Re: Recruiters

Subject: Re: Recruiters
From: Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: Techwrl-l <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 13:39:47 -0700 (PDT)

> A couple of weeks ago I finalized a deal for an ID/writing position. I was
referred by someone on the inside whom I had
> worked with at a previous contract. However, this particular company ALWAYS
uses this recruiting firm, Writing Assistance.
> Well, I've had my share of run-ins with the owner, Scott
> Hartmann, and he is a greedy, pain-in-the-arse, and even though I snared the
job on my own they wanted an ENORMOUS
> hourly cut, even though I would be 1099, and they wouldn't be managing me. I
won't go into the whole thing, but let it suffice
> to say that the sales person asured me they would accomodate my rate, and
then, suddenly, the owner is calling me on the
> phone TELLING me how much I better charge because he HAD to make his cut.

It sounds like a bad deal, Michelle, but it also sounds like you're falling
into the same flawed logic that nearly everybody does when it comes to

"I want X an hour, how dare those agencies take Y above that. I obviously
deserve X+Y per hour!"

No you don't.

If you want X and the contracting agency pays you X (or very close to X) then
why do you care what the agency charges? Even though the company is paying X+Y
for your work, you could not get the job independently. So therefore, it
doesn't matter what the agency charges.

Furthermore, there is a reason companies want to use the agency. For that Y per
hour the company is buying a certain peace of mind and simplified billing and
contracting. The savings to them may be way more than Y per hour to them.
Therefore, it is financially responsible of the client to want the agency.

I have worked with many referral contracts as well. The deal for me is pretty
simple. I try to get the contractor what he/she wants. As long as I can get
them what they want or close, then it is nobody's business what I can get in
margin. That is between me and the client.

This situation is clearly a simple financial negotiation. If you want X and
the agency can't pay you X, you have a choice: take less or walk away from the
job. Clearly your client has mandated that they want to work with this agency.
If that agency can't pay you what you want then refuse the job. Just because
you found the job and you made the first contract does not mean you are
entitled to the job. The client has the right to dictate to you what the
conditions of employment are. And if one of the conditions is that you must
work through said agency, then you either go along with that or not.

Being hostile and creating an environment of "they are out to get my money"
just makes you look uncooperative. I am not saying you need to lower your
rates, but you do need to work with the client's requirements. How is being
mandated to bill through an agency any different than the client mandating that
you use FrameMaker or Word? You can try to talk them out of it, but in the end,
the client is paying the bills and thus they get to set the rules. You either
play or walk.

I would also caution anybody in this public forum from making unsubstantiated
claims of wrong-doing against any specific person or business. One single
incident of does not imply a trend and does not tell the whole story of any
company's philosophies or practices. Furthermore, while it is one thing to say
"I have had problems with recruiters" or "I think Word is a crummy product" it
is a whole different ball of wax to say "Joe Soandso is a greedy pain in the
ass." Such libelous statements could get you into serious legal trouble from
less tolerant people.

Andrew Plato

Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!


Previous by Author: National Writer's Union (way too long)
Next by Author: Re: Recruiters (addendum)
Previous by Thread: Re: Recruiters
Next by Thread: Re: Recruiters

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads