Negotiating restriction / handcuff clause

[TheFaQQer]

For the opt out to be valid, both contractor and umbrella need to do so in writing, before being introduced to the client.

So chances of you being opted out properly are negligible.

Which then renders the handcuff period irrelevant, because you can go direct eight weeks from the end of the contract without the agency charging you or the client any fees.

[Andy Hallett]

For the opt out to be valid, both contractor and umbrella need to do so in writing, before being introduced to the client.

So chances of you being opted out properly are negligible.

Which then renders the handcuff period irrelevant, because you can go direct eight weeks from the end of the contract without the agency charging you or the client any fees.

Again comes down to interpretation of the magical "introduction or supply". You have your view, we have ours

[SueEllen]

Again comes down to interpretation of the magical "introduction or supply". You have your view, we have ours

No case has gone to the high court or supreme court so until then we are right and you are wrong.

Personally that bit of legislation is such a mess I would concentrate on the other clauses in the contract......

[TheFaQQer]

Again comes down to interpretation of the magical "introduction or supply". You have your view, we have ours

Indeed it does

How many cases have S3 taken to court about it, though? I know Rory Dwyer's lot had that one case that he kept bleating about, but how many have you argued?

Based on my previous experiences with agencies (none S3, granted), I'd take my chances in court to show that the opt out wasn't done properly.

[Taita]

Indeed it does

How many cases have S3 taken to court about it, though? I know Rory Dwyer's lot had that one case that he kept bleating about, but how many have you argued?

Based on my previous experiences with agencies (none S3, granted), I'd take my chances in court to show that the opt out wasn't done properly.

Actually TF you are on safe ground here. The agencies are going to come unstuck in Court because the interpretation will hinge on the 'Spirit' rather than the 'Letter' of the law and we all know this legislation was anti agency...... it was delivered in the heady days of NL* Power, before they realised they could gain more personally from embracing employers rather than workers!

*historical note: NL was once a political party which briefly governed the UK.

[Taita]

Indeed it does

How many cases have S3 taken to court about it, though? I know Rory Dwyer's lot had that one case that he kept bleating about, but how many have you argued?

Based on my previous experiences with agencies (none S3, granted), I'd take my chances in court to show that the opt out wasn't done properly.

Actually TF you are on safe ground here. The agencies are going to come unstuck in Court because the interpretation will hinge on the 'Spirit' rather than the 'Letter' of the law and we all know this legislation was anti agency...... it was delivered in the heady days of NL* Power, before they realised they could gain more personally from embracing employers rather than workers!

*historical note: NL now known as the Out-in-the-Wilderness or Who-am-I, party.

[fidot]

what's your interpretation?

Again comes down to interpretation of the magical "introduction or supply". You have your view, we have ours

Just out of interest, how do agencies interpret "introduction or supply"?

Thanks

[northernladuk]

Just out of interest, how do agencies interpret "introduction or supply"?

Thanks

Whichever suits them best regardless of the situation.

[Taita]

Whichever suits them best regardless of the situation.

Yup. Could be on thing today and another tomorrow...... black is white and white is black according to the situation in hand. I think George Orwell called it Agency Speak!