Historically, the relationship between IT contractors and recruitment agencies can probably be described as at best tense and at worst downright antagonistic. Both sides have been guilty of questionable behaviour but while they needed each other equally, a status quo was established.
During the downturn, it seems agencies have enjoyed unparalleled power over their supposed clients. Contractors claim they have had unfair restrictions imposed on them, including agencies not paying them in certain circumstances and charging large transfer fees to dissuade companies from offering them permanent positions.
However, legislation introduced in April this year appeared to have the potential to tip the scales back in the favour of the contracting community. Termed The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, it imparts various benefits to temporary workers, including more flexibility in moving between temp positions and permanent roles, and various payment guarantees.
"In the future, everyone who uses the services provided by agencies and employment businesses can have greater confidence in them - both those companies that use them to supply staff as well as the agency workers themselves," said employment minister Gerry Sutcliffe in a statement at the time. "The vast majority of agencies are well run but we are ensuring that they do not face unfair competition from those who abuse their workers."
But it has emerged that some of the more unscrupulous agencies are putting pressure on contractors to opt out of the regulations or face the consequences. Tactics include reducing the pay rate of contractors who opt in or offering them unreasonable contracts.
One UK contractor contacted by ZDNet UK said he had received an automated email asking him to opt out of the regulations when he sent his CV to an agency. He was concerned that deciding to opt in would probably mean that the agency wouldn't put him forward for jobs. "It's a buyer's market, so agencies have a choice of which candidates to use and are likely to favour candidates that have opted out over those that have opted in," he said.
Ian Durrant, a director at the Professional Contractors Group (PCG), says his members have already encountered recruitment companies paying different rates to contractors according to whether they opt in or out. One agency even provided an unreasonable contract to an opted-in contractor and refused to change it unless he opted out. "There is definitely a problem with agencies coercing contractors," he says.
Martin Lewis, contracts manager at recruitment agency Square One, says that he has seen an email from another agency requesting an administration fee if the contractor didn't opt out. Square One is not charging a fee and is happy to have contractors opt in, although none have chosen to so far, says Lewis.
Talkback
I would say that this new legislation is being widely abused by recruitment businesses who fear that they will lose out because of these changes. They only have their own interests at heart, not the contractors, nor the clients interests either.
I am now either routinely asked to opt out prior to my CV being sent across to clients, because the client themselves won't accept opting in candidates. Of course, as contractors we don't know whether or not this is the case. I'm even asked to comply with agency requests to put my CV on generic databases, such as iProfile, which I don't want to do.
If opting out is not mentioned at the intial stages of an application via a job board, recruitment businesses are asking me for all kinds of personal questions prior to my CV being sent across to clients, much of which I would prefer to keep confidential, such as my date of birth. With so much age discrimination being evident in I.T. I have to be careful I don't disqualify myself from work in this way, when I am perfectly fit, able and healthy to carry out my role alongside my younger counterparts. They want proof of my identity with passports too and details of my qualifications and very often references prior to the interview let alone a job offer being made. Why should I have to do this when I am a paid up born and bred citizen in this country? If the job is offered to me, then that is the time to ask for this information, not before. Asking for references up front is disasterous. If my referees are pesistently contacted for every application I make, then they are going to be bombarded with calls and may eventually refuse to comply with genuine requests based on final job offers.
According to agencies, the reason these questions are being asked if because of this new legislation. Apparently, contractors are opted in until they opt out. Well, you don't have to be Einstein to work out that companies and agencies get the best of both worlds - access to confidential information and then a final opt out agreement to ensure the companies don't have to comply with employee protection legislation that might benefit those contractors they rely on to keep projects afloat. Plus the companies have all the ammunition at their disposal to view a candidates details and refuse to the agency on the basis of age discrimination.
Contractors are being abused and, to put it strongly, oppressed by these silly and pointless practices.