Almost raged myself out of a business meeting today

[C0ckney]

I think the idea is that its expensive for a company to sue or be sued, in financial terms (lawyers fees) and time consumed (management spending time resolving the dispute rather than building new business)

of course, but to threaten to sue costs almost nothing in terms of time and money...

[Pekka]

Good advices (at least some!) here.. thanks

We've decided to "support" him to build his own company, and that will get him away from us most likely. We will give him no rights to sell our stuff white label so if he wants to play a contractor, he really has to come to us first. We're not afraid for our bread, just trying to avoid a headache.

As far as comission salary being a dick move, I disagree. At the point where he jumped in, HE himself suggested it, because we could not afford to pay him. At that point _everyone_ worked for free. Still most of us work for free. In fact I'm one of the few getting paid. But the "inner circle" of us form a cluster, so many of us have many sources of income and give like a day or two a week to the company. So this sales guy has never been us, he has never even been allowed to have a title, he's been purely freelancing. Sure, we could have hired him, we could have if he sold something. But during a year, he has not closed a single deal afterwards, has not even made to the point where we can send an offer...... meaning that our sales pipeline is empty if we depended on him. Meaning we will not hire him in the future either, and NOW, we definitely want to get rid of him in terms of being professionally associated.

We're not really worried about what we can do to customers or that our image would go down, we're worried of all the extra crap that might have to be dealt with in the future. Well obviously I'm the one worried.

It really sucks, the dark side of having a business. I mean... you take risks, huge risks personally, you give it your all, sometimes you think is this all worth the effort... it is as if first everything goes well, but then when you grow just a bit more, you start butting heads with people, and those people aren't even in your company, or might not be your competitors (we like our competitors and know many of them personally)... I think it takes a certain type of a person to run these operations. A masochist IMO.

But I'm learning, we're starting to have predictability, as in we know how much we need to contact in order to get quotes ready and pipeline wide enough to see actual cash flow. But damn it, it cost a lot in mental pain.

[ZEE]

hey my advice was gold

[Pekka]

It's just frustrating when you give it so much and someone comes and just snatches it. We could have agreed and given it to him. We could have helped him, and of course participate in it.

3 rules:

1) Don't steal an idea and claim it to be yours. Steal it, OK, just don't claim it's really yours and confidential and your "asset" now. That's just being an ass.

2) Now that you have "secrets", you're being an idiot if you can't talk about it aloud. It means that a) it's not really a great idea and you're afraid someone (investors) will say it to your face, b)that someone will steal it (lol), which is rare at a start-up stage, because no one gives a crap about your business, really.

3) If you can't talk about it because it's so great, then no one will hear about it either. If you can't realize the fact that the more people know about it, the better, then you're not the person to bootstrap a startup anyway. Also, if you think your idea is so great and new and that it's a completely new market, then I think chances are there is no market for it yet because it's a stupid idea.

So no, we're not in danger of losing business, but we are in danger (potentially) to having claims made against us by an idiot.

[Ben Kenobi]

As far as comission salary being a dick move, I disagree. At the point where he jumped in, HE himself suggested it, because we could not afford to pay him. At that point _everyone_ worked for free.

As I qualified, it's only a dick move if only some people were on commission. If all are on commission, then it's fair game. I've worked in that environment before. It can be good, depending on the crew and the boss. It can be bad.

[MrFun]

I wasn't expecting you to make a thread about this situation between you and I, Pekka.

Signed,

Idiotic Salesperson

[Boris Godunov]

As I qualified, it's only a dick move if only some people were on commission.

This is a d*** move by the way on the part of your company, especially if everyone else is paid a proper salary.

"Especially" is a synonym for "only?" Who knew?

At any rate, I don't see what's dickish about the situation even if he were the only one working just on commission. The company told him they couldn't afford to hire him, he begged them for such an arrangement, so they said OK. Seems like win-win if he actually produces results, and if he doesn't, then he can't blame the company for what amounted to his intense personal desire to enter into such an agreement.

In a sense, what they did is treat him like many contigency consultants. For instance, companies often use external headhunters on a contigency basis to fill positions. In such cases, the headhunter only gets paid his fee if the company hires a candidate that he proffers. What's wrong with that? Monies paid for services rendered. No services rendered, no money paid. I'd think any capitalist would find that situation ideal.

You've basically said that an entire industry (Contingency Staffing, i.e., Temps) is "dickish."

[Pekka]

... and it would have been a mistake. But as far as hiring goes, yes, of course we would prefer hiring. Commission is not the best possible incentive for a sales person. It was told to him the first time we met and made very clear. And that most likely we will never have a sales department or regular sales personnel due to the nature of our business. He happily accepted.

But at the end of the day, he also thought that everything we teach him (in the process of giving him the ins and outs of what we do, what he can sell, IF he wants to), actually belongs to him in some weird way, as in conceptualizing, branding, making it a product goes. Which is of course absurd from our point of view. At some point along the way he, I guess, figured out he is not a sales person with no employment with us, but actually a contractor. But for that he needed a business of his own. And at that point, he figured out he actually owns a lot of stuff just like that, for example, our business idea and the content of some of our services.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is a d*** move by the way on the part of your company, especially if everyone else is paid a proper salary.

Reading comprehension much? I wasn't aware that when he was hired that the entire staff was on commission. That to me makes much more sense then just taking random dude off the street and putting him on commission.

You've basically said that an entire industry (Contingency Staffing, i.e., Temps) is "dickish."

Yeah, it's a pretty bum deal for the temps. I've done it, it's not fun. I've also earned a full time job through a temp position by working my butt off, but that's rather unusual. Most companies don't use them in that fashion.

[Boris Godunov]

Reading comprehension much? I wasn't aware that when he was hired that the entire staff was on commission. That to me makes much more sense then just taking random dude off the street and putting him on commission.

It's not my reading comprehesion that's the problem, it's your ignorance of proper use of vocabulary. By saying "especially," you were saying that the arrangement would still be "dickish" even if everyone were treated the same, which is not what you then claimed to be saying later. Don't blame others for your language failures.

Yeah, it's a pretty bum deal for the temps. I've done it, it's not fun. I've also earned a full time job through a temp position by working my butt off, but that's rather unusual. Most companies don't use them in that fashion.

What kind of pansy socialist are you? How is it a "bum deal" for someone to get paid to do work? It's not as if anyone tricks them into becoming temps. "Wait--this is TEMP agency? I HAD NO IDEA!!!"

If there wasn't a market for contingency labor, obviously it wouldn't exist. Companies have short-term needs that can't be feasibly met by hiring permanent staff, as the costs and onus of that are too great. And while a temporary job may not be ideal for a worker, it sure as hell beats no job at all. Of course, sometimes it is ideal, as there are many, many cases where people would rather have the relative freedom of working temp than to assume the responsibilities of a permanent position.

And if we want to talk personal experiences, not only have I worked temp, I currently work in a manager-level position in corporate operations for one of the largest staffing companies in the world. My farts know more about contingent labor issues than you.

[Ben Kenobi]

What kind of pansy socialist are you? How is it a "bum deal" for someone to get paid to do work? It's not as if anyone tricks them into becoming temps. "Wait--this is TEMP agency? I HAD NO IDEA!!!"

How is it socialist to suggest that a full-time position is much better than a temp position?

If there wasn't a market for contingency labor, obviously it wouldn't exist.

Very true. However, I would argue that increasing costs associated with hiring permanent staff increase the demand for temporary labour. So in effect a socialist likes temporary labour because it helps them get around hiring costs.

Companies have short-term needs that can't be feasibly met by hiring permanent staff

Not really. Many companies just use temps to fill their ranks without having to pay employee costs.

And while a temporary job may not be ideal for a worker, it sure as hell beats no job at all. Of course, sometimes it is ideal, as there are many, many cases where people would rather have the relative freedom of working temp than to assume the responsibilities of a permanent position.

Well I'm not one of those people. I've worked temp before and I'd much prefer a permanent position.

And if we want to talk personal experiences, not only have I worked temp, I currently work in a manager-level position in corporate operations for one of the largest staffing companies in the world. My farts know more about contingent labor issues than you.

How does it feel being a modern day slaver?

[Boris Godunov]

How is it socialist to suggest that a full-time position is much better than a temp position?

That wasn't what I called socialist, it's the declaration that it's a case of the evil company taking advantage of the poor worker. Nobody said full-time isn't necessarily "much better" than a contigency position, it's the stupid assertion that a contigency position is, by default, a "bum deal" for the worker.

Very true. However, I would argue that increasing costs associated with hiring permanent staff increase the demand for temporary labour. So in effect a socialist likes temporary labour because it helps them get around hiring costs.

Why would a socialist like something as inherently capitalistic as getting around hiring costs? I don't think you could possibly really know what socialism means without understanding the basic idea that socialists are pretty much categorically opposed to temp agencies.

And the truth of the matter is, you're wrong about employee costs, as by and large, it costs more money to use temporary agency staffing than to hire directly, as there is the whole agency fee aspect. Companies hire temps for convenience, not cost savings.

Not really. Many companies just use temps to fill their ranks without having to pay employee costs.

No.

Company X needs to fill a huge shipment of orders in one week's time. It will require about 125 people to accomplish this. Can they feasibly recruit, screen and hire 125+ (accounting for inevitable quits/terminations) people in that time, with an HR staff of, say, 2? No. Can they get 125 people pretty quickly from a staffing firm? Yes. I guess you're anti-small business and would like that company to fail at being able to fill the orders, thus requiring their customers to seek out some mega-corporation and putting Company X out of business.

Company Y has a receptionist going on vacation for 2 weeks for her honeymoon. They don't have the manpower to man the reception desk for that time period. Does it make sense for them to divert their HR resources to hire someone "full-time" for 2 weeks? How would that possibly be to their advantage or to the advantage of the potential hire, who wouldn't be there long enough to enjoy any benefits anyway?

These are the vast majority of the type of temporary positions that agencies fill. Very, very few of our clients would be so foolish as to engage long-term temps in positions they could fill with permanent staff. In fact, they could seriously run afoul of the law by doing so, since there are regulations that govern co-employment issues.

Well I'm not one of those people. I've worked temp before and I'd much prefer a permanent position.

Good for you. Now try not to assume everyone feels the same way you do.

How does it feel being a modern day slaver?

I don't know, since we pay our temps, can't force them to work for us if they don't want to and provide them with benefits, like virtually all staffing firms. I thought the target of your ire were the companies using temps, anyway. Why blame a company for providing a demanded service? Sounds pretty socialist to me.

How does it feel to be a small-business-hating socialist?

[Ben Kenobi]

That wasn't what I called socialist, it's the declaration that it's a case of the evil company taking advantage of the poor worker.

I've seen temp contracts with 30 percent of before-tax income going to the agency. Temp work is ok for a time, but the only deal for the worker is that it gets their foot in the door working for places that might take them on. That's it.

The companies that hire temps to fill their staffing shortages and rotating temps every 6 months or so, and getting a fresh batch, I really have a problem with this. If the position is a permanent need, they should hire on a permanent basis.

it's the stupid assertion that a contigency position is, by default, a "bum deal" for the worker.

Compared to a full time position, it is a bum deal.

Why would a socialist like something as inherently capitalistic as getting around hiring costs?

Socialists hate paying taxes. They will evade them however they can, while making sure everyone else pays theirs. Hence why they love temp agencies.

I don't think you could possibly really know what socialism means without understanding the basic idea that socialists are pretty much categorically opposed to temp agencies.

Socialists are the best friends of temp agencies. They are all about getting labour as cheap as possible and increasing business taxes so that the 'evil' businesses have no other choice than to rely on temps.

And the truth of the matter is, you're wrong about employee costs, as by and large, it costs more money to use temporary agency staffing than to hire directly, as there is the whole agency fee aspect. Companies hire temps for convenience, not cost savings.

Not so. They don't have to pay pension, health benefits, unemployment insurance, etc, the list goes on. Increasing any of these costs leads to an increase use in temp labour. Simple supply and demand.

Company X needs to fill a huge shipment of orders in one week's time. It will require about 125 people to accomplish this. Can they feasibly recruit, screen and hire 125+ (accounting for inevitable quits/terminations) people in that time, with an HR staff of, say, 2? No. Can they get 125 people pretty quickly from a staffing firm? Yes. I guess you're anti-small business and would like that company to fail at being able to fill the orders, thus requiring their customers to seek out some mega-corporation and putting Company X out of business.

Ok, so you deny that firms have temp rotations?

I don't know, since we pay our temps, can't force them to work for us if they don't want to and offer them benefits.

Temp contracts with 30+ percent before taxes to the agency are brutal.

How does it feel to be a small-business-hating socialist?

I am a small business owner. Most small businesses are under 10 employees, and will never sniff at a temp agency.

[DaShi]

Pekka, now you know one of the reasons why most CEOs are arseholes.

[Boris Godunov]

I've seen temp contracts with 30 percent of before-tax income going to the agency. Temp work is ok for a time, but the only deal for the worker is that it gets their foot in the door working for places that might take them on. That's it.

That's not how temp fees work among the large staffing agencies. The way it works is, we determine (in conjunction with the customer) what the hourly wage is the worker should earn for a position. We then have an agreed-upon mark-up rate that we bill the customer on top of that rate. So, if the job is to pay the temp $10/hour, we then bill the customer maybe $15/hour. We do not take our "cut" from the temporary worker--they are told what the wage is going to be beforehand, they agree to the wage, and that's what they are paid. I've never heard of any staffing company telling a worker their pay would be one thing and then taking a "cut" from the worker's disclosed pay rate as their fee--that would be a pretty stupid way to do business.

The companies that hire temps to fill their staffing shortages and rotating temps every 6 months or so, and getting a fresh batch, I really have a problem with this. If the position is a permanent need, they should hire on a permanent basis.

As I said, this is not the most common usage of temps. First and foremost is short-term need that would render bringing on full-time staff completely impractical and prohibitively expensive. Again, we generally discourage clients from using temps to fill longterm positions that would be better filled with permanent employees (or we at least encourage them to designate the position temp-to-hire, or better yet, let us fill it for direct hire, no temping at all). This is especially true for positions that require some significant amount of training, which is something the company has to do regardless of whether or not the person is permanent or temporary. Would it really be to their advantage to invest training resources into someone they plan to dump in 6 months and replace with someone they have to train from scratch? No, and a smart company won't do that.

There are certain very low-skill positions that are ideal for a rotating workforce, however. But the reason these positions are rotating isn't necessarily because the company wants them that way, it's because the realities of the position often make them that way. There are some jobs that will have very high turnover, regardless of whether or not they're permanent or temporary, because the nature of the work itself is less desirable than other jobs and people will generally be looking to do something else. But the work needs to be done. Data entry grunt jobs are frequently in this category.

Compared to a full time position, it is a bum deal.

First, get the terminology right: you mean a permanent position. "Full time" refers to the hours worked (at least 40 per week). And by this logic, a permanent part-time position is a "bum deal" compared to a full-time position. or a position that pays $12/hour is a "bum deal" compared to a position that pays $15/hour. Or a position that requires someone to do boring data entry is a "bum deal" compared to a position that is more exciting. "Less desirable" and "bum deal" are not synonymous, you know. You do seem to have a problem with English in this regard.

Socialists hate paying taxes. They will evade them however they can, while making sure everyone else pays theirs. Hence why they love temp agencies.

Socialists hate paying taxes? I thought if socialists had their way, no one could evade paying taxes. If it's socialists who hate paying taxes, why is the ardent capitalists who have engineered and taken advantage of massive tax breaks and loopholes for themselves? Is it socialists moving their money offshore to avoid paying taxes, or the capitalists? One of your more retarded assertions...

Even so, how do temp agencies avoid anyone paying taxes? The companies are still paying the taxes, just in the form of fees to the staffing company, which then pays all the taxes on the employees. Do you think staffing firms don't have to pay the same taxes for some reason, or that we're so stupid about business that we wouldn't pass on all those costs to the customer anyway? There's no real difference in the expenditure of the company in this regard.

Socialists are the best friends of temp agencies. They are all about getting labour as cheap as possible and increasing business taxes so that the 'evil' businesses have no other choice than to rely on temps.

If socialists want labor to be "as cheap as possible," why are they among the most ardent supporters of increasing the minimum wage?

Are you just trolling now? Because, really, these are the stupidest things you've said in ages, and that's saying a lot. Anyone who has a modicum of knowledge of what socialists actually believe would know that socialists hate the temp industry, passionately.

But don't take my word for it, here's what socialists themselves say about temporary workers:

http://slp.org/res_state_htm/here_today.html

As you can see... they're not a fan.

Go ahead and search for socialist views on temp workers and try and find me where they talk about loving that arrangement. It actually appears to me that they echo a lot of your specious talking points.

Not so. They don't have to pay pension, health benefits, unemployment insurance, etc, the list goes on. Increasing any of these costs leads to an increase use in temp labour. Simple supply and demand.

Yes, so. Companies cover all of these costs, because they pay it in fees to the temp agency, which provides the same services. The cost of hiring a temporary employee, almost always, is just as expensive money-wise as hiring a permanent employee, or even more. The reason companies use temporary labor, by and large, is because it is extremely advantageous to have such a resource for short-term labor needs, as in the scenarios I gave you. It's a convenience that they're willing to pay for.

Ok, so you deny that firms have temp rotations?

How does that in any way address the situation I gave you? Are you denying that companies have short-term labor needs that can't practically be filled via permanent staffing? Are you suggesting that such short-term positions don't comprise the bulk of our business? If you are, you're quite wrong.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "temp rotations." If you are referring to permatemping--of course some companies do that. We don't encourage it--in fact, we make it a point to push companies to hire our people full-time for settlement fees that ultimately will be cheaper for them than long-term temp usage. We have quarterly and annual company-wide contests to see what branches can sell the most temp-to-hire or direct hire business. But a temp worker will know full well what the terms are before they're asked to accept the assignment--no one is a slave, which is absurd hyperbole.

Temp contracts with 30+ percent before taxes to the agency are brutal.

Again, that's not how it works. Well, if you're naive and not really very skilled than you may fall in with a shifty agency that treats its workers like independent contractors that I suppose might do it that way, but those are not the major agencies out there. All of the large staffing companies bill on the model I described above--mark-up billed to the customer.

I am a small business owner. Most small businesses are under 10 employees, and will never sniff at a temp agency.

Wrong. A considerable portion of our business comes from small businesses. Nearly all of our branches deal in nearly equal measures of corporate contract customers and transactional, local business they obtain themselves. Of that local business, small companies are common. We even have sales material specifically geared towards small businesses like that, which wouldn't be practical to have if we never got such business, now would it?

And wait: if your (erroneous) contention is that temps are cheaper for a company than permanent employees, why wouldn't a small business use temporary staffing? After all, then they would be more likely to use them than bigger companies with deeper pockets, if it was about cost.

A small part of my job is giving guidance to field branches about clients that they can and can't service. Some of the very small business requests I've seen in just the past month were:

1) A woman who runs, practically by herself, a roving dance expo for teen girls, and she has our branches staff ushers/ticket-takers for the events.
2) An attorney (company of one!) who wanted us to payroll his wife's mother as an administrative assistant.
3) A guy, sole business owner, who wanted to hire two temps to be gold farmers for WoW (service denied on that one).
4) A free-lance editor who wanted to hire a temp to do some sort of clerical grunt work for him (denied since it required the temp to work in the guy's private residence).

So yes, we do get a good deal of small business clients.

We also get a lot of not-for-profit clients, especially churches. A couple of Catholic Churches here in Portland hire our staff for part-time evening janitorial work. I'm sure you'll be writing an indignant letter about that, yes?

Really, it's about time you stopped spewing erroneous gobbledy-gook to people who actually know what they're talking about because it's their profession.