Fidelity tie-in extended on renewal

[NotAllThere]

Bo**ocks

Took the words right off of my keyboard...

[NotAllThere]

So is 12 months tie-in becoming the norm now?
my agency implied that it is.

You know how to tell an agent is lying? Their lips move...

There may be a binding clause on the client, and even a 3-6 month clause may be binding on you (or your ltdco), but 12 month on you? Forget it.

And if you're opted in, definitely forget it.

[The Agents View]

Bo**ocks

How about a sensible explanation, rather than blatant abuse? This is meant to be an environment where people can come for help, not blatant abuse. If they want blatant abuse, I'm sure your number is widely available.

I'm as interested to see how an agency would ever enforce a clause like this with a contractor as anyone else - For me, the blame always lays at the door of the client.

TAV

[DodgyAgent]

How about a sensible explanation, rather than blatant abuse? This is meant to be an environment where people can come for help, not blatant abuse. If they want blatant abuse, I'm sure your number is widely available.

I'm as interested to see how an agency would ever enforce a clause like this with a contractor as anyone else - For me, the blame always lays at the door of the client.

TAV

I can see through the "spin" as I have my own agency, and "bo**ocks" is probably the best word to describe your spin. It has nothing to do with reciprocating with the client (as in some clauses), it is to do with protecting your interests on two fronts. If the client is happy to ride roughshod through your contract then that leaves you with the option of leveraging (threatening) the contractor. It is that simple and there is nothing wrong with it, so why not say it instead of shirking away from the responsibility.

The chances of anyone ever enforcing such a clause are remote. If you are going to enforce against the contractor then it would be more expense than it is worth, and you have to have a pretty big ego and be pretty stupid to ever enforce it with a client.

Like most contracts these clauses are there to stop extreme abuse of the relationship between the parties, though agents just love threatening.

[The Agents View]

I can see through the "spin" as I have my own agency, and "bo**ocks" is probably the best word to describe your spin. It has nothing to do with reciprocating with the client (as in some clauses), it is to do with protecting your interests on two fronts. If the client is happy to ride roughshod through your contract then that leaves you with the option of leveraging (threatening) the contractor. It is that simple and there is nothing wrong with it, so why not say it instead of shirking away from the responsibility.

The chances of anyone ever enforcing such a clause are remote. If you are going to enforce against the contractor then it would be more expense than it is worth, and you have to have a pretty big ego and be pretty stupid to ever enforce it with a client.

Like most contracts these clauses are there to stop extreme abuse of the relationship between the parties, though agents just love threatening.

Interesting - I never get involved in legal wranglings on this side - I just know that when people have gone direct from us, we've always enforced it with the client company. As far as I know we've always won eventually - whether it's because we've made a compromise deal, or taken them to court.

I'd never threaten a contractor - the client I would never threaten directly, but then I tend to deal with blue chips, and you can threaten their legal and procurement departments as much as you like.....

It also comes down to how much you want the relationship - if they'll put 300 people through you in a year, then we'd probably let them off - if they've done nothing for 6 months, and are just going through my contracts to be awkward, then its time to get the lawyers out. Don't be scared of clients - if they do something wrong - they pay - it's that simple.

[thunderlizard]

The clause doesn't apply to you - it applies to the client - they're the ones who would get hit with a whopping bill if it happened.

That's rather a simplistic view. Getting "hit with a whopping bill" inevitably influences a client's decision whether to engage a contractor. In practice there are 2 ways it can go.
(1) it scares the client off entirely before it gets to that stage, because the clause is really badly written and open-ended. This is its purpose of course.
(2) if a reasonable sum does get arrived at, it will be viewed as an extra overhead in engaging that particular contractor which doesn't apply to its competitors. So in practice, the contractor tends to foot the bill in the end anyway.

[DodgyAgent]

Interesting - I never get involved in legal wranglings on this side - I just know that when people have gone direct from us, we've always enforced it with the client company. As far as I know we've always won eventually - whether it's because we've made a compromise deal, or taken them to court.

I'd never threaten a contractor - the client I would never threaten directly, but then I tend to deal with blue chips, and you can threaten their legal and procurement departments as much as you like.....

It also comes down to how much you want the relationship - if they'll put 300 people through you in a year, then we'd probably let them off - if they've done nothing for 6 months, and are just going through my contracts to be awkward, then its time to get the lawyers out. Don't be scared of clients - if they do something wrong - they pay - it's that simple.

I may suggest you look beyond the rhetoric and hype spouted by the managers of your agency

[Liability]

Ive never seen an agency disagreement in public!

Fight Fight Fight!

[pmeswani]

I may suggest you look beyond the rhetoric and hype spouted by the managers of your agency

I never thought I would see the day and say I agree with you. I would love to see an agency take on the likes of Capgemini, EDS / HP, Fujitsu when it comes to legal disputes. I wonder who will win? Hmmmmm.....

[NotAllThere]

Ive never seen an agency disagreement in public!

Fight Fight Fight!

My money's on DA.