Saint Bailey
New member
http://www.contractorcalculator.co.uk/contracting_agency_workers_regulations_changes_368110_news.aspx
___Please read this article via link___
I feel very positive knowing that us agency workers will be better protected in the future. I myself have been working apart of an agency team since i was made redundant back in 2006/7. Since my redundancy i have worked for a major company within the food industry, my skills and work output is exceptional and managers high in the hierarchy that work for this company also stated this. However when asked to be taken on a full time basis i get turned down. Now this has many implications for myself and many like me. Without such full time employment we find it very difficult to gain credit in any form of way and no chance of a fair mortgage rate or any offer for finance period due to being 'agency'. To me in my opinion, i believe agencies and the clients have in affect helped the decline of the economy.
The key points of concern that i have with this legislation are in my opinion valid and should be investigated, they are as follows:
-Before the 12 week period is due to expire what is to say that the client will not give 5 rest days (1 week) to a agency worker, which in affect will break that 12 week period invalidating the rights to equal pay, the rights to be taken on etc...
-IF an agency charges the client a fee of £12 per head and pays the 'worker' the equivalent wage of a full time contracted employee set at £11.75, then there is no profit to be made for the contractor. So, in order for the contractor to make a profit after legislation is enforced, the fee per head should be set at £16, therefore the client would be running a loss (big loss compared to legislation). With this in mind i can see two possible scenarios. The first being the client could take on some agency workers saving the overhead costs to the contractor which in affect would leave some agency workers unemployed and/or a far smaller agency work force contracted at the depot in question. Or secondly, keep the agency on and accept the running overhead costs. The latter tends to concern me slightly as the client would be much more inclined to find a 'loop hole' which would not help protect us anymore than we are protected now.
There are currently workers contracted to clients (in my case the same depot for a little over 3 years) that are very hard working; reliable; credible and very well skilled that want nothing else other than to be employed to gain the financial security and to get on the property ladder. The particular company i work for rely on the agency tremendously as their employees work output is considerably smaller compared to that of the agency worker whilst having more employees in their favour.
What are your thoughts? Please sensible answers only all nations welcome.
Regards B.
___Please read this article via link___
I feel very positive knowing that us agency workers will be better protected in the future. I myself have been working apart of an agency team since i was made redundant back in 2006/7. Since my redundancy i have worked for a major company within the food industry, my skills and work output is exceptional and managers high in the hierarchy that work for this company also stated this. However when asked to be taken on a full time basis i get turned down. Now this has many implications for myself and many like me. Without such full time employment we find it very difficult to gain credit in any form of way and no chance of a fair mortgage rate or any offer for finance period due to being 'agency'. To me in my opinion, i believe agencies and the clients have in affect helped the decline of the economy.
The key points of concern that i have with this legislation are in my opinion valid and should be investigated, they are as follows:
-Before the 12 week period is due to expire what is to say that the client will not give 5 rest days (1 week) to a agency worker, which in affect will break that 12 week period invalidating the rights to equal pay, the rights to be taken on etc...
-IF an agency charges the client a fee of £12 per head and pays the 'worker' the equivalent wage of a full time contracted employee set at £11.75, then there is no profit to be made for the contractor. So, in order for the contractor to make a profit after legislation is enforced, the fee per head should be set at £16, therefore the client would be running a loss (big loss compared to legislation). With this in mind i can see two possible scenarios. The first being the client could take on some agency workers saving the overhead costs to the contractor which in affect would leave some agency workers unemployed and/or a far smaller agency work force contracted at the depot in question. Or secondly, keep the agency on and accept the running overhead costs. The latter tends to concern me slightly as the client would be much more inclined to find a 'loop hole' which would not help protect us anymore than we are protected now.
There are currently workers contracted to clients (in my case the same depot for a little over 3 years) that are very hard working; reliable; credible and very well skilled that want nothing else other than to be employed to gain the financial security and to get on the property ladder. The particular company i work for rely on the agency tremendously as their employees work output is considerably smaller compared to that of the agency worker whilst having more employees in their favour.
What are your thoughts? Please sensible answers only all nations welcome.
Regards B.