Reply to: Mandatory security meeting request on behalf of client - advice please

[billybiro]

So you've torched his strawman but posted nothing but a pure guess? Well done.

As has everyone else in this thread.

Many people have simply said something to the effect of "Just do it and bill the client for the 2 days". Fine, but this does make at least two huge assumptions. Firstly, that the client is willing to pay for this. Don't forget, it's OP's client's client that's ultimately demanding this. His direct client may not be so amenable to paying for something that they themselves aren't the instigators of.

Secondly, note that OP "only works a handful of hours a month for this client". So, again, this talk of JFDI assumes that the OP isn't otherwise predisposed with another client at the same time as this "security" client wants OP on site. What if OP is working for another client (or even many other clients) who happen to have a big deadline looming and which happens to coincide with the same 2 days that this client wants OP on site? Going on site to keep "security" client happy, just may well create ill-will with another client when OP tells them he's taking 2 days off, not to mention losing 2 days of billing with that client.

Fundamentally, only OP can answer this question as only OP knows his exact circumstances.

My actual point, which I've stated at least twice but has been conveniently ignored as it got in the way of some posters being able to take a cheap dig at me, was not to point blank refuse to undertake this briefing/audit but to work with the immediate client to see if it can be accommodated within the existing working arrangement that OP has with this client (i.e. with OP remaining at home and doing this within the few hours per month). I see nothing wrong with this, and it's certainly not trying to be awkward, but trying to help out this client whilst ensuring that OP isn't potentially putting other clients at risk.

Of course, if OP is completely free for those 2 days, is happy to go on site to the client and the client is happy to pay for the time, then there's nothing to worry about. By all means, JFDI. But anyone advocating this approach as if it's the only thing that should even be considered is being either purposefully obtuse or is being dangerously ignorant of OP's circumstances.

[d000hg]

Use the opportunity to explore the town/city where the meeting will be held.

It's in a small business-park in the middle of the heavy industry zone near Middlesbrough.

Actually there is interesting stuff to look at but still



Also: this is the professional section, can we tone down the cretin-shaming?

[Scruff]

What if it's Swindon?

They sell Eye-Bleach at Tesco

[jamesbrown]

Use the opportunity to explore the town/city where the meeting will be held.

What if it's Swindon?

[Scruff]

Use the opportunity to explore the town/city where the meeting will be held.

[Platypus]

My view: don't be difficult, don't make it hard for ClientCo to hire you or manage you.

[LondonManc]

Says the man who presented the strawman of some irrelevant Health & Safety nonsense when we're talking about a security audit.



The pre-audit briefing is likely to either be i) some middle manager running scared who wants to rally the troops to ensure everyone has their stories straight or ii) some self-important auditor who wants to patronisingly drill home the importance compliance, governance and of such an audit. The follow up audit is likely to be nothing more than a Q&A session.

However, I'm not advocating blowing the client off completely and stubbornly refusing to have anything to do with the briefing or the subsequent audit, I'm suggesting that there's really no reason at all that both the briefing and the audit can't be accommodated within OP's current working arrangement of being WFH and only working for the client for a few hours a month.

Also, if OP goes on site just for this, what happens when the auditor says, "We're concerned with all aspects of security, including physical. Please show me around your day-to-day working environment/desk" ?

So you've torched his strawman but posted nothing but a pure guess? Well done.

[northernladuk]

.

Or do you do everything the client demands of you simply because they demand it?

The subservient permie mindset is strong in this thread.

And there it is. Took longer than I expected. What a complete tool.

The real answer here of course is, like so many other answers, what does the OP's contract say? What obligations does the OP have as detailed within the contract? In the contract? OP is obligated. Not in the contract? No obligation.

Utter rubbish. The answer is what is best for all parties weighing up the risk, effort and long term benefits.

Telling them you won't attend an audit because it's not in your contract will make you look like a moron and likely get you walked. Sitting on the bench thinking you won the argument is hardly smart.

[billybiro]

You are the one that mentioned cleaners attending H&S. I was responding to that comment.






Jesus wept. So what if it is? What does that have anything to do with it?

Note to self: When looking for a contractor to subcontract something out, always be sure to ask questions to find out if the guy understands that comparisons don't have to be identical to provide useful insight into a matter. If he doesn't get the concept, you've spared yourself the hassles of having contracted with an idiot.


Note to self: When looking for a contractor, ask if he understands the difference between his job and security and if he understands that the security people will do their job in their way because they probably know more about it than he does, just as he will be expected to do his job in his way because he had better know more about it than the people we are working for. If he doesn't understand those things, you've spared yourself the hassles of, well, you know.


Presumably, the OP says, 'I'm a contractor, not an employee, and I work off-site in my own home.' He might even be able to figure out how to say that without my help, but I'm here for you since you, based on your question, apparently couldn't handle it.

If he feels the auditor is a numpty, he might also say, 'My home is dangerous, too, I tripped over the cat while carrying a cup of coffee back in 2014 and burned my pinky.'

ClientCo governance and compliance obligations do not automatically translate to ContractorCo obligations.

Or do you do everything the client demands of you simply because they demand it?

The subservient permie mindset is strong in this thread.

The real answer here of course is, like so many other answers, what does the OP's contract say? What obligations does the OP have as detailed within the contract? In the contract? OP is obligated. Not in the contract? No obligation.

[WordIsBond]

Says the man who presented the strawman of some irrelevant Health & Safety nonsense when we're talking about a security audit.

Note to self: When looking for a contractor to subcontract something out, always be sure to ask questions to find out if the guy understands that comparisons don't have to be identical to provide useful insight into a matter. If he doesn't get the concept, you've spared yourself the hassles of having contracted with an idiot.

I'm suggesting that there's really no reason at all that both the briefing and the audit can't be accommodated within OP's current working arrangement of being WFH and only working for the client for a few hours a month.

Note to self: When looking for a contractor, ask if he understands the difference between his job and security and if he understands that the security people will do their job in their way because they probably know more about it than he does, just as he will be expected to do his job in his way because he had better know more about it than the people we are working for. If he doesn't understand those things, you've spared yourself the hassles of, well, you know.

Also, if OP goes on site just for this, what happens when the auditor says, "We're concerned with all aspects of security, including physical. Please show me around your day-to-day working environment/desk" ?

Presumably, the OP says, 'I'm a contractor, not an employee, and I work off-site in my own home.' He might even be able to figure out how to say that without my help, but I'm here for you since you, based on your question, apparently couldn't handle it.

If he feels the auditor is a numpty, he might also say, 'My home is dangerous, too, I tripped over the cat while carrying a cup of coffee back in 2014 and burned my pinky.'

[northernladuk]

Says the man who presented the strawman of some irrelevant Health & Safety nonsense when we're talking about a security audit.

You are the one that mentioned cleaners attending H&S. I was responding to that comment.

Because they're not employees? Do the cleaners have to attend security and H&S meetings?

The pre-audit briefing is likely to either be i) some middle manager running scared who wants to rally the troops to ensure everyone has their stories straight or ii) some self-important auditor who wants to patronisingly drill home the importance compliance, governance and of such an audit. The follow up audit is likely to be nothing more than a Q&A session.

Jesus wept. So what if it is? What does that have anything to do with it?

[billybiro]

You do come out with some bollocks.

Says the man who presented the strawman of some irrelevant Health & Safety nonsense when we're talking about a security audit.

It's not a seminar, it's an audit and it will take 2 days to complete. Part of that will be a briefing.

An audit will encompass anyone on the project or account. Why do you think contractors are exempt from audits?

The pre-audit briefing is likely to either be i) some middle manager running scared who wants to rally the troops to ensure everyone has their stories straight or ii) some self-important auditor who wants to patronisingly drill home the importance compliance, governance and of such an audit. The follow up audit is likely to be nothing more than a Q&A session.

However, I'm not advocating blowing the client off completely and stubbornly refusing to have anything to do with the briefing or the subsequent audit, I'm suggesting that there's really no reason at all that both the briefing and the audit can't be accommodated within OP's current working arrangement of being WFH and only working for the client for a few hours a month.

Also, if OP goes on site just for this, what happens when the auditor says, "We're concerned with all aspects of security, including physical. Please show me around your day-to-day working environment/desk" ?

[LondonManc]

If this is aimed at everyone, including contractors, subbies, 3rd party site staff etc. then there is no reason not to do it. It sounds like this would fall under National Security being a Govt. client so I'd just get on with it, it's no different to working for a client that supplies a laptop for you for security reasons.

This. It's nothing to do with IR35 and everything to do with organisational operational risk. Building and systems security apply to all people engaging with the organisation, be it permies, consultants, contractors, lift engineers, canteen staff, cleaners or anyone else. You're on the project, you attend. It's billable time, so not an issue.

[northernladuk]

Personally I do not see an issue; bill for the 2 days and attend. Keep the client happy by attending their "mandatory" meeting/audit - simplez!

Surely if you work in a sector that has a requirement for any sort of regulatory compliance (including security) you would be asked to attends audit meetings, governance oversight and alike? None of which I see as an issue.

WLB

Don't say that. Billybiro will accuse you of having your pants pulled and down and you aren't a proper contractor.

[WLB2018]

Personally I do not see an issue; bill for the 2 days and attend. Keep the client happy by attending their "mandatory" meeting/audit - simplez!

Surely if you work in a sector that has a requirement for any sort of regulatory compliance (including security) you would be asked to attends audit meetings, governance oversight and alike? None of which I see as an issue.

WLB