End user via a software company gig. Slippery terms?

[ApeShape]

Just wondered what peoples thoughts/opinion on this is.

To cut a long story short, I took a gig with a software company specializing in a product in my field. My focus is with one of their end users. I'm doing a lot of requirement gathering at the moment via meetings and unfortunately the end user is cancelling a lot of these and rescheduling for various reasons and annoyingly at the last minute.

Basically what this means is I'm idle, and the software house wants to be 'flexible' on pay because of this. I sort of get it, if I can't deliver billable hours then the software house cant bill the end user and I cant bill the software house.

Bit peeved but it's all out of my hands unless I drop off and find something else where I can charge regardless and not be put on hold without pay.

Any thoughts?

[eek]

Just wondered what peoples thoughts/opinion on this is.

To cut a long story short, I took a gig with a software company specializing in a product in my field. My focus is with one of their end users. I'm doing a lot of requirement gathering at the moment via meetings and unfortunately the end user is cancelling a lot of these and rescheduling for various reasons and annoyingly at the last minute.

Basically what this means is I'm idle, and the software house wants to be 'flexible' on pay because of this. I sort of get it, if I can't deliver billable hours then the software house cant bill the end user and I cant bill the software house.

Bit peeved but it's all out of my hands unless I drop off and find something else where I can charge regardless and not be put on hold without pay.

Any thoughts?

Find something else - then offer the software house the option of you continuing work as you find time or sacking you off and replacing you with someone else (if they do that point out that it needs to be an inhouse resource as otherwise the same issue is going to occur).

[ladymuck]

So they want you to sit around waiting for the end user to deign to make themselves available but think you should do that for free? That is a bit cheeky.

Is the end user playing some kind of game to delay the project I wonder, if they know that they won't be billed for wasting your time? If the software house grew a pair and billed the client for meetings cancelled without sufficient notice, they might actually turn up to one.

[Paralytic]

Have an amendment written into your contract that meetings scheduled but cancelled with less than 1 days notice will still be chargeable to the software house, and the software house should do the same with their engagement with their client.

I'd be looking for other work too, and once i got that, let the software house know that they have to give x days notice for committed work, and that work will be billable whether their client is available or not.

[ApeShape]

As I suspected. I'll follow through - thanks

[ApeShape]

Oh gawd, one month notice period on the contract....Post IR35 changes I wonder how enforceable this actually is.

[northernladuk]

Oh gawd, one month notice period on the contract....Post IR35 changes I wonder how enforceable this actually is.

Legally it's totally enforceable if they want to. In reality you negotiate your way out.

[eek]

Legally it's totally enforceable if they want to. In reality you negotiate your way out.

The software house's argument that the lack of Mutual Obligation means they don't need to pay you for days you are available would I suspect make it very hard to argue for a court to enforce that.

In reality all I'm seeing is an incompetent account manager who should be being way more forceful with the end client.

[DaveB]

Oh gawd, one month notice period on the contract....Post IR35 changes I wonder how enforceable this actually is.

If the contract doesn't prohibit you working for other clients then there is nothing stopping you finding another gig anyway.

[northernladuk]

The software house's argument that the lack of Mutual Obligation means they don't need to pay you for days you are available would I suspect make it very hard to argue for a court to enforce that.

In reality all I'm seeing is an incompetent account manager who should be being way more forceful with the end client.

I still don't believe that is MoO. When he's in contract he has certain obligations to the contract. There is some legal speil about different levels of obligation but it's there. MoO tends to be about doing work above and beyond the original obligations of the contract. T&M is the process the house is using, not MoO.

It's a very grey area I understand so with a right legal team you could argue it how you want but looking at Jensal Software Vs HMRC it clearly focuses on work inbetween the contracts.

n this case the hirer had a series of short contracts with an IT professional. However, mutuality of obligation did not exist because the contractor was engaged under separate, short contracts; there was no obligation to provide work between contracts; there was no continuing obligation on the hirer to provide contracts; and the contractor could not demand further work.

I believe, and this is pure theory because no one in their right mind will test in court. If the software house wants to give work to the OP during the month notice then the OP is obliged to do it as per the contract else he will be in breach so I think it's binding. Will they hold him to it in reality? No, will they buggery. They argue a bit and he leaves early. We've seen this time and time again. Even if he just downs tools and buggers off with clear breach there won't be much comeback.