Reply to: Handcuff clause #2.. how long is too long?

[WTFH]

Why would an agency want to get rid of an expensive contractor in favour a one off permie placement?

Because the OP is trolling, or deliberately leaving out facts.

[KinooOrKinog]

Out of curiosity does the agency want to bin you because you are too expensive and replace you with a cheaper permie?

Why would an agency want to get rid of an expensive contractor in favour a one off permie placement?

[cannon999]

12 months is too long - Seems unfair and I think it's hard to legally enforce this rule.

In fact I'm not even sure how enforceable these handcuff clauses are.

Out of curiosity does the agency want to bin you because you are too expensive and replace you with a cheaper permie?

Fair enough. And no, I'm just curious how these handcuff clauses work in practice if I was ever to try make a move direct.

[northernladuk]

12 months is too long - Seems unfair and I think it's hard to legally enforce this rule.

Correct.

[cyborg1337]

12 months is too long - Seems unfair and I think it's hard to legally enforce this rule.

In fact I'm not even sure how enforceable these handcuff clauses are.

Out of curiosity does the agency want to bin you because you are too expensive and replace you with a cheaper permie?

[WTFH]

What if the client wants to keep the contractor but the agency wants to bin the contractor? Surely this void the handcuff clause. It's not meant to restrict trade.

That's a bit of trolling/info you left out of the first post.

If the agent wants to get rid of the contractor, then the contractor just needs to contact them to discuss the terms of the contract, and having the handcuff clause removed. The client and agent should also reach an agreement.

Of course, I'm guessing you're not telling us anywhere near all of the story, just hoping that one of us will say something that you'll latch on to as being 100% relevant to your situation.

[eek]

What if the client wants to keep the contractor but the agency wants to bin the contractor? Surely this void the handcuff clause. It's not meant to restrict trade.

That's still a conversation between the client and the agency - the agency could still try and get money off you but I suspect a court would throw it out..

[cannon999]

If the client has moved their business from agency A to agency B and no longer uses agency A then it's safe to use agency B as agency A can't make a claim against business they haven't won.

It won't stop them trying though

What if the client wants to keep the contractor but the agency wants to bin the contractor? Surely this void the handcuff clause. It's not meant to restrict trade.

[ladymuck]

Has anyone been able to negotiate themselves out of the handcuff?

With everything going on and agency changes at some of the banks it's going to be slightly annoying to be offered a role back at the same client that only a new agency is looking after.

Previous posts have said that a change of agency is one small step to remove that marker.

If the client has moved their business from agency A to agency B and no longer uses agency A then it's safe to use agency B as agency A can't make a claim against business they haven't won.

It won't stop them trying though

[GhostofTarbera]

Has anyone been able to negotiate themselves out of the handcuff?

With everything going on and agency changes at some of the banks it's going to be slightly annoying to be offered a role back at the same client that only a new agency is looking after.

Previous posts have said that a change of agency is one small step to remove that marker.

Ahhh yes

You pay old agent all of its commission for length of new contacts + all renewals - then they are quite happy for you to switch


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[mikedarv]

Has anyone been able to negotiate themselves out of the handcuff?

With everything going on and agency changes at some of the banks it's going to be slightly annoying to be offered a role back at the same client that only a new agency is looking after.

Previous posts have said that a change of agency is one small step to remove that marker.

[GhostofTarbera]

It would be a pretty tulip handcuff of it were for 6 months from the end of the first assignment and you worked there another 12 month. It wouldn't even exist so pointless.

Think about why the handcuff is there. That will give you and idea when it starts.

Guys and girls

Please take into consideration the OP might have learning difficulties/ bi-polar or mental health issues that prohibit him from from seeing the obvious

Let’s be more considerate here


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[northernladuk]

It would be a pretty tulip handcuff of it were for 6 months from the end of the first assignment and you worked there another 12 month. It wouldn't even exist so pointless.

Think about why the handcuff is there. That will give you and idea when it starts.

[WTFH]

This statement is clearly wrong according to the wording that I have already posted.

OK, if you have decided it means something, and we all disagree with you, would you like someone to lie and say whatever it is you’re hoping for?

You’ve had multiple contract extensions, or new contracts - you’ve chosen not to make that clear to us which it is.
If they are new contracts, then the conditions of the new contract trump the conditions in the old one, so take the most recent one you have signed as the current active conditions you have agreed to.
If you say it’s all one assignment, then it’s from the end date of the assignment, i.e. the day you or they terminate the agreement, or no further work is offered to you.
If you say it’s multiple assignments, then read the most recent one.

That’s not what you want to hear, but it’s what everyone is telling you.

[ladymuck]

This statement is clearly wrong according to the wording that I have already posted.

Then ignore it. It's perfectly clear to me, you just seem adamant to have your own interpretation, which begs the question why you bothered to ask.