Possible Boomed

[Fred Bloggs]

No we're not - the clauses last for a maximum of 6 months. There would be little point in wasting time asking for you if we had no claim to any kind of breach of contract.....

Yes you are stupid as that........... If the ex-client company telephone/receptionist can see my details as they were a year earlier, then they can see them after I left 1, 2, 3, 4, 5......... or even 12 months later. Hmmm, sometimes I really wonder about you guys.

[The Agents View]

Yes you are stupid as that........... If the ex-client company telephone/receptionist can see my details as they were a year earlier, then they can see them after I left 1, 2, 3, 4, 5......... or even 12 months later. Hmmm, sometimes I really wonder about you guys.

We do actually have to make contact with you to confirm your presence on site before taking any action.

But do feel free to sling worthless abuse at me because of the job I do (and I suspect do better than anyone you've dealt with) because that is definately in the spirit of informed, intelligent debate.

TAV

[Sockpuppet]

But do feel free to sling worthless abuse at me ... because that is definately in the spirit of informed, intelligent debate.

If its good enough for the house of commons its good enough for us.

Then again CUK probably achieves more than the HOC.

[The Agents View]

Yes you are stupid as that........... If the ex-client company telephone/receptionist can see my details as they were a year earlier, then they can see them after I left 1, 2, 3, 4, 5......... or even 12 months later. Hmmm, sometimes I really wonder about you guys.

We do actually have to make contact with you to confirm your presence on site before taking any action.

But do feel free to sling worthless abuse at me because of the job I do (and I suspect do better than anyone you've dealt with) because that is definately in the spirit of informed, intelligent debate.

TAV

[mavster07]

No we're not - the clauses last for a maximum of 6 months. There would be little point in wasting time asking for you if we had no claim to any kind of breach of contract.....

Actually, these clauses are not enforceable as its a restraint of trade. If you do a deal with a client to engage in a contract, the agency can't do anything about it, especially in some locales and industries.....

If the agents want to get their piece of the pie then they should be more proactive in 'selling' their clients (i..e us contractors) into good roles and then on-selling them. If a contract manages, through their good work, to be recognised and win more work, why should the agency benefit from that or why should the restrict the contractor in doing so. After all, that's why most contracts have a clause that allows the contractor to market their services as they see fit to win work, and if winning that work means its with a 3rd party or supplier they meet in doing their current contract, the courts won't restrict trade on that basis.

I wish agents would recognise their dodgy contracts have so many conflicting and uneforceable clauses in them that they are wasting their time in enforcing them. The good contractors are wise to this....

[Drewster]

Whats the difference between....

If its good enough for the house of commons its good enough for us.

Then again CUK probably achieves more than the HOC.

One is a group of self righteous, self serving, corrupt, loudmouthed, bigoted, opionionated........ Oh hang on.....

[Tensai]

I wish agents would recognise their dodgy contracts have so many conflicting and uneforceable clauses in them that they are wasting their time in enforcing them. The good contractors are wise to this....

Check out this one about "Pay rates" which is being forced into my latest renewal....

"The rates of pay specified in an assignment or where 14 days notice is given by us of a revised rate, the revised rate shall apply" (my emphasis.)

So they can cut rates at will without having to bother issuing a new contract. Apparently take it or leave it.

[The Agents View]

Actually, these clauses are not enforceable as its a restraint of trade. If you do a deal with a client to engage in a contract, the agency can't do anything about it, especially in some locales and industries.....

If the agents want to get their piece of the pie then they should be more proactive in 'selling' their clients (i..e us contractors) into good roles and then on-selling them. If a contract manages, through their good work, to be recognised and win more work, why should the agency benefit from that or why should the restrict the contractor in doing so. After all, that's why most contracts have a clause that allows the contractor to market their services as they see fit to win work, and if winning that work means its with a 3rd party or supplier they meet in doing their current contract, the courts won't restrict trade on that basis.

I wish agents would recognise their dodgy contracts have so many conflicting and uneforceable clauses in them that they are wasting their time in enforcing them. The good contractors are wise to this....

The contract is not enforcable with the contractor. It IS enforcable with the client. Ours are worded in that way. The fee for engaging one of our contractors directly is 12 weeks of full rate charge (typically £40,000) and for anyone who doubts that this is enforcable, I have seen a cheque for £80,000 come in this morning from a very large client who tried to do this. The downside for us is that this is very difficult to enforce and then maintain a good working relationship with the client in the future, so there is a degree of negotiation possible. Add this to the fact that within my business if we land a "found fee" (ie we've found a contractor somewhere they shouldnt be) the agent doesn't actually get any comission for it - so for me it's about having a stern word - unless that client has tried to stiff me before - then its hard ball time!!!

TAV

[Sockpuppet]

Check out this one about "Pay rates" which is being forced into my latest renewal....

"The rates of pay specified in an assignment or where 14 days notice is given by us of a revised rate, the revised rate shall apply" (my emphasis.)

So they can cut rates at will without having to bother issuing a new contract. Apparently take it or leave it.

Just get a clause in there saying that if any revised rate is informed you are able to give immediate notice.

They could have done this anyway. They'll just say that your contract is terminated and a new one issued. It effectivly just stops a lot of paperwork.

[Jubber]

Check out this one about "Pay rates" which is being forced into my latest renewal....

"The rates of pay specified in an assignment or where 14 days notice is given by us of a revised rate, the revised rate shall apply" (my emphasis.)

So they can cut rates at will without having to bother issuing a new contract. Apparently take it or leave it.

RBS.?