Reply to: Contract with no termination right on my side - is this 'normal' (or maybe 'common')?

[Glencky]

Interesting further replies which pretty much echo why I'm concerned about not having the option but also my own view. In general this would always concern me but since this is my first 'regular' contract I am more concerned about rocking the boat than I would otherwise be. I also want to stick it out so I've got it on my CV - my first gigs don't look as good as this one does. Indeed really what I want is that it works out well enough that I end up doing at least one extension - when I was recruiting contractors in this slice of the market all I was ever interested in was a) what projects they'd done and b) did they get extended. Anyone can have the odd short gig and it means nothing but clearly a lot of short-term or non-extended gigs either indicates they're a nightmare (!) or they are particularly flighty, neither of which you want. So given I don't want my CV to look like that, I am really motivated to stick out this 6 months. I was disappointed they didn't offer me 3 initially as more chance of an extension over a shorter period of time!

I would never choose to break any commitment so I'd always want to just stick it out and this time I've got even more reasons than usual to do that. I shall be sucking it up on this score and we'll see what happens. Hopefully I won't have to use any of the helpful and not-so-helpful suggestions offered!

[TheFaQQer]

So am I the only one who would prefer an actual termination clause than being forced to behave in a way that makes them terminate me?!

No - if I can get one, I'd take one. But some clients (possibly many clients these days) just will not budge on that. It's nice to be able to have the freedom to make the decision to leave, but sometimes you have to fall back on negotiation and sometimes you have to fall back on sucking it up and staying.

I've only ever given notice on one contract - they were offering one month extensions, so I negotiated the notice period from 28 days down to a week and a week later gave notice because I had a three month role (turned into 16 months) working from home.

I've had contracts where I didn't want to be there, and in the worst case, I turned down an extension to leave. I possibly could have negotiated an earlier exit, but I decided to stick out the contract and then leave at the end rather than try to get out early.

I don't like leaving early, so it has to be pretty dire to do it. But it's always nice to have the option.

[curtis]

Personally for me if I signed up for a 6 month contact I would want a notice period in on my side. I do not care about their side as they can get rid asap anyhow regardless as we know.

I know you can talk to the client try and negotiate to leave, punch the boss etc etc but its can be eaiser said than done when you in a situation you just want out of. Also I have found in the few contracts I have wanted out of asap the managers have been the most unhelpful, unapproachable as you can get and would probably enjoy saying no to your request to leave.

A notice period for me saves all that hassle and means if I have to I can give it and go.

[Cenobite]

I had a contract before which did not allow for me to initiate termination. This didn't bother me at the time and I thought nothing of it but ended up being the worst place I'd ever worked. Eventually I just had to ask the client to terminate me.

[Glencky]

Negotiation is your friend in no-notice contracts. Saying that if you constantly give notice or go in to a contract expecting to give notice just because it suits you eventually you will get what is rightly coming to you.......

Yeah, quite right. Especially since this is my first 'regular' contract, I will be aiming to stay till the bitter end even if it's terrible (and I really don't expect this to happen). So the question was partly prompted by general paranoia and risk mitigation and partly for the intellectual exercise really. And yes, obviously the best way out in the absence of contractual rights is going to be to negotiate with the person/ people who are actually most affected - your contacts ('manager') in the end client. So that's the approach I'd take. I'd just prefer it to be backed up with a contractual right in the background!

Ah well, had confirmation pre'employment'screening is complete so at least something's progressing...

[northernladuk]

So am I the only one who would prefer an actual termination clause than being forced to behave in a way that makes them terminate me?!

Not really. If I needed to leave I would negotiate an exit from the client. They don't want people around who don't want to be there and as long as you give them enough notice to get someone in (or even offer a sub) they shouldn't be too unhappy. Even with notice periods there are a lot of contractors that bail early as it doesn't suit their needs and there are also a lot of clients that are just as unhappy with a contractor giving notice as he is due. Having a notice period doesn't mean the client will like it.

Negotiation is your friend in no-notice contracts. Saying that if you constantly give notice or go in to a contract expecting to give notice just because it suits you eventually you will get what is rightly coming to you.......

[Glencky]

When I was permie, I worked with a team of about ten contractors all doing the same thing, in the same way. Nine of them were outside IR35 and one was inside IR35 - mainly because of the poor advice that his accountant gave him.

As long as you've checked it out, then good luck to you

Thanks, I can honestly say my position has NOWT to do with my accountant! Their entire set-up is geared towards me operating outside IR35 and it has taken me a long time to get them to understand I really do believe I should be operating within it. So it's almost 'despite' their advice, not because of it. And if that sounds even more bonkers to you, I can understand! I've got where I've got with all my own research (and I have, genuinely, researched a lot. I was hoping to convince myself I could operate outside...)

[Glencky]

... and more constructive suggestions whilst writing my last reply..!

Thanks for the hint about rate cuts. My current rate is market rate and whilst I'd obviously not be happy with a 10% cut, it'd still be worth my while if I was enjoying it. Though doesn't mean I wouldn't try and escape on principle. My current contract I took at a rate I knew was 40% below market rate in the UK (it was in a developing country) which I did to get the gig because I knew I'd enjoy it (and I've loved it). This is the kind of reason I went contracting (flexibility/ opportunities). There's no way I'd have gotten it if I had gone in at UK market rate. They were really stretching it to pay me 40% below. But anyway, I've been managing on that so market rate less 10% seems less bothersome to me than to many, perhaps!

Of course I'd be thinking 'shower of bar stewards' and trying to find a chance to get them back...

It's not Barclays, my contract, though. Doesn't stop them taking lessons from Barclays, however!


So am I the only one who would prefer an actual termination clause than being forced to behave in a way that makes them terminate me?!

[TheFaQQer]

Don't think I haven't thought about it a lot and argued it both ways - I'd be bonkers not to have given the financial implications. But that's where I am. Each to their own!

When I was permie, I worked with a team of about ten contractors all doing the same thing, in the same way. Nine of them were outside IR35 and one was inside IR35 - mainly because of the poor advice that his accountant gave him.

As long as you've checked it out, then good luck to you

[Glencky]

Thanks for the constructive suggestions...!

On IR35, I know how controversial a subject it is and am well aware of the views of 'most contractors' operating outside of it. I also fully understand a) how it works and b) the exact nature and significance of the financial difference between inside and outside.

I can't speak for all contractors in all environments, I can only speak for the slice of the market that I know, understand and operate in and for me/ MyCo operating within it. Until recently I 'employed' (ha!) contractors just like I am now. I never saw a contract (big company, people to handle that stuff for me) never knew the terms and didn't care about the contract terms. I can, however, fully understand and appreciate the working practices we operated. And I can tell you I think those working practices, when viewed with total honesty, meant 'my' contractors should've been 'caught' by IR35. Although I haven't started my next contract yet (so I'll review my views once I have done) I'm as confident as I can be that it will be an almost exactly similar environment and hence I'll reach the same conclusion. I have - just on principle really, might as well know the score - had my imminent contract reviewed for IR35 compliance and yeah, it's compliant. But that's irrelevant if the working practices aren't.

There are many working practices criteria on which I'd be in the clear but some key ones on which - whilst I could 'spin' it and be extremely careful and hope to have a good case in the event of a investigation, and get the might of PCG behind me etc etc... - I basically wouldn't be. Frankly that's not me. I don't want to do that. My personal opinion - and it is only a personal opinion, I'm not trying to convince anyone else or change anyone else's mind - is that I don't need the hassle or risk. I didn't go into contracting to avoid tax. I'm peed off the regulations are written the way they are. It isn't right that I can have no employment rights but be taxed as an employee (worse than one, given the employer's NICs). But the regulations ARE written the way they are so that's that. At the opposite end of the spectrum, I equally don't think some of the ways in which many company directors remunerate themselves are right for me. I think if you earn more, you pay more tax and I think that's 'right'.

Don't think I haven't thought about it a lot and argued it both ways - I'd be bonkers not to have given the financial implications. But that's where I am. Each to their own!

[kevpuk]

As said above, notice periods are essentially meaningless for contractors - if Client decides not to give you any work, you can't bill, you don't get paid = might as well not be there.
As for no termination rights on your side, there are 101 ways you can manage to leave - read the news all day, verrrryyy long fag/coffee/dump breaks (try a few hours to start with), make a pass at the most easily offended person in the office, forget to shower/shave/get dressed and so on
HTH

[eek]

No notice contracts are becoming more popular. Barclays have had them for years.

Probably worth adding some background.

Barclays cut rates on a take it or leave it basis years ago and then discovered that while many contractors stayed they started looking in earnest so over the following 2 months many contractors gave notice and left.

After that Barclays introduced their no notice contract so contractors could not leave early.

The important thing to notice here is not that Barclays have no notice contracts (they do) but the reason is that they have a habit of cutting rates by 10% on a take it or leave it basis.. So make sure the rate you are going on is still acceptable when the next 10% cut arrives...

[TheFaQQer]

Whilst I'm not enamoured of no notice on their side (and I'm operating inside IR35 so I don't care about any indicators from that perspective), it's the lack of a notice period on my side that bothers me far more.

At the risk of taking the thread off topic, are you SURE you're inside IR35?

I'm not expecting to get paid for anything I don't work, notice period on their side or none. What I'm bothered about is the (I suspect pretty small) risk of turning up, hating every aspect of it and being stuck there for 6 months. That is not why I went into contracting!

There are always ways out - the agency can give you immediate notice if they want to, so just upset them enough and they'll fire you

If you don't like it, then you exercise your right of substitution and get someone else in to do the work for you. If you really don't like it, you tell them you've broken your leg and won't be in for three months (I know someone who did that at two consecutive projects). If you really, really don't like it, punch the client manager and they'll get rid of you.

[Glencky]

Thanks for the link about searching - I have indeed found a real 'wood for trees' issue in some of my previous searches on here.

Whilst I'm not enamoured of no notice on their side (and I'm operating inside IR35 so I don't care about any indicators from that perspective), it's the lack of a notice period on my side that bothers me far more.

I'm not expecting to get paid for anything I don't work, notice period on their side or none. What I'm bothered about is the (I suspect pretty small) risk of turning up, hating every aspect of it and being stuck there for 6 months. That is not why I went into contracting!

[northernladuk]

Notice periods are for permies. They mean squat to us. You get paid on receipt of a signed timesheet. You don't work you don't get paid. They can see your notice out but not give you any work = immediate.

Do a search on google and you will get a lot more information. Contractoruk and contractorcalculator have a lot of good articles on uneven notice periods.

You could also use the search function as described in the link below. Many many threads on notice periods.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/welco...uk-forums.html

No notice contracts are becoming more popular. Barclays have had them for years.