Notice period concerns on a new contract

[TheBigYinJames]

It is not 1 month's notice but 7 days, which is very restrictive.
Also your argument is not well thought out - if all contractors where restricted to no notice period, employers would find it very hard to find contractors at the time they needed them. People with business brains will always think of flexibility; if you can't be flexible then how can you expert the person you hire (i.e. the person you need and want) to be flexible.

As someone else said, it also depends on the type of work. If an end client contracts you to build a system, then leaving before it's done is technically a breach. If a client contracts you for general work over a time period, then as long as you agree equitable exit timing, and everybody who matters - take note agents - is happy, then where's the harm? The end copany might have to curtail the project and terminate your contract, nobody would feel hard done by in that case?

Some agents sometimes forget that although they may sell themselves as a 'provider of technical expertise' to ClientCos, they are not actually "running" a technical team, even if they do tell women that in the pub that. The agent is not my "boss", I don't need to run my plans to leave early past them, the ones who matter are the ones doing the work, me and ClientCo. Agents should be facilitators of this working arrangement and should keep the feck out as much as they can.

[DodgyAgent]

As someone else said, it also depends on the type of work. If an end client contracts you to build a system, then leaving before it's done is technically a breach. If a client contracts you for general work over a time period, then as long as you agree equitable exit timing, and everybody who matters - take note agents - is happy, then where's the harm? The end copany might have to curtail the project and terminate your contract, nobody would feel hard done by in that case?

Some agents sometimes forget that although they may sell themselves as a 'provider of technical expertise' to ClientCos, they are not actually "running" a technical team, even if they do tell women that in the pub that. The agent is not my "boss", I don't need to run my plans to leave early past them, the ones who matter are the ones doing the work, me and ClientCo. Agents should be facilitators of this working arrangement and should keep the flip out as much as they can.

It may interest you to know that agents "gain" just as much as they lose by contractors giving in their notice.

My points were made in reference to those contractors who believe that a months notice is theirs by right (as opposed to part of a mutually agreed business arrangement), as if they are too good to be "servants of the client". And believe me these people exist.

The debate was not about agents but about contractors and their relationship with clients, though it seems that you have either lost the argument or are too stupid to engage it on the merits of the points that were made, which is why you have decided to introduce agents into the equation.

To repeat my point, the contractor notice clause is no longer as sacrosanct as it was. Contractors who do exercise their choice to leave (for whatever reason) must also understand that it opens doors to alternative suppliers such as Indian software houses. This in turn has manifested itself in the fact that contractor rates have been stagnant for the last 7 years.

[TheBigYinJames]

The debate was not about agents but about contractors and their relationship with clients, though it seems that you have either lost the argument or are too stupid to engage it on the merits of the points that were made, which is why you have decided to introduce agents into the equation.

Yeh that's what it must be, I must be stupid. Aside from the point that the ONLY person who complains when a contractor asks for, expects or exercises an equitable termination clause is the Agent.

Why shouldn't we expect equal rights to curtail a contract as the end client? What is the reason why one side must be bound and the other not?

[DodgyAgent]

Yeh that's what it must be, I must be stupid. Aside from the point that the ONLY person who complains when a contractor asks for, expects or exercises an equitable termination clause is the Agent.

Why shouldn't we expect equal rights to curtail a contract as the end client? What is the reason why one side must be bound and the other not?

Who pays the money?

[slackbloke]

Who pays the money?

Who does the work?

[lexington_spurs]

Who let the dogs out?

[TheBigYinJames]

Who pays the money?

Who does the work? Why do agents only see it in terms of money, they don't seem to value the work done. You appear to be arguing that since they are paying us (and you) then they are entitled to more rights?

[DodgyAgent]

Who does the work?

The power lies with the customer/the boss which is why wherever in the world you look the shots are called by those with the money.

Indians understand this and you clearly do not, which is why their businesses are making huge amounts of money and contractor rates have stagnated.

[TheBigYinJames]

The power lies with the customer/the boss which is why wherever in the world you look the shots are called by those with the money.

Maybe in your world. Just look at the Shell tanker drivers. I think you'll find that without workers doing anything, your money is worthless.

[DodgyAgent]

Who does the work? Why do agents only see it in terms of money, they don't seem to value the work done. You appear to be arguing that since they are paying us (and you) then they are entitled to more rights?

I have two rules in my business

Rule 1. The customer is always right
Rule 2. If the customer is wrong look at rule 1.

The great thing about markets is that they decide the value of goods and services and you do not.