Contracts terminated as policy

[swamp]

Current client has a nasty habit of terminating contractors they don't need mid-contract rather than waiting for contracts to expire, and yet they are still hiring the odd new role and giving out long-term contracts, which of course no one expects to be honoured.

Seems a bit off to me. I know that many banks have cut rates mid-term, but terminating mid-contract as a normal business practice seems a bit unethical somehow.

[BrilloPad]

Not sure about unethical. But it certainly gives them a bad reputation!

[TheFaQQer]

My last client ("consultancy" I guess is how they would describe themselves) is the same. 25 of us got 6 month extensions in September; now there are 5 contractors left.

I've always been of the opinion that the client is in their right to get rid of me if they think I'm rubbish, but I don't expect to be canned just because they can't budget or plan a project.

However, that seems to be changing at the moment...

[CDM]

What people need to understand is that, so long as there is a notice period clause in the contract, the contract is effectively never really longer than that notice period.

If you sign a contract for 6 months but there's a 2-week notice period, you're never really more than 2 weeks away from being let go. You are only there at the discretion of the employing entity.

RBS recently used this to their advantage when they wanted to cut contractor rates across the board. What they did was to invoke the notice period for all the contractors and basically offered everyone new contracts at the lower rate. Some left but the majority stayed on at the lower rate.

The moral of the story? Don't rely/depend on a contract lasting any longer than the notice period!

If you think that signing a longer-term contract gives you more stability, this is also not necessarily true. Since rate changes usually only take place at the time of contract renewal, all a longer contract will buy you is the guarantee that your rate will not change until the contract is due for renewal.

- CDM

[BlasterBates]

As long that is in the contract I find it perfectly legitimate.

[Smurficus]

As long that is in the contract I find it perfectly legitimate.

Legitimate it may be, but I would think twice before going back in the future.

[swamp]

The annoying thing is I've turned down some strong possible roles because I'm 'in contract' until August. In reality I may be better jumping to an uncertain rolling three month contact than seeing out my twelve months here that may see me binned this afternoon.

[Solidec]

The annoying thing is I've turned down some strong possible roles because I'm 'in contract' until August. In reality I may be better jumping to an uncertain rolling three month contact than seeing out my twelve months here that may see me binned this afternoon.

I always only sign 3 month contracts, it means you are never too far away from having options and being able to negitiate.

Remember if they want to get rid, they will as they have the notice periods.

Absolutely no benefit in signing up for longer than 3 months in my opinion.

[expat]

Legitimate it may be, but I would think twice before going back in the future.

That too would be legitimate.

[Beefy198]

How often do you read about someone on here that are in the middle of a contract/just started one but are offered a higher paying role asking whether they should jump ship?

Par for the course really.