exploitation by manpower

Red_Elle

Why do some people think it's only agencies that work like this? It's no different in most service led industries. I interviewed an Accountant today who works for a local firm. She's charged out to their clients at £48ph. She is paid a salary of £27k. Solicitors will be the same.

an9i77

I'm with Hammyman and Red Elle on this. Agencies are businesses - they will charge what they can get. Basically I think the OP and some of the other posters on this post are unhappy with the idea that people can be commodified in the same way as other things you buy such as fuel, food etc. But unfortunately in the big bad world of work, people are commodities. So let's call a spade a spade here.
And I don't believe recruitment agencies are making excessive, extortionate amounts of profit on each temp because if that was the case surely other agencies would come in and undercut them - the end user will surely want the cheapest deal they can find. So market forces will operate to determine the maximum price the agency can charge the client and the minimum price they can pay the agency worker.

anamenottaken

patman99 wrote: »

I
In the case of a hospital paying a nurse £25k p/a, this will save the trust £50k p/a in not having to pay an agency.

Then mynameisdave suggested the answer to my question of where the £50K came from with

25k direct employment, 50k overall cost if employed via an agency - cost, not salary received.

That would certainly mean that the original statement from patman99 was plainly wrong.

Thanet62

an9i77 wrote: »

I'm with Hammyman and Red Elle on this. Agencies are businesses - they will charge what they can get. Basically I think the OP and some of the other posters on this post are unhappy with the idea that people can be commodified in the same way as other things you buy such as fuel, food etc. But unfortunately in the big bad world of work, people are commodities. So let's call a spade a spade here.
And I don't believe recruitment agencies are making excessive, extortionate amounts of profit on each temp because if that was the case surely other agencies would come in and undercut them - the end user will surely want the cheapest deal they can find. So market forces will operate to determine the maximum price the agency can charge the client and the minimum price they can pay the agency worker.

I really despair time and time again I have pointed out that in this case as originally outlined by the OP. ROYAL MAIL have outsourced casual recruitment to an agency called ANGARD. ANGARD ARE ROYAL MAIL so in reality RM are paying themselves but paying us less. THATS THE GRIPE THATS WHERE IT BECOMES EXPLOTATION!

patman99

The £50k is what the NHS Trust saves per annum in fees to agencies for each nurse they require. They have 2 people running their Staff Bank, and it covers all positions from Porters to Surgeons. I know this is correct because a former workmate went to work there when our parent company closed the plant down and moved abroad.
His partner and her sister run the 'Bank', so he was garranteed a job.

The Agencie I work for has many branches across East Anglia and each one tends to have 4 staff to recruit and interview clients for hirers, process time-sheets and handle all the day-to-day stuff. If they are on £18k p/a, then the Agency needs to turn £72k just to cover their wages. Add-on electricity, phone, internet etc. and even a small branch needs to turn £200k just to stand-still. Based on a 39 hour week, that's £99 p/h. If they only pay NMW and charge the hirer 3x that, then they need to place at least 9 temps.

Take all this in-house and let HR deal with it and all of a sudden your costs are purely what it costs to employ one or two people to manage the recruitment system. As these people would also be used elsewhere when required, the cost-saving when running a book of 1,000 temps becomes massive.

Hammyman

mynameisdave wrote: »

25k direct employment, 50k overall cost if employed via an agency - cost, not salary received.

I assume this is where the figures come from

But it isn't just £25k. £25k may be what the nurse gets but there will be at least another £5k cost to the employer in employers NI and holiday pay.

Hammyman

Thanet62 wrote: »

I really despair time and time again I have pointed out that in this case as originally outlined by the OP. ROYAL MAIL have outsourced casual recruitment to an agency called ANGARD. ANGARD ARE ROYAL MAIL so in reality RM are paying themselves but paying us less. THATS THE GRIPE THATS WHERE IT BECOMES EXPLOTATION!

There is nothing wrong with a company setting up their own in house agency. People are not forced to work for them. You can either choose to work for them or not.

How are you getting paid less? Have they given you a pay cut as a RM employee? Have they forced you to quit your job and work for Anguard?

Thanet62

Hammyman wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with a company setting up their own in house agency. People are not forced to work for them. You can either choose to work for them or not.

How are you getting paid less? Have they given you a pay cut as a RM employee? Have they forced you to quit your job and work for Anguard?

RM contract terminated on 11th September. Transfer to Angard on 12th. So yes I had not option but to sign over to Angard if I wanted to continue working. It was work I enjoyed doing and the pay and hours suited me. AT NO TIME was I given anything to suggest that my rate of pay I was earning as a RM casual would be any different under Angard.
So min wage per hour PLUS £1.76 ph under RM is now min wage PLUS 50p PH under Angard a 16% cut.
Sunday hours min wage PLUS £4 an hour allowance ph with RM. Angard min wage PLUS 40p ph.....do the math thats a pay cut in my book for doing the same job for the same company.

Red_Elle

patman99 wrote: »

The £50k is what the NHS Trust saves per annum in fees to agencies for each nurse they require. They have 2 people running their Staff Bank, and it covers all positions from Porters to Surgeons. I know this is correct because a former workmate went to work there when our parent company closed the plant down and moved abroad.
His partner and her sister run the 'Bank', so he was garranteed a job.

The Agencie I work for has many branches across East Anglia and each one tends to have 4 staff to recruit and interview clients for hirers, process time-sheets and handle all the day-to-day stuff. If they are on £18k p/a, then the Agency needs to turn £72k just to cover their wages. Add-on electricity, phone, internet etc. and even a small branch needs to turn £200k just to stand-still. Based on a 39 hour week, that's £99 p/h. If they only pay NMW and charge the hirer 3x that, then they need to place at least 9 temps.

Take all this in-house and let HR deal with it and all of a sudden your costs are purely what it costs to employ one or two people to manage the recruitment system. As these people would also be used elsewhere when required, the cost-saving when running a book of 1,000 temps becomes massive.

I don't agree. Not every agency operates in that way. I employ one person and our rent is minimal, our overheads like electricity ridiculously low.

Agencies do not charge a massive amount for temps because then they won't be competitive. I make very little on temps for the work that goes into it; my business is mostly permanent recruitment as a result.

If a company is able to bring recruitment inhouse they would still have to pay 'internal recruiters' who are not going to be able to do the same job. They might be able to process timesheets, but will they regularly keep in touch with all applicants? If a hiring manager wanted a temp to start on Monday and it's Friday can they sort someone out in 30 minutes? There is a very real reason why some companies use agency staff and that is because it makes sense to outsource a skill like recruitment. In house people are notoriously rubbish at recruitment - they're neither HR nor sales usually.

A good recruiter needs to be sales person to 'sell' the company to a candidate. Sadly, a lot of companies are too arrogant to think they need to make any effort attracting people because everyone should just be grateful to have a job.