose is to provide the required skills at the lowest rate possible to companies and give those companies the convenience of not having to worry oo much about employment law, they can "hire and fire" at will - the contracts are with the agency, not the employee. Companies agree a rate with the agency and a % of that is paid to the employee, this can vary massively and is where the agency make their money.

With temp and contract agencies you have no job security, they can and do stop providing work if the pay rate you negotiated with them is reviewed and considered to be too high. Pay rates drop as unemployment rates increase and the job market becomes flooded. Drying up work from agencies is usually a simple matter of economics, they have found someone else with your skill sets who will work for a lower pay rate.

In the meantime, those of us having to rely on agencies for work find ourselves in a downward spiral of working harder and longer hours for less and less pay, added to a total lack of job security.

Agencies rarely drop the % they keep, it is the workers who take the pay cut. If there were not so many exploitative agencies trying to cash in just now companies would have to take on more permanent staff.

Look at the recent disputes where companies have seen fit to demand that their work force accept changes to their contracts or have them torn up and be made redundant. What is it makes companies think that this is acceptable behaviour in the 21st century?

Agencies telling them not to worry about the work force, there is always someone else deperate enough to take the job on, no matter what the terms.

So yes, agencies do make a contribution to the demise of our economy by adding to the insecurity felt by the work force/spending public.

1)you must work for a crap agency, in my line of work I earn MORE via the agency than I would DIRECT for a company

2) No companies would not take on more staff, BUT make the original worforce do more

3)totally the opposite,agencies provide jobs (temp) that otherwise might not be available

hartcjhart

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Many employment agencies use a variety of tricks - advertising non-existent vacancies, or continuing to advertise vacancies that were filled some time ago, and so on. All are intended to get you on their books.

I've always found that agencies that make a habit of this sort of thing are actually less likely to deliver.

so what is the problem of being on multiple agency books? NOTHING, the more agencies you are with the more chance of getting work,

your view point is like saying' It's only worth looking on one website for work

Frenchfry_2

Couldn't agree more with the statement agency are ruining this country. I have to major grumbles with agencies 1)Nearly all the jobs advertised are through agency and they decide if your cv gets sent on to the actuall company for the job. I just dont see this as giving everyone a fair chance. 2)More and more company's use agency staff so they have no real responsibilty for workers, making it easier to treat them how they want and just replace them if they don't do what they want with out hassle.

OK rant over

This is just my personal experience and view only.

dickydonkin

sexki11en wrote: »

I find this VERY hard to believe. If you find a good worker, you hang on to him/her for dear life because good, reliable workers are near on impossible to find. The only way I would stop calling someone who had worked regularly for me is if they had let me down in any way.
SK x

Of course, agencies never 'let down' the people who are on their books - which we all know is a load of rubbish - unfortunately, many agency workers who have also been 'let down' cannot afford the luxury to 'stop calling'.

As for stating that 'good reliable workers' being 'near on impossible to find', in my mind, that is an insult to the many poor sods, many of who bust a gut in the hope of obtaining a full time contract with the agency's client that for the majority, never materialises.

I make no secret of my disdain to recruitment agencies as I have had some awful experiences with them - not working for them - but when actually seeking employment.

I have also worked with and provided inductions for many agency workers - most of who were excellent grafters and many were given full time positions, however, in the current climate, many are now just being used and abused by agencies and employers alike.

I can understand the need for flexibility in a workplace in respect of attaining the ratio between manning levels and the amount of work available at a given time in a workplace. Unfortunately, such requirements comes at the expense of deeming the agency worker as an expendable commodity rather than an asset to a company.

I know agency work will suit many people's needs - I have never disputed that, but for many, as I have already stated earlier, they are unfortunately a necessary evil.

1)you must work for a crap agency, in my line of work I earn MORE via the agency than I would DIRECT for a company.

So you are a 'Temp' who can be dumped when it suits with a contract of service as opposed to a contract of employment - I know which I would rather have.

2) No companies would not take on more staff, BUT make the original worforce do more

Many employees will relish the opportunity of overtime.

3)totally the opposite,agencies provide jobs (temp) that otherwise might not be available

Please rethink what you have just posted here. Agencies DO NOT PROVIDE THE JOBS, they are providing a 'service' for the companies (their clients) who actually have the available jobs (temporary or otherwise). Without their clients and their jobs, there would be no requirement for employment recruiting agencies.

RacyRed

hartcjhart wrote: »

[/COLOR]


1)you must work for a crap agency, in my line of work I earn MORE via the agency than I would DIRECT for a company

2) No companies would not take on more staff, BUT make the original worforce do more

3)totally the opposite,agencies provide jobs (temp) that otherwise might not be available

From what you are saying I'd guess you work in some sort of highly skilled sector, just as I used to.

At one time I would have agreed with point 1. But then the recession hit my sector head on and I saw temp rates for exactly the same job fall by 50% within a year. Same task, same company, same hours, 50% less pay. I have the emails to back this up in case anyone thinks I'm inventing it. I turned the job down the first year because I got a higher rate elsewhere and was offered the same position the following year at the lower rate.

I disagree with point 2. I've watched as employers made permanent staff redundant, changed the job descriptions and employed cheaper temp staff, because it saved money and enabled the companies to be "flexible" regarding staffing levels.

With point 3 I'd agree, in a stable economy. But our economy is no longer stable, so this no longer holds true. Temp staff are replacing more expensve permanent staff.

It is a vicious circle. Many employers have made staff redundant in the last 2 years. Redundant staff cannot find permanent roles so look for temp work. As the pool of available temps increases, temp pay rates drop as people become more desperate for work.

People end up doing the equivalent of their "old" jobs for less pay and less security.

If your sector hasn't been affected, that is great, but don't think that temp/contract work won't be affected if you start seeing redundancies being made by the companies you contract with.