No notice option for contractor

[simes]

Currently looking at a contract where the client insists on them having a 7 day notice period (standard so far), but the contractor has no notice option, i.e. in their words the contractor "must complete duration of contract"

What are people's thoughts on that kind of clause? Presumably, if you want out, you just underperform until they give you your notice? ... not professional, I know, but neither is the no notice option, imo.

What are people's thoughts?

Most of what could be said, has been said above.

Otherwise, ensure the substitution clause is added and that the client would be prepared to uphold their side of the agreement. You, personally, can walk but you'd pop someone else in, in your place.

Now, I am not a great believer in the need for this contractual clause as anything other than something to upset a contractor's IR35 balance and, realistically, the client are always going to interview you, personally, and not a company name so again it proves an unlikely or, at best, uncommon way for 99% of contractors to operate.

So why did I suggest it? Perhaps just as a display of obtuseness... Good luck though.

[northernladuk]

Otherwise, ensure the substitution clause is added and that the client would be prepared to uphold their side of the agreement. You, personally, can walk but you'd pop someone else in, in your place.

If a sub clause needs adding then the OP has bigger problems than notice period.

You also wouldn't just pop someone in your place. You'd have to source them and do a handover to them on your time.

Now, I am not a great believer in the need for this contractual clause as anything other than something to upset a contractor's IR35 balance and, realistically, the client are always going to interview you, personally, and not a company name so again it proves an unlikely or, at best, uncommon way for 99% of contractors to operate.

So why did I suggest it? Perhaps just as a display of obtuseness... Good luck though.

WTF??!?! What did I just read.

[LondonManc]

Why? You have a piece of work you need doing and you don't want the supplier to walk off midway through. Would you engage a building company to build an extension and then give them the option to bugger off half way through? No you wouldn't.

More and more contracts don't have the ability to give notice. Barclays put this in many years ago after people were using them as a stop gap and leaving. That was their fault for dropping rates, walking contractors and generally poor handling of their contingent workforce but the response was a bit harsh.

The fact you want the option to bail mid contract could be exactly why they have this clause in. It's likely they've been burned too many times.

If I were you I'd suggest that you reduce that 7 days to 0 so they can terminate with no notice period. Good pointer for IR35. The 7 days is pointless anyway as they just withdraw the work and you don't get paid for 7 days which is exactly the same as instant termination. At least with 0 days you've a nice piece of IR35 defence

I don't think being used as a stop gap was the reason. In my experience, they caught people on the hop with a round of rate cuts in November, meaning people had no virtually no choice but to accept then sorted something else out asap in the new year. If Barclays couldn't grasp that it was self-inflicted, that's their problem. If I could guarantee that a client wouldn't rate-cut, then I'd happily accept a no-notice contract.

Overall, I agree with your post though.

[northernladuk]

I don't think being used as a stop gap was the reason. In my experience, they caught people on the hop with a round of rate cuts in November, meaning people had no virtually no choice but to accept then sorted something else out asap in the new year. If Barclays couldn't grasp that it was self-inflicted, that's their problem. If I could guarantee that a client wouldn't rate-cut, then I'd happily accept a no-notice contract.

Overall, I agree with your post though.

Quite possibly true. From what I could see the timeline was something along the lines of..

10% cut take it or leave it. I took it.
3 or 4 months later walked every contractor (My contract ended just before so didn't see the fall out)
Mass of roles opened back up 2 or so months later but on some derisory rates. The same role I was doing popped up at £150 less a day and many were in the 300's
I nearly took a Service Now role there on a upper £300 rate with the full intention to use the notice period. I know others that did this and I am sure there were comments to the same on here.
Looked again later and rates had creeped back to up to nearly acceptable but with no notice period.

I just put 2 and 2 together but yes, quite possible that was the full reason.

Agree with the last few sentences.

[NotAllThere]

...but having not seen it before, ...

I first encountered such a term back in 2001, when, as a hiring manager, I insisted on it. The contractors (former contracting colleagues) were delighted, since it was a good pointer that IR35 didn't apply to the contract.

[simes]

If a sub clause needs adding then the OP has bigger problems than notice period.

1. You also wouldn't just pop someone in your place. You'd have to source them and do a handover to them on your time.

2. WTF??!?! What did I just read.

1. Believe it or not, I do know that.

2. We've been through all this before sir. What someone writes and what you read are sometimes two mutually exclusive things in your rush to be everywhere at all times.

I will state from the outset, that mine is an opinion, and to make it easier, I will try to offer a view via stats (sort of) and an analogy.

1. Of the xmillion contractors, what percentage have actually Used this clause?
2. Of the xmillion contractors, what percentage have tried to Use this clause, but been pushed back?
3. Of the xmillion contractors, what percentage have never needed to use, nor tried to use this clause?

My rough guestimate opinion of a percentage of those who have never tried nor used would by roughly 95% (I could be wrong; I would love to see some stats but a brief search offered no wisdom). IF, I am roughly right, then I personally find it strange that a so little utilised element holds such a strong grip on a self employed contractor's status. And, as IR35 needs both the contractual and the real life conditions to mirror each other, it is still a sore point. Especially if the clause is attempted to be used and refused by the client, which in turn would make most clients wary of Having such a clause in a contract.

My analogy.

A car is specifically defined by;

Having four wheels
Having a steering wheel
Having a minimum of two seats
Having a pair of wings for a minimum of five miles' flight

Most cars do not fly. Perhaps two in the world can. Why should a car be necessarily defined by such a minority function?

Anyway, please jump in for some cheap chuckles. The waters are warm.

[northernladuk]

I first encountered such a term back in 2001, when, as a hiring manager, I insisted on it. The contractors (former contracting colleagues) were delighted, since it was a good pointer that IR35 didn't apply to the contract.

Are you sure you aren't confusing this with zero notice period? One means you can't give notice at all, the other means you can be binned on the spot with out notice. The latter is good for IR35.

[northernladuk]

1. Believe it or not, I do know that.

2. We've been through all this before sir. What someone writes and what you read are sometimes two mutually exclusive things in your rush to be everywhere at all times.

I will state from the outset, that mine is an opinion, and to make it easier, I will try to offer a view via stats (sort of) and an analogy.

1. Of the xmillion contractors, what percentage have actually Used this clause?
2. Of the xmillion contractors, what percentage have tried to Use this clause, but been pushed back?
3. Of the xmillion contractors, what percentage have never needed to use, nor tried to use this clause?

My rough guestimate opinion of a percentage of those who have never tried nor used would by roughly 95% (I could be wrong; I would love to see some stats but a brief search offered no wisdom). IF, I am roughly right, then I personally find it strange that a so little utilised element holds such a strong grip on a self employed contractor's status. And, as IR35 needs both the contractual and the real life conditions to mirror each other, it is still a sore point. Especially if the clause is attempted to be used and refused by the client, which in turn would make most clients wary of Having such a clause in a contract.

My analogy.

A car is specifically defined by;

Having four wheels
Having a steering wheel
Having a minimum of two seats
Having a pair of wings for a minimum of five miles' flight

Most cars do not fly. Perhaps two in the world can. Why should a car be necessarily defined by such a minority function?

Anyway, please jump in for some cheap chuckles. The waters are warm.

Utilised and having the option (even though untried) are completely different. RoS isn't the strongest of all three and has been called a sham before now but it's still a pillar and a key part of the contract. No one needs to insist these are in contracts now. Anyone that knows the first thing about our contracts should have it in. That said many times it's in it's not unfettered so still useless.

But... the is a contractual agreement that RoS is allowed and so the courts must take it as written and agreed. Permies can't have RoS so if I have it in my contract then I'm off to a good start.

The problem occurs when you do come to use it. If you are stupid enough to question the client whether they will honour it and they say no then you are stuffed. PC did this a long time ago and screwed his own IR35 defense. It's proven to be a sham so he's immediately lost one of his pillars. If it's not mentioned then revert to the contract. Easy.

Doesn't matter what percentage of people have or haven't used it. It's in your contract and it's a strong defence. That said I think your 95% is way off. More like 99.999% I can name the number of responses from posters on here that have managed to use it or it's been a factor in a gig on one hand the last Christ knows how long.

But if you don't believe in this clause then ask them to take it out. It's your IR35 status after all.

You analogy makes no sense to me but add in the defining factors that is often touted with cars.. the tops speed is (say 150mph). How many people hit that so why make it do that? It's still done, so the RoS must be in the contract.

So why did I suggest it? Perhaps just as a display of obtuseness... Good luck though.

I can think of another reason why.....

[ladymuck]

Surely, if you sign a no notice contract and the rate changes, that's a contract change and you're perfectly within reason to decline said change. That could result in termination. Not sure the Barclays example really works there.

I've worked at Barclays too, it was a delight. (Not)

[psychocandy]

Quite possibly true. From what I could see the timeline was something along the lines of..

10% cut take it or leave it. I took it.
3 or 4 months later walked every contractor (My contract ended just before so didn't see the fall out)
Mass of roles opened back up 2 or so months later but on some derisory rates. The same role I was doing popped up at £150 less a day and many were in the 300's
I nearly took a Service Now role there on a upper £300 rate with the full intention to use the notice period. I know others that did this and I am sure there were comments to the same on here.
Looked again later and rates had creeped back to up to nearly acceptable but with no notice period.

I just put 2 and 2 together but yes, quite possible that was the full reason.

Agree with the last few sentences.

nluk - did you just admit you were going to take a gig and use the notice period to bail early?