Termination of Contract

[NoddY]

I have tried to speak to the PM, but he said he was busy and would phone me back! You reckon?

Well MarillionFan, I reckon you're Incommunicado

[Churchill]

I have tried to speak to the PM, but he said he was busy and would phone me back! You reckon?

Must have been my winning personality I suppose!

Surely your beef should be with the agent...

Do they not require evidence of your incompetence?

It must be in their interest to have you completing the contract.

Is there a clause in your contract that says you can be terminated after one week?

[MarillionFan]

No the clause they used states that the agent can terminate the contract if the client is not satisfied with the work. (Pretty much a catch all dont you think)

[Churchill]

No the clause they used states that the agent can terminate the contract if the client is not satisfied with the work. (Pretty much a catch all dont you think)

Who's the client?

Name and shame the bastard and then we don't get caught the same way.

[Bagpuss]

Who's the client?

Name and shame the bastard and then we don't get caught the same way.

Maybe he pissed them off

[Harrysp]

Name and shame them

Name and shame them

[Denny]

Firing Line

Your face didn't fit it seems.

More of these larger clients are pulling the same stunt - claiming underperformance or misconduct as a convenient excuse to get out of paying notice. It's grossly unfair on the contracting community because if we dumped the job at a minute's notice we could be sued for not giving notice plus this type of behaviour doesn't make an iota of sense for the following reasons:

The client will still sign the timesheet at the end of performed weeks that didn't attract any criticism at all, which should denote satisfaction with work performed. Often weeks will go by before a client terminates under these conditions - sometimes even past the trial month (as happened with me over a year ago despite having praise and even funding for my work).

The client still pays the mark up to the agency which is the agency's portion of fees that denotes satisfactory client services. If a contractor is not good enough then they would at the very most only pay the agency at cost to cover your own fees for those weeks satisfactorily performed plus VAT.

They still use the same agency to replace you. How is it that an agency can provide a satisfactory contractor, the contractor gets fired, yet the supplier is still trusted to provide a better candidate? Even more relevant if opted in because contractors are meant to be thoroughly checked out with refs, quali checks and so on. Would you go back to a shop that had lousy customer service and rubbish goods? No. So why doesn't this apply to agencies too.

Let's face it contractors, agencies are used as a convenient buffer that allows clients to screw contractors whenever they feel like it. The proof is in the above points I've made. Often contractors are fired for overperforming not underperforming - being too good and posing an imaginary threat to the line manager who is afraid of your knowledge, skills and so on and making suggesting for improvements.

DON'T STAND FOR IT and DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!

[AlfredJPruffock]

Your face didn't fit it seems.

More of these larger clients are pulling the same stunt - claiming underperformance or misconduct as a convenient excuse to get out of paying notice. It's grossly unfair on the contracting community because if we dumped the job at a minute's notice we could be sued for not giving notice plus this type of behaviour doesn't make an iota of sense for the following reasons:

The client will still sign the timesheet at the end of performed weeks that didn't attract any criticism at all, which should denote satisfaction with work performed. Often weeks will go by before a client terminates under these conditions - sometimes even past the trial month (as happened with me over a year ago despite having praise and even funding for my work).

The client still pays the mark up to the agency which is the agency's portion of fees that denotes satisfactory client services. If a contractor is not good enough then they would at the very most only pay the agency at cost to cover your own fees for those weeks satisfactorily performed plus VAT.

They still use the same agency to replace you. How is it that an agency can provide a satisfactory contractor, the contractor gets fired, yet the supplier is still trusted to provide a better candidate? Even more relevant if opted in because contractors are meant to be thoroughly checked out with refs, quali checks and so on. Would you go back to a shop that had lousy customer service and rubbish goods? No. So why doesn't this apply to agencies too.

Let's face it contractors, agencies are used as a convenient buffer that allows clients to screw contractors whenever they feel like it. The proof is in the above points I've made. Often contractors are fired for overperforming not underperforming - being too good and posing an imaginary threat to the line manager who is afraid of your knowledge, skills and so on and making suggesting for improvements.

DON'T STAND FOR IT and DON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!

My Karma tells me
Youve been screwed again

If you let them do it

Its you who takes the blame
Its you who takes the shame

Im sorrry to hear of this debacle MF,the best of us have all been fired unfairly at some time,by all means fight them if you can , or move on and keep your chin up.

Better to work on your own for even little reward than slave and be abused by the corporate vipers.

Honour and Money do not belong in the same purse

Spannish Proverb

Whatever you do, good luck , and remember my Mothers adage that Apples Will Grow Again.

[AtW]

FFS, MF you not exactly poor student who can't afford to fight for his rights - don't let them get away with it and sue them if necessary. Let them go to court and prove the work was unsatisfactory and reasons for "gross misconduct".

[benn0]

Contact your Union.