Recent issue - do you just play the game?

[rootsnall]

Yes, you were naive. But now you know better.

The one thing I've learnt in 21 years of contracting is: you are on your own. When anything flares up, you are the easiest target. I've been in a couple of "rough" situations as a contractor over the years, and both times the permies grouped together - including their managers - and I took the stick for it. Simplest thing is simply to move on, as fighting it will get you nowhere.

Just my two cents.

WHS.

You've done well to only get in a couple of rough situations in 21 years.

[XLMonkey]

TFour,

a contrary view from me.

Whilst you may have been acting with the best of intentions, what you did may not have looked as ethical from the other side of the fence.

Looked at from the other side, it might appear that you
- recommended one of your mates (are you getting a backhander?)
- complained about the terms of the contract after the event (even though you aren't supposed to be a party to it). your mate accepted the contract, so its his problem
- interfered with a (presumably) broader commercial relationship between the supplier and clientco (what's your motivation)

So, whilst I think that your general philosophy and approach to contracting is absolutely right (and pretty much the same as mine), this may not have been the best battle to get involved in....

My own approach with recommendations (after having been burnt a couple of times) is
- I'll happily recommend someone for a role if I think they are right for it. I won't recommend them if I don't think they are right for it either.
- I won't take any payment for a recommendation
- If my company is not involved in the contract, then I won't get involved the contract (i.e. its their risk, not mine). I don't care who gets what cut.
- I set these rules out to both parties in advance so that there is minimal chance of misunderstanding.

I do, though, take a cut when I subcontract work, since I'm administering contracts, taking cashflow risk and bearing some delivery risk if things go wrong.

[AlfredJPruffock]

As they say in Gillingham


'Money and Honour do not belong in the same purse .'

[TFour]

First of all, congratulations for believing that for as long as you were able.

All previous posters were right, I'm afraid (apart from the firebomb, obviously, but his heart was in the right place )

You can still have integrity in this business, but you need to learn a couple of things.

One is (as kp2 said) is not to fight other's battles - your colleague accepted the rate and you should have left it at that.

The second is to play your cards closer to your chest. I think you might be a bit too open and other people can take advantage of that. Don't tell everyone everything. And don't assume that people are as trustworthy as yourself. Trust them only as far as you could throw them. And then double-check that bit.

Hard lesson learned, I'm afraid.

My primary intention was not to up the other contractor's rate - it was to highlight a discrepancy in the cost-chain. The contractor's rate could have gone up, the cost to the client could/should have gone down - either outcome was reasonable to me. The client was being ripped off and/or the person doing the work was being ripped off...either way someone was.

On your second point, you are right - I am very open and people have used this for their own ill-intended means. Hard lesson learnt indeed.

[TFour]

TFour,

a contrary view from me.

Whilst you may have been acting with the best of intentions, what you did may not have looked as ethical from the other side of the fence.

Looked at from the other side, it might appear that you
- recommended one of your mates (are you getting a backhander?)
- complained about the terms of the contract after the event (even though you aren't supposed to be a party to it). your mate accepted the contract, so its his problem
- interfered with a (presumably) broader commercial relationship between the supplier and clientco (what's your motivation)

So, whilst I think that your general philosophy and approach to contracting is absolutely right (and pretty much the same as mine), this may not have been the best battle to get involved in....

My own approach with recommendations (after having been burnt a couple of times) is
- I'll happily recommend someone for a role if I think they are right for it. I won't recommend them if I don't think they are right for it either.
- I won't take any payment for a recommendation
- If my company is not involved in the contract, then I won't get involved the contract (i.e. its their risk, not mine). I don't care who gets what cut.
- I set these rules out to both parties in advance so that there is minimal chance of misunderstanding.

I do, though, take a cut when I subcontract work, since I'm administering contracts, taking cashflow risk and bearing some delivery risk if things go wrong.

XLMonkey, I also agree with you that, from a certain perspective it could look like that and in future I should keep my nose much cleaner so that no-one could possibly take that perspective.

The disappointing thing is that I expected support from clientco's director - I did not expect him to take the negative perspective. What he did was take this perspective based on a single email. I should add that he took the decision to terminate my contract, based on this one email which he was reading on his Blackberry in the airport.

The approach I would have expected from someone I'd known and worked with for a while would be "On the face of it this email could be construed like that, however this would be out of character for contractor a and I will speak to him to understand the broader situation." then "I have reviewed the situation and am satisfied that there was no deliberately unethical behaviour intended, I have warned contractor a to not expose himself to the potential of misconstrued communication in the future".

But then, you cannot fight other people's battles and neither can you deliver their karma - that comes to them in time based on their own actions.

[cojak]

The disappointing thing is that I expected support from clientco's director - I did not expect him to take the negative perspective. What he did was take this perspective based on a single email. I should add that he took the decision to terminate my contract, based on this one email which he was reading on his Blackberry in the airport.

It sounds like you're most disturbed by this disproportionate/illogical response from someone you worked with and trusted.

I really wouldn't stress yourself over this. It sounds to me that other things outside of your knowledge were going on here. I'd keep your eyes open and see if that's the case.

[ZenWolf]

Your mileage may vary

I've found that the frequency of this untrustworthy back-stabbing varies a lot from industry to industry, and company to company. In my experience, the finance industry (banks and insurance) had a high frequency, engineering companies a low frequency. And just as big a variation exists between individual companies, and probably individual departments in the same company.

When it happens, I accept, say nothing, and move on as fast as possible. Life is too short for cheap wine, or misery at work.

[BolshieBastard]

Last year I recommended a contractor (who I had worked with before on the same account) to clientco to run a project in conjunction with their primary supplier. Beancounting reasons meant the contractor’s own contract had to be administered through the supplier and would be paid for by the project he would be running. Due to the potentially unusual situation this would instigate, I recommended that the whole arrangement be open-book so that everyone would get a fair deal. This is not unusual where the primary supplier is simply procuring services on clientco’s behalf.

The open-book arrangement did not work and we were aware that the primary supplier was taking a significant premium out of the arrangement. I expressed my dissatisfaction with this, given that clientco had effectively sourced the contractor and the supplier was just administering a purchase order. I gave an example of the type of value-chain I would have seen as a fair representation of the arrangement – e.g. clientco pays 100%, supplier pays agency 90%, agency pays contractor 80% (the actual figures were more like 100%, 80%, 75%). This was done verbally, completely openly in clientco/supplier programme meetings and I also expressed the same sentiment in an email.

Four weeks later, both myself and the contractor were accused of unethical behaviour by questioning the value chain. I understand that (I never saw the official complaint) I was accused by one of the supplier’s directors of using insider information to “manipulate my colleagues rates up”. One of clientco’s directors (who I have had a working relationship with for several years) read the single email above out of context and agreed my contract should be immediately terminated. This was all done “second-hand” via clientco’s programme manager - clientco’s director did not even bother to speak to me to understand more of the context. Only with the support of the programme manager and other clientco directors was termination avoided.

This experience has left me severely disillusioned –
1) That someone I have known for years and would have thought I could rely on to “back me up” could so quickly and willingly ruin my reputation and affect my business on the basis of a single email taken out of context without even having the courtesy to discuss the situation with me directly.
2) That people will willingly and ruthlessly use any potentially incriminating “evidence” out of context to achieve the aim of destroying my reputation and impacting my business.
3) In the longer term, I now feel I cannot trust the people I thought I could trust and that in place of open, frank and honest verbal/written communication I now have to adopt the kind of behaviour I feel intrinsically repulsed by – slopey-shouldering, backside covering and bullsh***ing.

I have had a follow-up meeting with clientco’s director. I said that it was an unfortunate view of the world that people would choose to use things out of context for the purposes of delivering retribution. His reply “that’s business, you deal with it or you find another line of work”.

Is he right? Is business really that cynical where we have to cheat, lie and back-stab each other to scrabble ahead?

I had this ethos that business thrives on building good working relationships, about all parties getting a fair deal, treating others as you would be treated etc. One of the reasons I became a contractor was that I was starting to become disillusioned with the “do as I say, not what I do” approach to large-company business.

Am I just totally naive and idealistic (I was certainly naive to give someone the opportunity to carry out this attack)? Should I change and “play the game” just as long as the money comes in even if I have the personal belief that the behaviour I’m adopting is wrong? Am I just in the wrong game? Opinions appreciated!

Its a hard lesson to learn but I suggest you learn from it quickly. Client co's very rarely want contractors to tell them 'how to do' something. They believe that is the work of a consultancy.

You also have to learn a client co director, no matter how good a relationship you have with them, will hardly ever back you up regarding something to do with his business. You are effectively making him or his organisation look incompetent.

My advice is, unless you are asked by the client co for your input, you do the job and behave on site in the way they way.