Termination

[BigRed]

I've seen a few references on here along the lines of, work finishes early/dries up, you don't get paid. I'm relatively new to contracting but I try to meet my obligations, so no early exit. Most of my contracts have a mutual notice period, but comments seem to suggest this isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Surely if I sign a contract which gives a start date, provided I turn up it's up to them to find work for me, I have had a couple of contracts where it has taken them around a month to sort out equipment and access. I've done my best to be productive, but basically wasted 4-5 weeks. I've never been in a situation where I was terminated early, but if there is a 4 week notice period I would expect 4 weeks pay if they suddenly announced the work had dried up. If I was in a trade where you have several customers a week I would expect to offer some flexibility, but when I've wasted time interviewing, committed to them and dropped other potential contracts, arranged travel and accommodation, I expect some sort of recompense. I've taken the hit of losing a days pay and traveling to London for an interview, but if they get as far as a contract I expect payment.

[NickFitz]

"…and a pony."

[KentPhilip]

I guess you can insist on all that stuff if you want. It just means that you are less likely to be offered the work, or your rates will have to be lower, than someone like me who offers clients complete flexibility.

It is a situation that I am happy with, because it means I'll be earning more money when I am working, but I'll have more time in the sun when I'm not (rather than being chained to a desk "working" out my notice, to nobody's benefit).

[MarillionFan]

Well good work with that notice.

Let's say I hired you as a contractor with a four week notice. Then having turned up you proceeded to deliver piss poor work, take 3/4 times longer than everyone else and also try to bill for more hours? Do you think I should pay you for four weeks for terminating you?

The answer is No.

I was forced to terminate a contractor on the spot after 12 weeks last week for continual poor work and taking 40 hours to do a 1-2 days worth of work. The notice ain't worth tulip/

[AtW]

Do you think I should pay you for four weeks for terminating you?

If the reason for termination is poor work then obviously no, such eventuality should be part of the contract and notice period in such case should be lower than normal - you should get pay deduction for bad selection of staff.

However if the reason is that you fecked up and did not have enough work, or changed your mind then you should pay notice period.

Do you think you can pull this tulip with all suppliers?!?! Contractors are no different - deal is a deal and it should be honoured unless company gone bust.

If I was in this position I'd ask for this notice to be made up in writing (as it should be in contract), ask them if they'd like me to leave straight away and invoice for notice period. If they don't pay up then it's a simple court dispute.

[MarillionFan]

If the reason for termination is poor work then obviously no, such eventuality should be part of the contract and notice period in such case should be lower than normal.

However if the reason is that you fecked up and did not have enough work, or changed your mind then you should pay notice period.

Do you think you can pull this tulip with all suppliers?!?! Contractors are no different - deal is a deal and it should be honoured unless company gone bust.

So how if you hired someone and they made out they could do the job you needed and there skills weren't a perfect match but they were super confident they could deliver???

[AtW]

So how if you hired someone and they made out they could do the job you needed and there skills weren't a perfect match but they were super confident they could deliver???

If the contract says that in such cases there is 1 day notice then that's how it should play out.

But if the contract says 4 weeks then it's 4 weeks.

[cojak]

What is the problem with this exactly?

This cuts both ways and the contractor can terminate immediately if the client moves you off the contract and expects you to work on BAU.

I know it's tight out there contract-wise but this is one of the benefits of contracting as far as I'm concerned.

[SueEllen]

If work dries up or you finish early then you get nothing as the contract is still in force. There is just no work for you to do.

If the client explicitly terminates the contract and it's not due to your tulipty work or attitude then the termination clause kicks in.

Clients don't tend to explicitly terminate contracts except if the contractor screws up so you never get paid notice.

[BigRed]

I was forced to terminate a contractor on the spot after 12 weeks last week for continual poor work/

Most of the contracts I see are only 3 months anyway. Getting rid of someone in the first week because they are useless is acceptable, if you came to me and said you were getting rid of someone I'd been paying for 12 weeks because they were useless you would be joining them.

I guess being in a production role I don't have well defined projects in the same way as developers do, I can always find something to work on which adds value.

To me, the client saying it's a 6 month contract with a 4 week notice period is saying that they expect to keep you for 6 months, but if circumstances change they will give you 4 weeks to start sorting something else out. I in turn would expect to give them 4 weeks to sort someone else out if I found something better. I've found 4 weeks to be too long for most of the agents calling me, they are all looking for someone to start in the next couple of weeks.