MarkO

Surely agencies wouldn't stoop to anything so low, would they?

ptholt

i have nothing against agents in particular just think they are making a depressed market appear much worse for there own gain.

I have nothing against them making 15-20% or more if im happy, plus when i worked at RSA and some of my mates went direct they went 8-10 weeks till the accounts dept decided to get round to paying him, so from that respect i dont mind them taking some and acting as a clearance house for me and paying me weekly, but i think the above two examples take the mick!

MarkO

The one thing that agencies do well is to pay promptly. When I was through Apex, I used to be able to submit an invoice as late as Tuesday lunchtime, and it would be paid (cleared funds into my account) by Friday afternoon. Made the cashflow much easier.

Since I've been direct, I've had a fair few occasions where my client has paid me late - up to 5 weeks late in one case. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] In the end I got heavy and started enforcing the statutory late payment rules (details here). Since then they've bucked their ideas up a bit (although payment was 10 days late for both July and August this year!). The late payment charges don't amount to much (particularly with the baserate so low) but it gets the point across. [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Having said all that, if you end up getting some (or all) of the agency's cut added onto your rate by going direct, getting paid late is less of an issue anyway, as you're getting far more cash in hand in the first place.

GaryK

Yep the prompt payment thing is one benefit, of course going direct can be problematic like the company going down the pan, like a friend at enron who lost his contract and 3 months money ouch!!!

Hey perhaps we can get together and start a new topic 'projects vacant' for companies looking for bods.

Gary

MarkO

BTW, ptholt:I see nothing there that's unreasonable. Getting paid weekly is almost unheard of for a professional contractor. Monthly is the norm. PI and liability insurance is also fairly standard - I have to have massive levels of cover (£1k+ of premium) for my contract. And who, exactly, were you expecting to pay the tax, VAT and NI if it wasn't you?

carl

Agreed -- monthly, PI, VAT, tax and NI are the norm. I've been on 90 day payment cycles before

carl

I think Mark meant 'professional contractor' as in 'one for whom contracting is a profession' rather than casting aspersions as to your professionalism.

LOL

ptholt

i know i was just being sarcy

but im intrigued now, what makes a 'professional contractor'?

am i unprofessional because i preferred to work under terms that i was used to rather than what seemed to be those being forced on me by an agent telling me to like or lump it?
Should i have paid out the money for the PI waited for 6 weeks to be paid and just crossed my fingers that the agent wasnt going to go bust on me? (which based on the conversation with Dunn & Bradstreet seemed more a 'when' then an 'if'.

Personally i'd have preffered a process of negotiation, rather than being told to basically bend over and take it like a man.


[Edited by ptholt - 9/5/2002 4:49:56 PM]

Mark Jackson

Were still paying 55 quid an hour for and Oracle DBA, seems well over the odds based on what you are saying !

Wait till renewal time !

MarkO

Spot on, carl - I wasn't trying to imply that ptholt was unprofessional.

TBH, anyone who tries to claim they're outside of IR35 and doesn't have their own liability/PI cover is having a larf. Financial risk is a big measure of your IR35ness, so if you have a notice period in your contract, and no PI cover, you're probably screwed.Sorry, I must have misread. I thought the contract was just saying you may be liable for any NI/tax/VAT which might be liable on any of the amount you're paid. If the contract somehow states that you will pay NI/tax on the entire gross amount, then you need to get that clause removed. Assuming you're a Ltd. company, it's possibly not even legal (after all, what would ever give a client the right to determine what proportion of your company's turnover should or shouldn't go out as salary, reinvestment, etc?

ptholt

the terms and conditiond were non-negotiable, part of the reason i decided to 'lump it' as he put it.

I dont mind paying for the cover but it was just the guys attitude.

I i didnt think the tax/ni/vat clause was legal either....and neithre did my agent friends, but it would not be removed likewise a few other clauses i didnt like.
Strangely this particular agent will not use contractors that anything other than ltd companies, they will not accept partnerships or umbrella companies, seemed a bit odd....