Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that the use of employment agencies should be restricted?

18 replies

StuckinTheMiddlewithYou · 27/02/2011 11:06

I understand that certain sectors require staff at short notice at times; hospitals, educations, retail, hospitality. However it should be made difficult to employ "temps" for months, sometimes years at a time simply in order to keep them off the books. This is done in order to avoid paying for penisons, long term sick and maternity leave, taking responsibility for staff welfare and the ability to sack people on a mere whim.

If a "temp" is employed for more than three months at a company, they must become a real employee of that company and not remain an employee of the agency.

AIBU?

OP posts:
receiverofopiniongiver · 27/02/2011 11:12

3 months I think is too short.
What about a temp to cover maternity leave very easy to be 6, 9, 12 months. Also need flexibility of mother to return when she wants.

How about max of 18 months for temps?

usualsuspect · 27/02/2011 11:12

YANBU ..my dp worked for an agency, driving for the local council doing the same job for nearly 2 years
He has now been taken on by the council ,but on a casual zero hours contract ..so no better off really

Original poster
StuckinTheMiddlewithYou · 27/02/2011 11:17

The vast majority of temps are not required due to maternity leave. It's a small group.

Eightenn months is far too long. Maybe nine or twelve months, but not eighteen, that is not fair.

OP posts:
Itsjustafleshwound · 27/02/2011 11:18

But sometimes it actually pays to be a temp - there is a compensation built into the hourly wage. My husband is a temp and his hourly wage is higher than what a perm member of staff would receive - it is up to us to use the extra to make provision and we prefer this as many times the employee is trapped into a certain type of pension that may not be suitable.

What about all the overseas staff that are unable to take up permanent positions - on a 2 yr visa you cannot take up permanent employment so it encourages this market to be exploited.

Just because the person is permanent and 'unsackable' it may suit large companies but many small companies cannot afford permanent staff.

GiddyPickle · 27/02/2011 11:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
StuckinTheMiddlewithYou · 27/02/2011 11:21

If you cannot afford permanent staff you're probably not a viable company.

Should employment rights be restricted in order to benefit those from overseas?

Temps at our office are paid less than the permanent staff. That's on top of the lack of other rights.

OP posts:
GiddyPickle · 27/02/2011 11:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

usualsuspect · 27/02/2011 11:26

Some people temp because the jobs that would have once been permanent are now done by agency workers

nancydrewfoundaclue · 27/02/2011 11:27

YABU There have been a number of points in my life when being a temp has been of great benefit to me.

Itsjustafleshwound · 27/02/2011 11:30

You are assuming that the employee will be better off by becoming permanent - which is often not the case...

Because of the high cost of employing staff in the UK thousands of jobs have been off-shored and now done overseas - more laws will just speed it up.

Temps are generally paid more for like for like jobs - or even if it isn't a monetary reward, there must be some benefit otherwise they would leave??? Why would you do a job knowing you get paid less??

A lot of industries are dependent on overseas help - au pairs, nannies, barstaff, nurses ...

LoveBeingAKnockedUp · 27/02/2011 11:33

My dh has been employed by manpower for a very well known national company for over two years now. He gets paid more than if they took him on as a perm mos. Now that is crazy!

linziluv · 27/02/2011 11:47

I work for an agency and have had regular weekly shifts in one place since august....I do exactly the same job but get £2 an hour less than their own employees! Apparently there are no jobs though Hmm

nymphadora · 27/02/2011 11:56

Friend is an agency SW just left a job after 18m covering 1 1/2 SW on a 3 day week as she was that expensive. This was due to a recruitment block by the council Hmm on their value for money! She did make her own pension and wasn't paid for holidays or sick.

FabbyChic · 27/02/2011 12:10

I worked in the NHS for over a year as a temporary secretary, earning more than a permanent member of staff would have. It's wrong and a total waste of public funds.

allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 27/02/2011 12:17

A lot of my workers are better off working for a national recruitment company than they would be working for a small business. We pay sick/maternity/pensions and if for any reason the worker is not needed at the client for a week, we can place them elsewhere, rather than leave them out of work.

breatheslowly · 27/02/2011 12:21

Temps are entitled to holiday pay. Also after 2 years in a job I think it becomes permanent anyway.

allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 27/02/2011 12:23

Nope, breathe , they can work for 10 years without having to be made perm. At least, not before I went on Mat leave.

But yep, I missed out hol pay :)

LoveBeingAKnockedUp · 27/02/2011 12:57

At my place there is a recritment freeze yet they can take on agency staff, yes it's a council!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page