atw: Re: agents getting sneaky

Hmm, Erisa (L).

Been there and did much the same some time ago.

As I've stated on list before, I make agencies define their "client" (if they
are actually a signed up client) right down to division, location / area,
department and team / manager name.

If they can't or won't define this, then you have to wonder what kind of
fishing expedition the agent is on.

They are our agents (but on when we authorize them to be).

We are the Work Performer Clients, working through the agent (AKA
Talent Scout - same media / entertainment agent analogy applies here) to
perform work for the Work Provider Client.

If they won't precisely define who the client is, advise them that a blanket
work restriction for say, "Telstra" would contravene fair trading / trade
practices legislation and the laws of Tort and should be immediately
severed from the *proposed* contract.  A binding contract being a
negotiated agreement between two or more parties, not built on the "Here
is our standard contract, sign this!" model.

Remember that, even though your agent might filter the wages through to
your account, your agent is being employed (through a commission structure
that they must reveal) by YOU.

Besides.  Funny old me.  I like to know for whom I am actually working.

Thanks for raising this.  Always a timely reminder.

Happy 2005.

Michael Granat
Write Ideas

At 10:53 31/12/2004, you wrote:
>Re contracting:
>I notice that some agents, who are referring me to a prospective contract,
>will send an email which includes the following:
>
>"Please give your permission for "xxxpersonnel" to be your sole
>representative for positions with the Department of "xxxxxxxxx".
>
>I wonder if there are many people who reply yes to the email, in a hurry,
>without considering the repercussions.
>
>I reply as follows:
>"I grant you the right to be my sole representative for "this position"
>only.  This grant does not include the right to represent me for other
>positions that may arise in the future, with this, or any other
>organisation.  Such rights must be negotiated idividually".
>
>However, it does create an unhealthy concern that the agent is taking a
>shortcut in ethics.
>
>
>
>
>erisalinsky@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Tech writer/Procedures Analyst
>0407 811 937 02 6286 8959 (Canberra)
>Box 4051, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic 3052 Australia

Michael E. Granat
(QGTWD) (FOTROTWYB!)
T/as Write Ideas
E-mail: mailto:writeideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: <http://home.pacific.net.au/~megranat/>
Without Prejudice.
E&OE. 

**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: