No notice option for contractor

[northernladuk]

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)

But it can't change. The old contract can be ended and a new one offered at the new rate, but yes, you can refuse the change and your old contract will just end which is the offer that was on the table at Barclays. New contract at 10% less or terminate the old one and you walk.

[northernladuk]

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

Yup. By a client that screwed us for a 10% cut and then walked everyone when it fancied them. The gigs re-offered were at 30% less. Who wouldn't?

But I didn't

[ladymuck]

But it can't change. The old contract can be ended and a new one offered at the new rate, but yes, you can refuse the change and your old contract will just end which is the offer that was on the table at Barclays. New contract at 10% less or terminate the old one and you walk.

Yes, that was my point. It was another post above (not from you) that seemed to imply something different

[northernladuk]

Yes, that was my point. It was another post above (not from you) that seemed to imply something different

Ah. Gotcha.

[psychocandy]

Yup. By a client that screwed us for a 10% cut and then walked everyone when it fancied them. The gigs re-offered were at 30% less. Who wouldn't?

But I didn't

Hmm. I don't think you understand the supplier/client relationship.

I wouldn't bail early its not professional.

[NotAllThere]

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.

Both apply. They were unable to give notice, I didn't have to. They had to work the length of the contract, if required. I could bin them at any time.

[simes]

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.

As much as it pains me to admit, I agree with all this.

I certainly would not have RoS in the contract and then test the honouring waters for the sh1ts and giggles. Mine was more a point to illustrate its contradiction in IR35 terms. One needs it in the contract to demonstrate ...something. But, it is a) widely not used and b) even if it was attempted to be instructed, would get pushed back.

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.

Yup - I figured I was being generous with the 95%

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.

Fine, a further analogy. We liken how we do things around here to that of a plumber / builder. If I/you/one had interviewed three plumbers to do your bathrooms, chosen one based on seeing his successes in other houses, and the fact you get on with him, and on the day he is due to start, sends you a message to say he's handed it all over to his apprentice, would I/you/one be happy? For my part, no.

So I;

1. Can see why the clients would say no to the prospect of substitution
2. Cannot understand why the clients would ever allow it in the contracts
3. Cannot understand why, for the sole trader / contractor, it should even be a part of the CEST or other tests of Outside IR35 tests.

That said, yes, for whatever arbitrary reason, have it in the contract.

[northernladuk]

Fine, a further analogy. We liken how we do things around here to that of a plumber / builder. If I/you/one had interviewed three plumbers to do your bathrooms, chosen one based on seeing his successes in other houses, and the fact you get on with him, and on the day he is due to start, sends you a message to say he's handed it all over to his apprentice, would I/you/one be happy? For my part, no.

Why an apprentice? You've just muddied the waters. What if it was an equally skilled person that the original builder had brought on site and got him up to speed in his own time? That wouldn't be so bad and is a better example of how a sub should work. You don't send an apprentice and you do a handover. Your understanding of substitution is as bad as the clients hence it doesn't get used.

So I;

1. Can see why the clients would say no to the prospect of substitution

Why? If the get an equally skilled guy that has had a handover and can hit the ground running? The agent is only going to send them someone else that's equally skilled and the client is going to have to get them up to speed at their cost. RoS seems like a good deal for the client.

2. Cannot understand why the clients would ever allow it in the contracts

Why not? The option is to wait while the agent screws them for finding another guy they've got to onboard again. The RoS in theory is a better option for them

3. Cannot understand why, for the sole trader / contractor, it should even be a part of the CEST or other tests of Outside IR35 tests.

Because it's a key differentiator between a business and permie. Permies, can't do it, we can (arguable) so we are business and can benefit from the tax advantages.

To be fair it sounds like you are doing yourself out of your IR35 status by not understanding RoS, what it is, how to execute it and why we have it. True disguised permie thinking, as you've demonstrated in many other posts.

The problem is educating the client and getting it used. We will never get there if everyone thinks like you.

[man]

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?

I was under the impression that no termination from the contractor to the agent was not a good thing as far as IR35?

There are a ton of possible reasons I can see why you would want to avoid agreeing to it - too many to list. I can give an example in my own past - on one contract just a few weeks in the project manager started shouting and swearing at me (totally unjustified, I hadn't done anything wrong) - and refused to stop when I put my foot down. I gave termination notice as the client refused to lift a finger to deal with the issue. I'm sure plenty of people on here will take issue with me for doing that - telling people to just grit their teeth and take it no matter what (and I'm sure many have) but everyone's got different red lines and termination notice is a good way of enforcing them if all else fails.

So negotiate it out if it makes you uncomfortable. I think it shows a hell of a lot more integrity and professionalism to negotiate a fair contract that you will be happy to fully adhere to than than going into a one sided contract with half a mind about various ways to wheedle out of it.

[simes]

Why an apprentice? You've just muddied the waters. What if it was an equally skilled person that the original builder had brought on site and got him up to speed in his own time? That wouldn't be so bad and is a better example of how a sub should work. You don't send an apprentice and you do a handover. Your understanding of substitution is as bad as the clients hence it doesn't get used.

Why? If the get an equally skilled guy that has had a handover and can hit the ground running? The agent is only going to send them someone else that's equally skilled and the client is going to have to get them up to speed at their cost. RoS seems like a good deal for the client.

Why not? The option is to wait while the agent screws them for finding another guy they've got to onboard again. The RoS in theory is a better option for them

Because it's a key differentiator between a business and permie. Permies, can't do it, we can (arguable) so we are business and can benefit from the tax advantages.

To be fair it sounds like you are doing yourself out of your IR35 status by not understanding RoS, what it is, how to execute it and why we have it. True disguised permie thinking, as you've demonstrated in many other posts.

The problem is educating the client and getting it used. We will never get there if everyone thinks like you.

Friend, people do not buy Technical. They buy people.

Surely the ability has to be demonstrated but at the end of the day, People buy People.