Contract clauses becoming more draconian?

[fidot]

Even though the agency are allowed to say "opt in" or "f*** off", how many agents will actually know this? In which case, the 'I reminded them of the law around not making it conditional... "which obviously isn't going to happen here, right?"' seems like quite a good negotiating ploy

[northernladuk]

Even though the agency are allowed to say "opt in" or "f*** off", how many agents will actually know this? In which case, the 'I reminded them of the law around not making it conditional... "which obviously isn't going to happen here, right?"' seems like quite a good negotiating ploy

Firstly, where I agree they tend to be clueless on many of the finer points I'm pretty sure they'll have a clue what it is. They deal with it day in day out and probably won't have an opt in contract.

And they will not fall for the conditional rubbish because they'll just ask someone that does and you are back to square one.

[fidot]

And they will not fall for the conditional rubbish because they'll just ask someone that does and you are back to square one.

Except that, in this case, as PerfectStorm said "Funnily enough a template was produced from somewhere and the necessary 'opt in' version of the document created"

[northernladuk]

Except that, in this case, as PerfectStorm said "Funnily enough a template was produced from somewhere and the necessary 'opt in' version of the document created"

If it was created to give to a contractor that was complaining about Opt In the whole thing is a complete waste of time. It will be wrong for a start. I'll also bet they didn't then ask the contractor for passport and a copy of his qualifications and any other extra diligence they should be producing. It exists to do nothing more than appease the contractor in which case it's a total waste of time as it doesn't give you the protections you were opting in for anyway.

[fidot]

If it was created to give to a contractor that was complaining about Opt In the whole thing is a complete waste of time. It will be wrong for a start. I'll also bet they didn't then ask the contractor for passport and a copy of his qualifications and any other extra diligence they should be producing. It exists to do nothing more than appease the contractor in which case it's a total waste of time as it doesn't give you the protections you were opting in for anyway.

Agree with all that. My point is that if a contractor wants the opt in version of a contract, for whatever reason, the claim of illegality isn't a bad tactic. Agents lie to contractors all the time to get signatures on contracts. Always useful to have a counter argument, even if based on FUD.

[FIERCE TANK BATTLE]

Agree with all that. My point is that if a contractor wants the opt in version of a contract, for whatever reason, the claim of illegality isn't a bad tactic. Agents lie to contractors all the time to get signatures on contracts. Always useful to have a counter argument, even if based on FUD.

"The client has pulled out, sorry. *click*"

[BlasterBates]

Agree with all that. My point is that if a contractor wants the opt in version of a contract, for whatever reason, the claim of illegality isn't a bad tactic. Agents lie to contractors all the time to get signatures on contracts. Always useful to have a counter argument, even if based on FUD.

If an agent is insisting on opting out then it is because their legal dept has thought long and hard about it.

[fidot]

If an agent is insisting on opting out then it is because their legal dept has thought long and hard about it.

Yes, and they are entitled so to do.

I got that too, and I reminded them of the law around not making it conditional... "which obviously isn't going to happen here, right?"

Funnily enough a template was produced from somewhere and the necessary 'opt in' version of the document created

However, the other alternative is that the agency doesn't require it - it's just the agent trying to make life easier for himself - see Perfect Storm's post above.

As with all negotiations, you have to know what's worth fighting for (and I would personally agree that opting in is less important than getting the rest of the contract clauses to be acceptable).

If a contractor does want to push for an opt-in version, Perfect Storm's approach is worth considering, despite the statement not being true.

[PerfectStorm]

We should compile a list of agencies where "No one's asked to opt in before" - eventually a duplicate will come up, and we can say, "yes this person did in 2017".

[northernladuk]

You aren't going to let this non issue go are you.