Contracting risks...

[MrMarkyMark]

If your business was losing 10's of millions per month what would you do? Keep paying contractors full whack? When it's that or potentially go bust then yes the suppliers come under the spot light.

It was rumoured that when Reuters were implementing, enterprise wide, Siebel their CW office was full of contractors costing total £1 million per day.
I was told that it almost took them under.

How true that is I don't know, although I was engaged there at the time.

[billybiro]

What does strike me though is that here is a list of disgraceful contract breakers that we are all up in arms about and directing our anger at those clients... yet you are arguing it's ok for a contractor to give notice and no one can get upset about it...

You see the fail there?

They are on the list because what they do is not acceptable which is my whole point. Giving notice isn't the done thing... for all parties.

No.. There is no fail. What I'm saying is that, provided its within the terms of the contract, it's perfectly fine for either side to terminate the contract, and neither side is doing anything wrong.

That list merely serves to demonstrate that there's quite a few companies/clients who are well prepared to issue an ultimatum of "take-a-midcontract-rate-cut-or-sod-off" as well as contractors who will invoke the termination clause in their contracts.

It's yourself and others who are suggesting that it's fine when clients do this (or that they have "very good reasons" before they break their contracts - i.e. running out of money) but it's not ok when a contractor does this for the same, yet opposite reasons - i.e. to get more money.

Ironically, most of the names of that previous list are hardly companies struggling to make ends meet now are they? They're some of the most cash rich firms out there. Small wonder given that they continually forcefully impose mid-contract rate cuts on their contract workforce. Who's the greedy ones now?

[MrMarkyMark]

I guess the thing is bailing can work against you.

For example, if you are with a client who does not do the dirty in the way you describe, i.e. no rate cuts / cut short contracts, will re-engage good resource.

You are assisting with the contractor recruitment process.
Do you interview someone who is prepared to bail / has a history of bailing?
Bear in mind, your re-engagement, in the future, might depend on the choices you make at this stage....

People like to use the tradesman anology, well my step dad was one.
His reputation meant he kept afloat through all the hard times. If he had a reputation for bailing I doubt that would have been the case.

[northernladuk]

I don't recall anyone saying its fine for clients. I'm saying its poor for for anyone to do it. The discussion started with you saying its in the contract so its OK to invoke it. We are saying on the whole it is not OK to do. The fact is we have a list of clients shows we are angry when clients do it. A few of us were annoyed a contractor did it and the whole argument started.... That's all.

[SueEllen]

I don't recall anyone saying its fine for clients. I'm saying its poor for for anyone to do it. The discussion started with you saying its in the contract so its OK to invoke it. We are saying on the whole it is not OK to do. The fact is we have a list of clients shows we are angry when clients do it. A few of us were annoyed a contractor did it and the whole argument started.... That's all.

We don't know why the OP left.

Also his client may be aware they aren't paying market rate so know they will lose people hence the short notice period.

[LucidDementia]

Abiding by the letter of a contract is a definition of professionalism.

It seems to me folk confuse professionalism with ethics; they're not the same thing.

[billybiro]

I don't recall anyone saying its fine for clients.

Ok. No, no one has explicitly said that.

But we get reports of companies forcing a "rate cut or get lost" mid-contract, and its a shrug of the shoulders, ho-hum, these things happen, just move on.

A report of a contractor bailing on a contract for more money and it's that's so wrong, that's so unprofessional, gives us all a bad name, you are a bad person and should feel bad about what you've done.

You see the hypocrisy there?

Either it's bad for both sides to do it, and we'll rail against either side equally. Or it's absolutely fine for either side to do it, and we'll remain quiet on the rhetoric when a contractor says they're bailing for more money (or any other reason, really).

Agreed?

[psychocandy]

What does strike me though is that here is a list of disgraceful contract breakers that we are all up in arms about and directing our anger at those clients... yet you are arguing it's ok for a contractor to give notice and no one can get upset about it...

You see the fail there?

They are on the list because what they do is not acceptable which is my whole point. Giving notice isn't the done thing... for all parties.

Yes but bit different. OK if client gives notice to contractor = bummer but there we go. If contractor gives notice to leave to client = same.

But what these clients are doing is the contractor half way though a contract strolling in on a monday morning and saying "Right I don't care if I'm going to leave you in the tulipe, I want 10% more, agree by the end of the week or take this as my notice and I'm out of here".

Would be a riot if someone tried that one!

[psychocandy]

I guess the thing is bailing can work against you.

For example, if you are with a client who does not do the dirty in the way you describe, i.e. no rate cuts / cut short contracts, will re-engage good resource.

You are assisting with the contractor recruitment process.
Do you interview someone who is prepared to bail / has a history of bailing?
Bear in mind, your re-engagement, in the future, might depend on the choices you make at this stage....

People like to use the tradesman anology, well my step dad was one.
His reputation meant he kept afloat through all the hard times. If he had a reputation for bailing I doubt that would have been the case.

How is anyone going to know you bailed though?

Yes ultimately you could have a load of short gigs on your CVs but that doesnt prove anything. You're going down the road then of nobhead agents and clients who like "long extensions at previous clients". This is stupid because there may be perfectly valid reasons for short gigs not related to bailing.

[Forgotmylogin]

Yes but bit different. OK if client gives notice to contractor = bummer but there we go. If contractor gives notice to leave to client = same.

But what these clients are doing is the contractor half way though a contract strolling in on a monday morning and saying "Right I don't care if I'm going to leave you in the tulipe, I want 10% more, agree by the end of the week or take this as my notice and I'm out of here".

Would be a riot if someone tried that one!

Really? So everyone presumes that this was because of a rate-cut, and not because the guy was unprofessional and wanted to move?

If you walk in to the client and say "Give me 10% more or I leave" then the client has a choice - give you the money or let you go.
If a client says "Accept a 10% cut or leave" then the contractor has a choice - take the cut or leave.

I don't think either of those scenarios is acceptable mid-contract, but at least they're balanced with each other. Neither is similar to one party turning to the other mid-contract and saying "I know that the work still needs doing but for no real reason it will have to be another worker who does it".

In any case, that isn't what happened here either. If it were, then the thread would be about "old client gave me notice, new client binned the job" instead of "I binned my client and the new client binned the post I wanted".