All Change at the Client's

**expat** · 27 February 2006, 11:44

Originally posted by Phoenix

One of our Networking contractors has just dissapeared! (Not in the concrete bridge support sense)
It seems he was asked to change his roll slightly to "Train" New employees who would be taking on the Network support in another European Country....After discusion it seems he was asked to leave if he was not willing to accomadate the client in this matter.....was he right to leave without suitable renumeration for this job change?
Was the client expecting something for nothing?
What would the Agency view on this be?

Discuss

If he left then there was no job change. He was just terminated.

Good for him.

**Phoenix** · 27 February 2006, 11:45

Originally posted by expat

If he left then there was no job change. He was just terminated.

Good for him.

Agreed. I applaude his action, and he got payment till the end of contact.
Just wanted feedback from you guys

**threaded** · 27 February 2006, 11:47

Good for him.

Seconded.

Some people take the piss, and if they want they can, but they have to pay for it (And handsomely).

**expat** · 27 February 2006, 11:48

Originally posted by threaded

Seconded.

Some people take the piss, and if they want they can, but they have to pay for it (And handsomely).

An unwonted measure of accord on this thread, methinks?

**threaded** · 27 February 2006, 11:55

Sometimes seems a little bit of a mystery what clients think they are paying for when they demand a "networking guru with 10+ years experience" and then expect that somehow it is transferable to junior permies in 5 days. When it just doesn't happen for them, the client or junior staff start bad mouthin' the contractor. Crappy situation and you wish you'd walked earlier...

**Mailman** · 27 February 2006, 13:04

Sometimes its a mystery why a company would contract in skills that they could get for half price by looking for a permie. AND...even more of a mystery if this person ends up contracting there for a number of years.

BUT if the original requirement was for x type of resource for y number of days then this guy has shown himself to be nothing more than what we accuse dodgy agents of being. Whether we like it or not towards the end of the contract once the "solution" is developed the contractor is going to have to do training (which would come under that good old generic clause called "any other duties").

Mailman

**threaded** · 27 February 2006, 13:07

Mailman, I think you mean a different thing: a handover. This client was asking for training.

**Fungus** · 27 February 2006, 13:19

Originally posted by Mailman

Sometimes its a mystery why a company would contract in skills that they could get for half price by looking for a permie. AND...even more of a mystery if this person ends up contracting there for a number of years.

I was at my last client for 5.5 years. Others were there for between 6.5 and 9 years. One was even there for 14 years before having to go permie (and then being laid off).

It's in part poor management. But if you have a critical project and need people fast, then contractors can do the job, and can be kicked out at the end. Thus you save on redundancy. And anyway it's hard to lay off people these days. In our case the project was expected to last a few years, but carried on substantially longer because it was keeping the whole of the company afloat.

Another issue is accounting. There are all sorts of iffy accouting tricks that make permies look more expensive than one might otherwise think.

Lastly contractors tend to stay put which ensures continuity whereas quite often permies leave after a year, which can stuff a project. That was true of my last client anyway.

**Phoenix** · 27 February 2006, 14:05

Originally posted by Fungus

I was at my last client for 5.5 years. Others were there for between 6.5 and 9 years. One was even there for 14 years before having to go permie (and then being laid off).

It's in part poor management. But if you have a critical project and need people fast, then contractors can do the job, and can be kicked out at the end. Thus you save on redundancy. And anyway it's hard to lay off people these days. In our case the project was expected to last a few years, but carried on substantially longer because it was keeping the whole of the company afloat.

Another issue is accounting. There are all sorts of iffy accouting tricks that make permies look more expensive than one might otherwise think.

Lastly contractors tend to stay put which ensures continuity whereas quite often permies leave after a year, which can stuff a project. That was true of my last client anyway.

I think you also miss the point ..He was asked to train New Employees in another European Country (Obviously Not up to doing this work) for Network support!

All Change at the Client's