To wonder why they wouldn't want to do this?

[SunsetsInVenice]

Work currently as a manager at a nursery. Have 2 brilliant supply workers from an agency. They come in regularly every week, know the kids well, qualified and get on well with staff.
We want to employ them as bank staff directly but both turned it down. Aibu to wonder why when they are pretty much permanent staff anyway and would still be allowed to pick their own hours ? Both didn't really give am explanation when they turned it down. Just a bit surprised.

They could be working elsewhere for the agency too.

I used to work for a care agency, and while I would often work in just the one place full time, I really valued the freedom of being able to ask for a different placement if I stopped enjoying the work, eg if a new staff member I didn't get on with joined that particular place. It was also good to know that if one of the settings I worked in no longer needed me (IE the place closed or they recruited cheaper, permanent staff) I could be found another placement immediately rather than having to apply/wait for another job.

Do you want to voluntarily work more hours for the same amount of money or less?

Why are you expecting them to do that? No one in their right mind would.

It'll be this, I bet. Totally get it.

So you want them to be exclusive to you without being sure you would match their agency pay (even though you will save the agency fee) or offering them a substantive contract?

I don't think I'd accept insecure employment with one employer Vs insecure employment with multiple potential employers.

Your offer would make me feel you were motivated by a desire to save money rather than valuing my work.

i expect it is the possible match in the pay that is putting them off. The incentives you mention are not really incentives for them, if you want them to move over to your employment you need to make it worth their while not just list why you think it is better for them.

Definitely pay, I work in a nursery every agency staff we have says the same thing, they would never take employment as they are paided more through agency they don't need to worry about key children/observations/assessments they dont have todo nappies, they have work every day and can pick and choose where and when they work. If I could drive I'd do agency over permanent.

There’s nothing it for them.

By working through an agency they can also work for other clients, get cover when they can’t work, and maintain some distance from client demands.

When you say bank staff ‘would feel more part of the team’ what you mean is you can pressure them into working like staff without giving them staff benefits. They know this. Plus the fact you would only ‘possibly’ match pay… Why do you think this would be appealing?!

I work short contracts so I can change where I work easily, lt doesn’t take much for a good workplace to turn awful and I just don’t want to deal with it. Happy to do my work, feel proud of what I’ve achieved and go home and not think of work again until I am back in office.

… It’s also slightly worrying you are a manager and can’t figure out that this is a crap deal.

If they're "pretty much permanent staff anyway" why not offer them a permanent position, rather than a bank position? Why not offer them a contract for a fixed/minimum number of hours, rather than a zero-hours contract? And why are you surprised that they turn you down when you're offering them absolutely nothing in material terms?

Yup, it's no wonder so many employers either can't get staff or retain them, it's almost as if they still believe they have the upper hand.

If they work for an agency they have the safety net of getting work with a variety of nurseries. If they become permanent with you and you don’t want them anymore they are out in the cold.

Life on a zero hour contract is very unstable and precarious. Committing to you would be like committing to a man who reserves the right to date other women.

Money and flexibility are the reasons people usually do bank work.

They come in regularly every week
they are pretty much permanent staff anyway

We want to employ them as bank staff directly but both turned it down

They probably recognise you're not that good a prospect as an employer. It's pretty obvious to everyone reading the thread.

I'm entertained you want to lower your cost - not paying agency fees- but not give that to the workers.

I wouldn't want to work for you direct either.

@SunsetsInVenice What are YOUR reasons as manager, for wanting them to be on your books?

Agencies usually pay more than permanent or bank jobs.