Two Weeks Probation

[psychocandy]

Hi,

I wonder if anybody had this clause forced on them during an interview? But I was told the client insists on a two weeks probationary period during which the contractor must agree to work unpaid if his contract is terminated within the first two weeks because the client thinks the work is not to their satisfaction, and who's to say they won't pull a fast one or simply underestimate the workload yet expect the contractor to meet unrealistic targets?

Whilst I don't think I will have a problem, I feel very uneasy that potentially I could work for free just to be dismissed without any reason given or have a recourse if the dismissal is unfair or because the client's expectations were unreasonable. Also there is an element of accounting implications involved like VAT, but this is something the accountant will have to clarify.

Has anyone had any experience of this? And isn't two weeks is just too long considering the manager should have a good idea of competency in the first 2 or 3 days? I should mention that this is a post migration support role which it does not involve any scripting or coding, just vanilla support.

PS; If I pass the probationary period then all the money will be released on the third week onwards.

Thanks for any feedback.

**** that!

Probation period not a problem. In essence, even if not strictly specified, every contractor is on probation initially. You can bet you'll get the boot if client thinks you're useless in the first few weeks.

But not to get paid. Sod that. Like someone else said, I wouldn't be surprised if there was only two weeks work there. You turn up and do it then they find a problem surprise surprise. You're out the door with no money.

[fullyautomatix]

Hi,

I wonder if anybody had this clause forced on them during an interview? But I was told the client insists on a two weeks probationary period during which the contractor must agree to work unpaid if his contract is terminated within the first two weeks because the client thinks the work is not to their satisfaction, and who's to say they won't pull a fast one or simply underestimate the workload yet expect the contractor to meet unrealistic targets?

Whilst I don't think I will have a problem, I feel very uneasy that potentially I could work for free just to be dismissed without any reason given or have a recourse if the dismissal is unfair or because the client's expectations were unreasonable. Also there is an element of accounting implications involved like VAT, but this is something the accountant will have to clarify.

Has anyone had any experience of this? And isn't two weeks is just too long considering the manager should have a good idea of competency in the first 2 or 3 days? I should mention that this is a post migration support role which it does not involve any scripting or coding, just vanilla support.

PS; If I pass the probationary period then all the money will be released on the third week onwards.

Thanks for any feedback.

What is the name of this cowboy outfit ? Walk away from it.

[fullyautomatix]

Great feedback, I am impressed with the verbal/email progress report idea so a big thanks for that and the other comments expressed. Actually, I should ask for a 1 week probation as I can absorb the hit and leave early if I believed all is not well and the feedback from existing contractors was negative.

Normally I would have walked out if it had been a (me too) agent with a nobody client, however in this case it involves a large blue chip insurance client and an established agency looking for a few extra resources to catch up on a roll-out project which slipped schedule hence the short duration, and 2 weeks is about a quarter of the assignment if it lasts and this annoyed me a little.

The rate offered is at the top end of the scale. and the contract may lead to other higher level work with the client and the agency, and this is a consideration too.

One thing I forgot to mention is that I will not be working for the client directly but via an outsourced business engaged for this specific project, and they said they had a contractual agreement with the end client to provide resources on these terms.

Cheers

In which case they can easily afford to pay a contractor for 2 weeks work. Probation etc comes for a permie role not a contractor role where they can get rid mid way if they are not happy.

[psychocandy]

I had a similar thing years ago.

Client wanted me to come in for one day to do some work/tests etc. But they'd pay me for the single day. I was on the bench at the time so thought why not.

Anyway, turned up and it was OK to be honest. Didn't do a huge amount but it was like an extended interview. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

In the end, I didn't take the contract even though they did offer. They spent too long fannying around and something else came up anyway so I took that.

Also, if I remember correctly I had a holiday booked for the August (it was April), so out of courtesy I told them about it (it was all booked/paid for) but they weren't happy about this and wanted me to cancel. Not cool.

But to be fair, they did pay me the one day.

[psychocandy]

They did say that only once they had to get rid of a contractor because he was not skilled as per his CV. I would have been much happier if they asked for a technical test but I guess they don't have the time. I am now benched so I suppose I have nothing to lose especially as my skill set is more than a match for the role, it is just that I never heard of this request before.

Yeh but thats not really your problem. They should sort out their interview process.

[psychocandy]

Absolutely if you're on the bench you have nothing to lose. Go for it.

All the advice on turning it down assumes you're in demand.

I guess you have a point. Nothing to actually lose apart from time.

[BS1397]

To be honest, that clause is such a red flag that I wouldn't consider working with any agency or client that suggested it, even if they were to back-peddle furiously after belatedly realising they'd pushed me too far. There are certain ways you don't do business. This is one of them.

I think only a fool would argue with you and others here with more experience than I. It really doesn't feel right nor should it be common practice regardless if all parties have good intentions (or not?), but I suppose if too many accept this clause then sooner or later other clients and agencies might jump on the band wagon, and that is like handing over a club to be beaten with.

Thanks for all your feedback.

[d000hg]

I can see why a client might think this makes sense - they perhaps have been burned before - but simply explain you can't accept such ludicrous terms.

[BS1397]

I can see why a client might think this makes sense - they perhaps have been burned before - but simply explain you can't accept such ludicrous terms.

All done and dusted... I sort of knew where I was heading but the feedback helped to make up my mind.
In the end I decided that if the client pulls a fast one then I am 100% sure the agent will blame me too.
Meanwhile both would have profited at my expense and I wouldn't have got a reference or another gig instead.
Cheers.

[darmstadt]

I had something similar once for a bank owned by a very large motor company. The first week would be the phasing-in period for which I would not be paid and I would be expected to work 1 day a week without pay. Told them to take a running jump (I asked the recruitment agent if he worked for free and he did state that he wouldn't be getting anything for the time I wasn't getting paid!!!)

I will admit that I was looking at a project and went in to the place for a few hours a couple of times to get the feel of things and know the people but as it was between Christmas and New Year and 5 minutes walk from home it didn't bother me too much. Didn't take the gig even though they were expecting me to turn up at the start of the New Year.