Turn on thread page Beta

Supply rip off watch

Announcements

    I've just had some honest feedback on my reasons for not getting shortlisted for a teaching job.

    I worked in the school in question for one supply day in the Autumn term. The school is contracted
    to pay the agency 18% of my salary or about £4500 if they employ me within 9 months of my having
    worked in the school.

    I applied for the job in response to a newspaper advert and haven't worked for that agency
    since December.

    IIRC there was a recent legal challenge to this sort of thing with supply teachers and it was
    ruled unlawful.

    --
    Regards

    Andrew No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons
    were terribly inconvenienced

    "amadis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> I've just had some honest feedback on my reasons for not getting[/q1]
    shortlisted
    [q1]> for a teaching job.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I worked in the school in question for one supply day in the Autumn term. The school is contracted[/q1]
    [q1]> to pay the agency 18% of my salary or about £4500 if they employ me within 9 months of my having[/q1]
    [q1]> worked in the school.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I applied for the job in response to a newspaper advert and haven't worked for that agency since[/q1]
    [q1]> December.[/q1]

    That's awful!! I know when I was a secretarial temp, if the company wanted to employ me permanently
    they had to pay the agency to release me from their books so I know these things happen, but that's
    the most disgraceful thing I've ever heard. Which company was it? I'm on supply as of September and
    I think I want to avoid that one!

    Donna

    PS. You can email me privately with that info if you're not comfortable posting it on the net - I
    really do need to know.

    In article <[email protected] om>, amadis <[email protected]> writes:

    [q1]>I've just had some honest feedback on my reasons for not getting shortlisted for a teaching job.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>I worked in the school in question for one supply day in the Autumn term. The school is contracted[/q1]
    [q1]>to pay the agency 18% of my salary or about £4500 if they employ me within 9 months of my having[/q1]
    [q1]>worked in the school.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>I applied for the job in response to a newspaper advert and haven't worked for that agency since[/q1]
    [q1]>December.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]

    That can, and has, been successfully contested by schools.

    ----------------------------------------------------
    Sandi

    Remove NoSpam to reply.

    In article <[email protected] om>, amadis <[email protected]> wrote:
    [q1]> I worked in the school in question for one supply day in the Autumn term. The school is contracted[/q1]
    [q1]> to pay the agency 18% of my salary or about £4500 if they employ me within 9 months of my having[/q1]
    [q1]> worked in the school.[/q1]

    get union advice

    --
    Gertie.

    Award-winning bog cleaner, agony aunt and now Latin scholar. Veni, vidi, Vim (I came, I saw,
    I cleaned)

    SLieber24 wrote:

    [q1]> In article <[email protected] om>, amadis <[email protected]> writes:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]>>I've just had some honest feedback on my reasons for not getting shortlisted for a teaching job.[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>I worked in the school in question for one supply day in the Autumn term. The school is contracted[/q2]
    [q2]>>to pay the agency 18% of my salary or about £4500 if they employ me within 9 months of my having[/q2]
    [q2]>>worked in the school.[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>I applied for the job in response to a newspaper advert and haven't worked for that agency since[/q2]
    [q2]>>December.[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> That can, and has, been successfully contested by schools.[/q1]

    Realistically, if the school has 4 roughly equal candidates, they're not likely to want to bother
    during the last week of term when they need to appoint for September.

    "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> In article <[email protected] om>, amadis <[email protected]> wrote:[/q1]
    [q2]> > I worked in the school in question for one supply day in the Autumn term. The school is[/q2]
    [q2]> > contracted to pay the agency 18% of my salary or about £4500 if they employ me within 9 months[/q2]
    [q2]> > of my having worked in the school.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]

    The agencies need to protect themselves, they are a business. If such a rule did not exist schools
    could use an agency one day, and make an offer directly to the teacher the next. Similar kinds of
    rules exist in many professions, and without them these services would fold (eg military pilots
    going civil have a ground time of 2 years). When signing up to an agency you are responsible for
    reading the documentation, otherwise you only have yourself to blame when things go wrong.

    Max

    "SLieber24" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> In article <[email protected] om>, amadis[/q1]
    <[email protected]>
    [q1]> writes:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> >> That can, and has, been successfully contested by schools.[/q2]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q2]> >Realistically, if the school has 4 roughly equal candidates, they're[/q2]
    not
    [q2]> >likely to want to bother during the last week of term when they need[/q2]
    to
    [q2]> >appoint for September.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> That may well be true. OTOH, if you were the only one, then they[/q1]
    would. The
    [q1]> school I'm in now has taken on a teacher from an agency. The teacher[/q1]
    and the HT
    [q1]> have been told they each have to pay fees. I would hope that my HT has[/q1]
    sense
    [q1]> enough to protest and refuse this.[/q1]

    The teacher cannot be chargeed a fee unless s/he was told this upfront and agreed to it by signing
    an agreement to that effect. Charging a fee to both parties is not standard practice amongst English
    and Welsh recruitment agencies.

    999 time out of a 1000: the agency, however, can charge the school provided they can prove that they
    informed the school of the agency's terms and conditions before an interview took place. Most
    agencies ensure that the school is informed of their T&Cs by printing them on the back of any CVs
    they send out or by sending a copy of their T&Cs with every CV they send out as part of their
    standard practice. Either of these are acceptable as proof of informing a client in any English
    court. No signed acceptance of an agency's T&Cs is required as proof of an organisation's acceptance
    of the agency's T&Cs, standard commercial custom & practice. If a school calls a candidate to
    interview without questioning or negotiating the T&Cs declared then acceptance of the agency's T&Cs
    is implicit, the agency's T&Cs stand as is. The only defences against an agency's T&Cs is if the
    school can prove that they were negotiating a variance in the T&Cs or had not received the agency's
    T&Cs, or if the T&Cs had time expired.

    --
    `p ex-slave trader, 7 years on the dog and bone.

    [q1]> The agencies need to protect themselves, they are a business. If such a[/q1]
    rule
    [q1]> did not exist schools could use an agency one day, and make an offer directly to the teacher[/q1]
    [q1]> the next. >[/q1]

    That's life - isn't that freedom of the economy or something? Agencies have no right to try and
    control matters in this way. Teachers have the right to work for whoever they like. Agencies get
    away with too much anyway.

    Donna

    "amadis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> SLieber24 wrote:[/q1]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q1]> I've been following this up and it seems that the agencies compile a[/q1]
    list of
    [q1]> all available jobs and then submit the CVs of teachers on their books[/q1]
    to
    [q1]> these vacancies.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    Sorry, it doesn't happen like that. An agency cannot take on a vaccancy without a client's consent.
    This is usally achieved by a canvas call by the agency or by the school ringing the agency. A client
    has to agree to place a vaccancy with an agency for the agency to be able to place candidates and
    charge a fee.

    [q1]> This has two main consequences. If the teacher happens to get a job[/q1]
    the
    [q1]> agency gets a fee, (agencies will share the fee if more than one[/q1]
    introduce
    [q1]> the teacher)[/q1]

    You're referring to what's know amongst recruiters as a "split". Splits have to be by mutual consent
    amongst agencies. Sometimes the agency has the vaccancy and another agency has the candidate. If
    there is no such arrangement then the fee goes to the agency that was the first to submit the
    candidate - or, more often, the one the client wants to pay. :-)

    [q1]>regardless of whether the teacher applied independently.[/q1]

    No, this is not true. An agency is not supposed to submit any candiate for a vaccancy without the
    candidate's permission. If a candidate has applied independently without the agency telling the
    candidate about the vaccancy first or if the candidate's details were sent "blind" i.e. without
    giving consent and without the agency having informed the candidate about the vaccancy - then the
    agency does not get a fee if the candidate is successful. However, if the candidate is told about
    the vaccancy by the agency and then applies independently, going behind the agency's back and is
    successful, then a court will award the agency the fee if the candidate is found out.

    [q1]>More likely, the teacher won't be employed at an additional 18% overhead[/q1]
    and
    [q1]> therefore remains on the agency's books to earn them 100 pounds a day.[/q1]

    Speculation on your part. Obviously you're an expert on how reputable recruitment agencies work.
    Most are reputable, if you're not then word soon gets around candidates and clients. 18% isn't a
    very big rate either. The norm is for 25 - 30% for the salary range an experienced teacher gets when
    placed alongside the scale of charges that commerce pays, unless they have an established placement
    record with an agency, in which case they generally get a discounted fee structure and a guarantee
    on a fee refund if a candidate leaves within set time frames for whatever reason.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Talking to a few schools, it seems that few will employ agency supply teachers in permanent jobs.[/q1]
    [q1]> There are enough other teachers for them[/q1]
    not to
    [q1]> have to.[/q1]

    C'est la vie.

    --
    `p

    "SLieber24" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> In article <[email protected]>, "`p"[/q1]
    [q1]> <[email protected]> writes:[/q1]
    [q2]> >[/q2]
    [q1]> I know for a fact that the agency doesn't send us CVs for its people.[/q1]
    We phone
    [q1]> up and they send a body instead.[/q1]

    Ah, but that's a temp not a perm. I was referring to a perm vaccancy.
    [q1]:-)[/q1]

    The 2 are similar but not the same. If you ring an agnecy and you sign the time sheet to confirm the
    hours worked for the temp, you will also find that you are signing to accept the agency's T&Cs.
    These will be printed on the back and you are left with a copy too. There will be a clause that will
    say how long it can be before you can employ the temp direct, 26 weeks gap between last on site is
    par for the course for an agency temp/contract being able to go to perm directly - unless you have
    an agreement that varies the T&Cs. Sometimes if a temp works for a company for 1 or 2 years they can
    then employ the temp as a permanent member of staff - no fee. It all depeneds on the T&Cs of the
    agency and whether or not you bother to read them/negotiate variations in the T&Cs.

    I just don't understand what the fuss is about; agencies are just a supplier in the same way as a
    stationery company is a supplier. No one in the world of commerce bats an eyelid about agencies,
    they are a perfectly normal resourse that gets called upon when the appropriate need/time arises. If
    you have a problem with an agency or its T&Cs talk to them, they are a service and they do listen to
    their clients and will negotiate - but try to treat them human beings, eh; attitude makes a big
    difference in getting something you want. And be prepared to give something in return e.g. first
    chance at supplying if they vary the T&Cs/fee etc. something the recruiter can take to his/her boss
    to get the variation signed off.

    And besides, employment agencies have been going longer in this country than pukka academia
    (Oxbridge, et al). So have some respect for an elder profession ;-)
    --
    `p

    ooh - get you! You obviously work for an agency, then. I don't have personal feelings, I just call
    it as I see it and I see it as the agencies trying to control things that they shouldn't really
    control. I can see the point of an agency expecting compensation when a contract is cut short
    because the employee decides to work for someone directly - they're missing out on fees that were
    arranged, agreed and expected. What I don't agree with is this business of putting the kybosh (sp?)
    on teachers getting permanent or direct contracts because they're charging the earth for something
    that, as in Amadis' case, really doesn't concern them.

    And whether you like it or not, I'm entitled to this opinion without you getting personal about it.

    Donna

    "Grand Poobah" <[email protected] co.uk> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> ooh - get you! You obviously work for an agency, then. I don't have personal feelings, I just call[/q1]
    [q1]> it as I see it and I see it as the[/q1]
    agencies
    [q1]> trying to control things that they shouldn't really control. I can[/q1]
    see the
    [q1]> point of an agency expecting compensation when a contract is cut short because the employee[/q1]
    [q1]> decides to work for someone directly - they're[/q1]
    missing
    [q1]> out on fees that were arranged, agreed and expected. What I don't[/q1]
    agree
    [q1]> with is this business of putting the kybosh (sp?) on teachers getting permanent or direct[/q1]
    [q1]> contracts because they're charging the earth for something that, as in Amadis' case, really[/q1]
    [q1]> doesn't concern them.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> And whether you like it or not, I'm entitled to this opinion without[/q1]
    you
    [q1]> getting personal about it.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    As someone who has worked in recruitment and who is a teacher, you're talking out of your hat.

    How many agencies do you think there are? Do you really think that such a highly competitive market
    is going to put their collective heads together and come up with this wonderful and illegal idea of
    forming a cartel.

    Have you ever worked in a sales environment? The rivalries between colleagues within the same firm
    never mind between 2 agencies on the same High Street would have made Mark Anthony & Octavian look
    like blood brothers.

    Its just business not personal.

    [q1]:-)[/q1]
    --
    `p

    ROFLMAO

    "Grand Poobah" <[email protected] co.uk> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> ooh - get you! You obviously work for an agency, then.[/q1]

    Erm, No i dont actually, i work full time inner city maths.

    I don't have
    [q1]> personal feelings, I just call it as I see it and I see it as the agencies trying to control[/q1]
    [q1]> things that they shouldn't really control.[/q1]

    erm...isnt that a personal feeling ?

    I can see the
    [q1]> point of an agency expecting compensation when a contract is cut short because the employee[/q1]
    [q1]> decides to work for someone directly - they're[/q1]
    missing
    [q1]> out on fees that were arranged, agreed and expected.[/q1]

    Exactly. In fact they would be missing out on what is owed to them through agreed contract.

    What I don't agree
    [q1]> with is this business of putting the kybosh (sp?) on teachers getting permanent or direct[/q1]
    [q1]> contracts because they're charging the earth for something that, as in Amadis' case, really[/q1]
    [q1]> doesn't concern them.[/q1]

    Please use your brain, it concerns them so far as in they associated the 2 afore mentioned parties.
    As an agency employee it is Amandas responsibilty to comprehend the terms of agreement.

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> And whether you like it or not, I'm entitled to this opinion without you getting personal[/q1]
    [q1]> about it.[/q1]

    This isnt about opinion you silly bear, this is about contractual agreement.

    Wake up

    Max

    Did you read Amadis' original post? I didn't make this up. Obviously there's an agency out there
    that *is* doing this.

    Okay, firstly, it's really annoying when someone feels they have to dissect a post and reply phrase
    by phrase because they're scared of not getting their point across and secondly, this is the second
    time you've resorted to name calling and belittlement in order to try and face up to someone who
    disagrees with you. Who are you trying to impress?

    This is a discussion group! People discuss - they don't get huffy when someone has a different idea
    about things.

    I-think-agencies-are-wrong-if-they-include-agreements-like-the-one-Amadis-to
    ld-us-about.-You-don't.-Big-deal-chill-out.

    Is that spelt out slowly and clearly enough?

    "Grand Poobah" <[email protected] co.uk> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> Okay, firstly, it's really annoying when someone feels they have to[/q1]
    dissect
    [q1]> a post and reply phrase by phrase because they're scared of not[/q1]
    getting
    [q1]> their point across and secondly, this is the second time you've[/q1]
    resorted to
    [q1]> name calling and belittlement in order to try and face up to someone[/q1]
    who
    [q1]> disagrees with you. Who are you trying to impress?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> This is a discussion group! People discuss - they don't get huffy[/q1]
    when
    [q1]> someone has a different idea about things.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    I-think-agencies-are-wrong-if-they-include-agreements-like-the-one-Amadi s-to
    [q1]> ld-us-about.-You-don't.-Big-deal-chill-out.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]

    I see. So, on one hand, mundane things like obeying the laws, custom and practice of the land have
    no relevance to education? It doesn't matter one whit if you don't like the agency agreement, they
    are acting within the law, whcih is well-established and has reams of case history and precedents
    behind it. The fact that the school broke a legally binding contract has nothing to do with it?
    Great example to set the kids :-) And on the other hand, careful that the hatchett people of the
    GTCE don't get to hear about your views, you're obviously someone capable of thinking for yourself,
    I didn't know teachers were still allowed to do that. :-)

    Th school *should* have checked their agency agreement before hiring the teacher on a permanent
    contract, and I would be awfully surprised if the teacher hadn't been informed *before* going on
    supply at the school, too, exactly how long it would be before the teacher could contact the school
    direct. IME a candiate is told before the interview/contract exactly what the rules are and schools
    have copies of the agency's T&Cs to refer. Is there something about the story that we are not being
    told, I wonder? Hmmmmmmmmmnnnnn. Did someone post this from near a fish docks, I wonder.

    --
    `p ex-slave trader, 7 years on the dog and bone.

    `p wrote:

    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> "Grand Poobah" <[email protected] co.uk> wrote in message[/q1]
    [q1]> news:[email protected]...[/q1]
    [q2]>> Okay, firstly, it's really annoying when someone feels they have to[/q2]
    [q1]> dissect[/q1]
    [q2]>> a post and reply phrase by phrase because they're scared of not[/q2]
    [q1]> getting[/q1]
    [q2]>> their point across and secondly, this is the second time you've[/q2]
    [q1]> resorted to[/q1]
    [q2]>> name calling and belittlement in order to try and face up to someone[/q2]
    [q1]> who[/q1]
    [q2]>> disagrees with you. Who are you trying to impress?[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>> This is a discussion group! People discuss - they don't get huffy[/q2]
    [q1]> when[/q1]
    [q2]>> someone has a different idea about things.[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q1]> I-think-agencies-are-wrong-if-they-include-agreements-like-the-one-Amadi s-to[/q1]
    [q2]>> ld-us-about.-You-don't.-Big-deal-chill-out.[/q2]
    [q2]>>[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I see. So, on one hand, mundane things like obeying the laws, custom and practice of the land have[/q1]
    [q1]> no relevance to education? It doesn't matter one whit if you don't like the agency agreement, they[/q1]
    [q1]> are acting within the law, whcih is well-established and has reams of case history and precedents[/q1]
    [q1]> behind it. The fact that the school broke a legally binding contract has nothing to do with it?[/q1]
    [q1]> Great example to set the kids :-) And on the other hand, careful that the hatchett people of the[/q1]
    [q1]> GTCE don't get to hear about your views, you're obviously someone capable of thinking for[/q1]
    [q1]> yourself, I didn't know teachers were still allowed to do that. :-)[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Th school *should* have checked their agency agreement before hiring the teacher on a permanent[/q1]
    [q1]> contract, and I would be awfully surprised if the teacher hadn't been informed *before* going on[/q1]
    [q1]> supply at the school, too, exactly how long it would be before the teacher could contact the[/q1]
    [q1]> school direct. IME a candiate is told before the interview/contract exactly what the rules are and[/q1]
    [q1]> schools have copies of the agency's T&Cs to refer. Is there something about the story that we are[/q1]
    [q1]> not being told, I wonder? Hmmmmmmmmmnnnnn. Did someone post this from near a fish docks, I wonder.[/q1]

    You may feel that having worked one day 7 months ago established a right to a substantial sum to the
    agency and I might agree if the later business had been conducted via the agency.

    The fact is that there was an advert in TES. There was no invitiation to apply nor any action that
    could give me preferential treatment over any other candidate. That actual effect was to guarantee
    that I couldn't get the job and that the agency wouldn't get a fee.

    Ok, so there is a contractural agreement, but surely that should be tempered by the actual advantage
    or otherwise that has been conferred on the school. They paid the fee at the time. I worked the
    hours, marked the books and got my timesheet signed. They didn't even remember who I was until I
    mentioned it during an informal visit to the school.

    The agency hasn't lost an employee because I wasn't working for them. The entitlement in those
    circumstances is difficult to justify even if it is legal.

    amadis <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... <snip>
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> You may feel that having worked one day 7 months ago established a right[/q1]
    to
    [q1]> a substantial sum to the agency and I might agree if the later business[/q1]
    had
    [q1]> been conducted via the agency.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> The fact is that there was an advert in TES. There was no invitiation to apply nor any action that[/q1]
    [q1]> could give me preferential treatment over any other candidate. That actual effect was to guarantee[/q1]
    [q1]> that I couldn't get the job and that the agency wouldn't get a fee.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Ok, so there is a contractural agreement, but surely that should be[/q1]
    tempered
    [q1]> by the actual advantage or otherwise that has been conferred on the[/q1]
    school.
    [q1]> They paid the fee at the time. I worked the hours, marked the books and[/q1]
    got
    [q1]> my timesheet signed. They didn't even remember who I was until I mentioned it during an informal[/q1]
    [q1]> visit to the school.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> The agency hasn't lost an employee because I wasn't working for them. The entitlement in those[/q1]
    [q1]> circumstances is difficult to justify even if it is legal.[/q1]

    IANAL, but IIRC a contract is only binding if both parties "give" something. Since the agency has
    done nothing in this situation, I would challenge its ability to demand a fee. Why not try one of
    the UK "legal" newsgroups?

    --
    Martin

    (remove barrier to reply)
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.