Agency Government Legislation 1st October

scheming_gypsy

LittleVoice wrote: »

If someone has been temping with a client for months, they probably won't have to pay much or any introduction fee.

they're taking a member of the agencies staff and any profit that they're making on that contract... of course they pay a fee.

And surely you don't think employers NI, holiday and SSP etc is not included in the fees an agency charges for a temp worker. Did you think the difference between the worker's hourly rate and the rate charged by the agency was pure profit?

I didn't say they didn't. but if an agency worker is off on long term sick the company will want a replacement worker so they're not paying for somebody to be off sick. They're paying an hourly rate that they find acceptable for a temporary worker.

Hammyman

dark_lady wrote: »

Maybe the OP hasnt got a partner who works all the hours God sends like yours did for you when you were ill.

Where did you get that idea from? She has been P/T and only recently increased hours when the owner retired.

Very easy to make comments like the one you did when you are in the favourable position of having a partner who works full time and more if you cant.

There is no overtime.

Be careful you dont fall off that high horse of yours or your wife will be having to increase her hours even more!

You must be confusing me with someone else.

anamenottaken

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

they're taking a member of the agencies staff and any profit that they're making on that contract... of course they pay a fee.

You are using the wrong agencies if you are accepting terms that you would pay an introduction fee for someone who has already worked in your business for, say, six months.


I didn't say they didn't. but if an agency worker is off on long term sick the company will want a replacement worker so they're not paying for somebody to be off sick. They're paying an hourly rate that they find acceptable for a temporary worker.

So you pay full pay to an employee who is off sick and not just SSP which is what agencies pay and build into their rates?

...............................

Saint_Skins

dmliverpool wrote: »

Again it stops this knacker yard type joke of an employment system. When the first employer told me this we both laughed LOL :rotfl:

I can bet money that if the person who posted this asks for a job from the contracted company, she will last about 2 days. In which those remaining days will be hell and they will take the obsolute mick. Then off you go, to make matters worse you will only get a reference with dates and no reference to the actual work you did for 4 years. If this type of person came to a recruitment process with me in it I wouldn't hire them as they to me have shown a distinct lack of business balls and initiative to get a real job. :cool:

Your opinion is based on the complaints i have about the legislation, i as a worker am loyal and committed and give nothing less than 100%, i have worked in full-time positions up until i joined this agency. If you haven't noticed we are in a recession still, it's not easy throwing out a few C.V's and get snapped up in a full-time position, it's bloody hard finding a job that pays reasonably well, that's local etc..So please, keep your opinions to yourself.

Saint_Skins

Hammyman wrote: »

I can only assume that you have either not read it or not understood what it meant. It is helping temp workers tremendously. Every single possible loophole I could think of has been addressed.

If you choose to work for an agency that doesn't comply with the law and not do anything about it then thats your tough luck.

I would love to believe that every possible loophole has been addressed, however, i work and have good relations with The Union, Shift leaders and the general manager of my agency, they are adamant that there is a way round it.

Saint_Skins

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

Well done Inspector Gadget, you just answered your own complaint in another one. If the company had to take you on as full time staff after 24 months then they'll end your contract before they have to take you on.

That's all good and well, and logical, however, such companies need agencies on their payroll. Some cannot maintain business without agency workers, in fact a few companies that i know are in this situation where agency are relied upon because their full-time staff are complacent, it happens, they have a secured job and the union to back them up, it's practically impossible to sack full-time staff unless it's on misconduct, therefore they can work as little as they like without the worry of repercussion, so the agency staff are there to pick up the loss, the work rate is approximately 70/30 in favour of agency. that's why they cannot let us go and they know it.

Regarding paying a recruitment fee to the agency to take us on isn't
necessary, i checked with the head of Union and the manager of the agency and they confirmed a fee is not needed. I don't quite know why though.

Saint_Skins

anamenottaken wrote: »

Couple of points:

I agree, i apologize blaming the coalition referring to this issue.

scheming_gypsy

Saint_Skins wrote: »

That's all good and well, and logical, however, such companies need agencies on their payroll. Some cannot maintain business without agency workers, in fact a few companies that i know are in this situation where agency are relied upon because their full-time staff are complacent, it happens, they have a secured job and the union to back them up, it's practically impossible to sack full-time staff unless it's on misconduct, therefore they can work as little as they like without the worry of repercussion, so the agency staff are there to pick up the loss, the work rate is approximately 70/30 in favour of agency. that's why they cannot let us go and they know it.

I know the score with agencies and temp workers etc as i'm a contractor so i go through agencies etc... but it doesn't mean that they have to get rid of the agency. If the temporary staff became permanent staff after two years then the company will tell the agency not to send that particular member of staff to them before the two years is up.
If a company wanted a permanent member of staff then they wouldn't have agency staff for that length of time. They'd be having their hand forced into taking on staff they don't want...
So they can let workers go individually and replace them individually.

Regarding paying a recruitment fee to the agency to take us on isn't
necessary, i checked with the head of Union and the manager of the agency and they confirmed a fee is not needed. I don't quite know why though.

the fee is there to compensate the agency for taking one of their workers. If you're agency staff the agency is charging the company £x and paying you £y. The difference goes towards paying the office staff, paying your holiday / sick pay, paying for office functionality and advertising etc. When an agency loses a member of staff they lose income, the fee is like a transfer fee.

GlynD

You know your stuff Gypsy. So do I btw but I'm glad you were the one to say it. I can't be bothered sometimes.

scheming_gypsy

cheers Glyn, i've been contracting for a few years now so i've dealt with a few agencies and my mum and dad both worked for a recruitment agency (labouring and HGV) for years before my dad opened his own which ran for almost 20 years. So i've had experience on how both sides work