Notice period by contractor not well respected

[avatcuk]

Where company decides to withdraw interim resources is considered a norm (withdrawn instantly or by giving enough notice, although ensured tenure to be difficult as hell).

However, interim to take similar action first than the organisation and where interim is also in agreement to all necessary contractual protocols (Notice Period etc.), seen as an offence to some higher in the rank or bridge burning action by culturally primitive organisations.

Why some organisations do not respect and appreciate the move by interim resources positively, when they (business) themselves would have taken similar decision against interim several times.

Why some businesses just could not stand the departure of contractor with notice and be biased??



Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[ladymuck]

I think what you're saying is that it's unfair that contractors have to give notice per the contract and clients don't?

[BR14]

you made sense from That?

how many lingos you speak?

[northernladuk]

Firstly, you are in a client/supplier relationship. It is not an even field and there are different expectations and outcomes on both sides. That will mean reasons, how often, fallout will be different. If it's good for you it's good for me isn't really the case.

Going on to the rest of your post.. which is a very difficult read.

Where company decides to withdraw interim resources is considered a norm (withdrawn instantly or by giving enough notice, although ensured tenure to be difficult as hell).

No it isn't at all. It's in the contract and available but it's certainly not the norm to pull it. It might appear that clients use it more because there are more reasons they would give notice than us, budget runs out, perm resource comes in, quality of service etc but I would argue that contractors exercise notice and don't want to honour the clause more than clients.

However, interim to take similar action first than the organisation and where interim is also in agreement to all necessary contractual protocols (Notice Period etc.), seen as an offence to some higher in the rank or bridge burning action by culturally primitive organisations.

Because they see you as letting them down. They have a piece of work to complete and leaving can affect a lot more people. The project timelines might slip, they've got to spend a lot of time resourcing/getting someone up to speed. It's a lot more inconvenient for them that it is for us.

Why some organisations do not respect and appreciate the move by interim resources positively, when they (business) themselves would have taken similar decision against interim several times.

Companies don't like permies hand in notice either. It's not something that is purely a contractor issue.

Why some businesses just could not stand the departure of contractor with notice and be biased??

And you'd be happy if they did the same to you. Threads on this forum indicate other contractors aren't.

On the whole from what I see on these forums and at my clients is that, although contractors occasionally get binned early, we do the lions share of quitting gigs and annoying clients. Not hard to expect clients that have been burned to start getting a bit tougher.

Very odd language in your post but hope that covers some of it.

[northernladuk]

Just to add the above. Notice is pretty irrelevant for us. I can't tell exactly what's ticked you off due to the language in the post but a company is not obliged to pay for notice. If there is no work you don't get paid it. It's in the contract.

You are there to do a job. If that job disappears then so does any work you can do. This could be projects stopped, backfill by permies, budget disappears. If that's the case then we don't get paid any more by the T&M nature of our contracts.

It's all there in black and white. Thankfully not too many companies pull this and will honour notice period but never expect to get paid for work you don't do as a contractor.

[northernladuk]

I think what you're saying is that it's unfair that contractors have to give notice per the contract and clients don't?

I read in to it he's given notice and it's not gone down so well. Either they've binned him on the spot, refuse to pay the full month even though he's not worked it or they are just mad at him and the agent/client is giving him grief.

It's so poorly worded it's difficult to understand exactly what his issue is so we can address it.

[northernladuk]

Ahh... here we go. Something he's already discussed with us. I guess he's just having a rant on the whole thing he's just gone through.

https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...t=#post2647322

[ladymuck]

I read in to it he's given notice and it's not gone down so well. Either they've binned him on the spot, refuse to pay the full month even though he's not worked it or they are just mad at him and the agent/client is giving him grief.

It's so poorly worded it's difficult to understand exactly what his issue is so we can address it.

Fair point. I read it twice and just took a guess.

[northernladuk]

Fair point. I read it twice and just took a guess.

Same to be fair lol...

[Old Greg]

Where company decides to withdraw interim resources is considered a norm (withdrawn instantly or by giving enough notice, although ensured tenure to be difficult as hell).

However, interim to take similar action first than the organisation and where interim is also in agreement to all necessary contractual protocols (Notice Period etc.), seen as an offence to some higher in the rank or bridge burning action by culturally primitive organisations.

Why some organisations do not respect and appreciate the move by interim resources positively, when they (business) themselves would have taken similar decision against interim several times.

Why some businesses just could not stand the departure of contractor with notice and be biased??



Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

If you were working for me, I'd be delighted to see the back of you without notice.