Woes Around Opt-Out and Payment

[Contreras]

Is this a campaign promise of yours?

It's a fair question.

[malvolio]

It's a fair question.

In the right context. It has no place here.

But FTAOD it is a genuine and supportable offer, and has been made before.

[Lance]

Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but isn't the point of the opt-out so that agencies don't have to pay you if you don't have a signed time sheet?

As I understand it, if the OP has a signed time sheet for the work period then the in/out status is irrelevant and the agency owes the money.

Certainly the contract I have at the moment has no 'if client no pay, we no pay you' clause. Maybe that's unusual though.
The only exception being expenses as the agency will not pay those until they've received payment.

[malvolio]

Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but isn't the point of the opt-out so that agencies don't have to pay you if you don't have a signed time sheet?

As I understand it, if the OP has a signed time sheet for the work period then the in/out status is irrelevant and the agency owes the money.

Certainly the contract I have at the moment has no 'if client no pay, we no pay you' clause. Maybe that's unusual though.
The only exception being expenses as the agency will not pay those until they've received payment.

The point of the opt out, and the reason it was negotiated for in the first place, is so that small businesses can use sub-contractors or temporary staff without getting wrapped up in all the protective measures that the Agency Regulations would otherwise saddle them with. The thing about "no pay before we get paid" is a very necessary commercial protection for most if not all small businesses in any industry

Agencies, being ever helpful and supportive, saw it as a way to de-risk their payment schedule, enforce long-running handcuff clauses to protect their income and minimise the effort they would need to find, vet and approve candidates by getting the contractors to put themselves outside the scope of the regulations and so not have to comply with its various demands. Hence the word "abuse".

The Opt Out has a real purpose, but it's nothing to do with agencies.

[missinggreenfields]

Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but isn't the point of the opt-out so that agencies don't have to pay you if you don't have a signed time sheet?

The main other benefit of remaining inside is that the timescale to change agency / bypass the agency completely is typically more generous than a contract would give you.

[Lance]

The main other benefit of remaining inside is that the timescale to change agency / bypass the agency completely is typically more generous than a contract would give you.

so am I right in saying that the OPs opt-in/out status is irrelevant to payment?

[eek]

so am I right in saying that the OPs opt-in/out status is irrelevant to payment?

No its highly relevant.

If opted out the clause saying that the agency only needs to pay him if the agency is paid would be valid.

If opted in that clause is invalid and the agency is obliged to pay for all signed timesheets.

[malvolio]

No its highly relevant.

If opted out the clause saying that the agency only needs to pay him if the agency is paid would be valid.

If opted in that clause is invalid and the agency is obliged to pay for all signed timesheets.

...unless he has actually signed an unconditional agreement that they are not so obliged. But that would be a really silly thing to do. The OP's problem is that the payment clause is conditional on his status but those conditions are not clearly stated nor understood. FWIW I think he should be paid in full.

[Lost It]

And on the basis of this...

I joined Ipse.

Thanks for the nudge.