Client putting through SC but new contract in the meantime

[Samskills]

So a question on morals and also SC.

Got a golden goose opportunity with a client that is willing to put me through SC. Provision offer until SC comes through. They are quoting Mid Oct which is about 6-8 weeks which I am finding a bit hard to believe but hey ho. Inside, one day in London which is no biggie.

In the meantime I've bagged another piece of work at 70 quid a day more and outside, travel to the next city here in the North but three days. No bigge with the travelling really so not a deciding factor.

So anyone help me with the following questions and their experience.

I assume the thing to do is start the new work, see how it goes and I've got the SC one in the backpocket and make a decision in a few months time. Kind of makes me feel bad waiting right until SC comes through and an offer is made to say thanks but no thanks and they are back to square one after waiting months. I assume most of the forum wouldn't have those quams and would drop it at the time without a second thought. Would anyone take the new job, give it a few weeks and if it looks good turn down the SC cleared role at that point? Is that a stupid idea?

Does anyone know if I wait until SC is cleared and then don't accept the work, would I actually have SC with the client still holding it even if I didn't take the job or would they cancel the SC because I never actually used it? I know some SC expires with the contract etc but it's obviously transferable much of the time. Could I pull a win out of the bag here by securing a good outside contract and gaining SC via the backdoor for use later (within the year) but not take the role?

I've missed out on nearly half the contracts out therebecause they required SC but it seems daft to give notice on a long solid outside contract just for a lower paid inside SC contract but the SC could be super valuable going forward. I don't seem to have trouble getting work without SC but it's a good thing to have.

[malvolio]

You're missing one key point. Clearance goes with the role, not with the person. It's not a badge, it's a risk assessment for a particular set of circumstances. So if you don't have the role, you don't have any need for it so you won't have it.

So with that in mind....

[Samskills]

You're missing one key point. Clearance goes with the role, not with the person. It's not a badge, it's a risk assessment for a particular set of circumstances. So if you don't have the role, you don't have any need for it so you won't have it.

So with that in mind....

I believe that is the theory yes but in practice it clearly isn't. They wouldn't be asking for active SC clearance and allow transfers if that were true, but they do and there appears to be evidence of people on here transferring SC. So, lets assume I'm aware that could happen and that it may also not transfer between police and defence for example but work on the practice that it is possible for someone that has left a role, is on the bench, applied for a new SC gig within the year and it was possible to transfer, which we have evidence has happened.

[Protagoras]

I assume the thing to do is start the new work, see how it goes and I've got the SC one in the backpocket and make a decision in a few months time. Kind of makes me feel bad waiting right until SC comes through and an offer is made to say thanks but no thanks and they are back to square one after waiting months. I assume most of the forum wouldn't have those quams and would drop it at the time without a second thought. Would anyone take the new job, give it a few weeks and if it looks good turn down the SC cleared role at that point? Is that a stupid idea?

So a client has a role that requires SC, wants a worker and expects the worker to wait until SC is obtained to start work and get paid.

This isn't about morals, it's about a market economy! If said client wants to secure the worker, the worker should be paid and perhaps given other duties pending SC. Or the client accepts the risk that the worker might go elsewhere while the worker accepts the risk that the role may be cancelled.

Simple bird in the hand situation. I don't know about 'most' but I'd take the contract assignment. If after X weeks this is all fine, that's great, and decline the SC worker role. If it's not, there's a fall-back to the worker role with SC if and when it materialises.

Where Contract Rate = (Assignment Rate + £70), this makes the contract engagement pretty much compelling.

[PerfectStorm]

The SC is absolutely transferrable as you say - the whole "it dies with the role" thing doesn't match experienced reality. Agents don't speak that language either.

There are sometimes enormous lead times until these roles start - I've had a few 3 mothers waiting for things to happen (on roles that also annoyingly ended sooner than they should've).

My analysis of that way of doing things is that they end up with the people they get. Which isn't the markets best, because the markets best are off getting paid rather than sitting around waiting for a laptop on £0/day for months on end.

[hobnob]

In the meantime I've bagged another piece of work at 70 quid a day more and outside, travel to the next city here in the North but three days. No bigge with the travelling really so not a deciding factor.
[..]
it seems daft to give notice on a long solid outside contract just for a lower paid inside SC contract

How long is the alternate contract? If it's for 3 months, I think it would be reasonable to take it, then switch over to the SC contract rather than extending. If it's for 12 months, that won't really work.

I think you can also be upfront with the SC contract. I.e. do they want you to start work as soon as the clearance comes through, or are they willing to wait a while? Since they don't know how long the clearance will take, that implies that they're willing to be flexible, so if you told them "I'm taking a short-term contract and I won't be available until the end of November" then that shouldn't be a problem. If you're upfront with both agencies/clients, that resolves any ethical dilemma.

[Snooky]

I've had a few 3 mothers waiting for things to happen

You rogue!

[malvolio]

I believe that is the theory yes but in practice it clearly isn't. They wouldn't be asking for active SC clearance and allow transfers if that were true, but they do and there appears to be evidence of people on here transferring SC. So, lets assume I'm aware that could happen and that it may also not transfer between police and defence for example but work on the practice that it is possible for someone that has left a role, is on the bench, applied for a new SC gig within the year and it was possible to transfer, which we have evidence has happened.

I've spent a long time on this - the Cabinet Office guidelines on what is supposed to happen originated with work I was doing for IPSE (PCG as was) twenty years ago. To summarise, bearing in mind this is SC, not DV:

1. You can transfer clearance for a limited period and from a similarly cleared role, if both sides cooperate and if the criteria are fairly closely matched. That is for a year (at most) and is purely a money saving convention.

2. As soon as you leave a role, the clearance lapses. End of. Point 1 only means that having held clearance very recently, you may well not be a security risk.

3. Regardless of both, you are never labelled as "Security Cleared". You may hold a pass that says you can access secure material but you give that back when you leave.

4. You don't need clearance to apply for a role. That is just the agencies being lazy (gosh...)

5. Yes totally agree that the whole rule set is routinely ignored by people who really should (and occasionally do) know better. Its because they are rules and guidelines; they aren't laws because then you would have to document and publish the entire processes, which is kind of against the whole purpose.

So what happens in reality is not what is supposed to happen, Nevertheless when people who have little or no idea of the rules ask questions, I'm not about to do anything other that explain how it is supposed to work so they can fight their own battles.

[Samskills]

The new gig is potentially a long burner. Could be a year or two based in what they are trying to achieve. Yes notice periods, budget and all that but it's a big programme of work.

I get what you are saying Mal. I've read your comments on what is supposed to happen but I need to make a decision on what actually happens and SC is generally transferable in reality.

So do I stick with the long gig, wait until SC is given, decide not to accept and hope SC is still valid. Seems win win but really shafts the SC client who have actually tried to do the right thing for a change.

[malvolio]

The new gig is potentially a long burner. Could be a year or two based in what they are trying to achieve. Yes notice periods, budget and all that but it's a big programme of work.

I get what you are saying Mal. I've read your comments on what is supposed to happen but I need to make a decision on what actually happens and SC is generally transferable in reality.

So do I stick with the long gig, wait until SC is given, decide not to accept and hope SC is still valid. Seems win win but really shafts the SC client who have actually tried to do the right thing for a change.

Read it again. If you don't take the gig, you don't get the clearance and the file will be closed. It's only transferable if you have it and used it in a real role. And, as I said, you personally don't get it anyway, the person in the role does.