I just found out my current one has been taking 52% and they negotiated down my price "due to market conditions" after the job offer.
These scumbags don't do freelancers any justice, and sure enough if the client had asked for a drop in rate they'd be on the phone asking you to suck it up.
Incidentally, what your employer paid your recruiter is their problem, not yours: if you're underpaid, demand a raise or leave.
And there are mentions of a contract. What would this type of contract consist of?
The job candidate-agent relationship...is it like sports where agents can represent multiple job seekers but a job seeker usually only has one agent? And is there a legal side to this?
Sorry for all the questions, just trying to learn!
You typically sign a contract with the recruitment agency, who has a back-to-back contract with the end employer. The contract basically just says you will be working at employer X for Z months.
There will be other legalise about intellectual property, confidentiality etc but that is the gist of it.
The flow of a job opening is normally that a hiring company will send the vacancy details to a shortlist of preferred recruitment agencies. These agencies will then submit CVs of candidates on their books back to the hiring company. Then the interview process etc starts.
To answer your specific question: agents can represent multiple candidates (a database of thousands) and a wise contractor would not rely on just one agency (my CV for example is probably with ~10 or so).
This is specific to the UK market - other markets may vary.
However, this is subject to the same issue that Freakonomics highlights vis Real Estate agents and house sales.
In the past sports agents worked both for the team and the player. This lead to exactly this situation, players and clubs getting shafted by the agents.
It changed when some smart person decided that the clubs and the players should have their own agents, and that if a club wanted a player because of their talent - which is the main reason - they had to engage their own agent 1) to attract the player 2) negotiate a price with the play's agent. The pplayer paid their agent 10%, and it was their job to defend the interests of the players against the interest of the club.
Hence today we have players paid huge amounts based on their talent.
The reason some people make more money than others is mainly because they posses key information that others don't have and this is part of the game.
Don't fire you're recruiter because YOU didn't know your true market value. Instead, use this "new information" to negotiate yourself a substantial raise next time you sit at the negotiation table.
The recruiter's markup is not disclosed to the contractor in my industry and it's not really important to me. What matters is "are you happy with what you're making?".
Fire your recruiter if he is incompetent, not if he's doing well.
I also know what I can get away with making in this market, so what I'm making is not the issue per se, although this is below my normal rate, and I agreed to this on the grounds that were presented to me - which turned out to be completely false.
I work with many recruiters, not just this one. This one happened to have a job available at the time I was available...
Lastly, they point blank refused to negotiate, at all. Hence the need to fire them.
Companies don't disclose their markup on their products or else people would be shocked and wouldn't buy them. It's business as usual.
I suspect my recruiter takes home 50% of my rate too, i.e my OT (1.5) rate. On the other hand I get lots of OT, hence he cashes in on my first 40h and I take home the rest. Nobody complains because we're all making good money. Customer is happy, recruiter is happy and we're happy.
If it's the end of the contract, that's easy - don't accept their calls, don't go on any interviews they arrange etc.
If it's mid-contract, then it's trickier. You could either:
1) Leave and find a new role 2) Tell your agent that you know what their % is, and you want a raise or you will leave 3) Explain to the company that they are being over-charged, and see if their legal department will fight the agency to buy you out so you can contract directly or via a better agency.
Not sure that any of these guarantee success...
Unless you have a contract with your agent (highly unlikely - people like 10x are starting this idea) then just do not use them.
An agency who is getting 50% out of a client company has photos of the CEO and two shameful-looking-sheep somewhere.
But look at it this way, if the client was asking for a small reduction in the rate the agent would be on the phone right away asking me to take a cut. They would also be getting a cut as their %age is based on my rate.
To be fair and honest, if the client is offering more to get you - for whatever reason - then that must filter down.
That just didn't happen here. The client therefore has also been mislead because they think that I am being paid appropriately. Instead the agent is profiteering.
