Recruitment Agency Commission at Renewal Time
The recruitment agency commission is probably deserved in the beginning. But should they continue to get it after each renewal?
The EU Agency Workers Directive now allows contractors to go direct to the client after the contract ends.
This applies provided the contractor doesn‘t opt out of the regulations.
AWR Opt Out by Contractors
Contractors Group, IPSE, in conjunction with Agencies‘ representatives, lobbied for and got an ‘opt out’ from this legislation from the Government and agencies have used this to try and force contractors to opt out, so that they can hold them indentured even after their contracts run out.
However, should agencies, by rights, receive anything for the contractors after the initial contract has run out? Do they have an entitlement to it?
This has caused much debate.
There are two views on this. I’ll argue one of them.
No More Recruitment Agency Commission
Agencies should no longer get commission:-
1) Because the contract is over.
It is restraint of trade to try to keep the contractor indentured to the agency after the contract is over, but that is what they were doing in the past. Now the law has changed and they can no longer do it.
2) Because the agency adds very little value after the initial matchmaking.
Very few businesses get money when they add no value – unless they use some kind of monopolistic devices to do so – or some legal ruse.
To my mind they add all the value at the beginning as far as the agencies go so that is when they should receive their income.
The model suits best a one-off fee, as happens with permies, for a placement.
Contractors don‘t work for agencies. They use them as matchmakers.
Not Able to Help Contractors
Agencies are not able to help contractors do their job. They are able to find them a job and that is all.
They are not capable of helping them further and are not skilled to manage them at a client‘s site or to do anything else useful except to process invoices and time sheets.
Therefore it is only the probably false use of a restrictive practice clause in their previous contracts that enable them to obtain fees for the contractor‘s work long after they have added any value.
Initial Fee for Matchmaking
Probably the most suitable thing they could do is to obtain an initial fee for matchmaking a contractor and a client (as they do with permies) and then be on their way to add value in the way that they do best, i.e. matchmaking other clients and contractors.
At a stretch you could say that by taking fees for every hour or day worked by a contractor on a contract they are simply spreading the finders fee over a period of time.
However, by no stretch of the imagination could they justify taking fees in perpetuity (or however long that the contractor stays at the client).
They add no extra value beyond a new contract negotiation. It is not justifiable by the work they do or the value they add.
They were only able to obtain the money before by using a legal threat.
The threat is no longer legal – except for those contractors who use the PCG ‘˜opt out‘.
Justifying Additional Fees
Agencies, therefore, have no moral means of justifying additional fees after the contract ends.
It‘s just a shame that they were given a hole to escape through by this ‘opt out‘ clause – and escape through it they have in their legions.
I realize that this is seen from the contractor viewpoint and agencies may have different opinions on Recruitment Agency Commission.
Ad – Contractor Services
If you do need an umbrella company you could try one of the following:-
Or would you prefer to get expert advice about which umbrella company is right for your specific needs? If so fill in the form below and they will be in touch.
For all necessary business insurance, including IR35, try Business Insurance for Contractors