Have you had luck with striking out handcuff clauses from contracts before signing?

[malvolio]

It's amazing how many large companies with such rules can find work-arounds if that is the only way to get a skill is to engage directly. I guess this is the one way for contractors to truly test if they have rare niche skills or are just kidding themselves.

But, most such companies will just go back to the agency and find someone else.

Most companies aren't allowed direct hires. It's a combination of HR policies meant to stop managers hiring their mates and ensuring that anyone they do hire fits into their view of corporate unity and a reluctance of procurement to get involved with HR areas of... well, "expertise" is probably too strong a word. Acquiring necessary skills is not the top of the requirement matrix.

I've had a few direct gigs over the years, invariably with smaller, agile but still significant companies not interested in corporate bureaucracy: Sun Microsystems (as was) for example...

[Whorty]

Many large companies will not engage contractors directly.

I've worked a mix of agency and direct. In every company I've worked in there have always been contractors there who are direct - whether it be insurance, financial cos like asset management, entertainment, pharma, media, property. Maybe public sector won't work direct, can't answer for them, but private sector in my experience want the best people for the job in hand.

[vwdan]

I've had a few removed, where I felt they were onerous and likely not enforceable. For example - one role tried to prevent me from working for any of their clients, or their clients clients - the job? Working for BT. They agreed that would be a bit silly and impossible to enforce, so removed the "clients clients" clause

[cannon999]

I didn't end up pushing for it to be removed, not that relevant as they were paying top rate anyway.

[TheDude]

I tried appending an extra zero to my day rate but no luck.