Reply to: When is a 6 month contract not a 6 month contract

[Cenobite]

What I haven't got my head around is if you sign a 6 month contract with a business, why many people on this forum believe that the business can simply ask you not to turn up for work and then not pay you.

I suppose the way I see it is that the company is well within their rights to do that but in so doing, would completely burn their bridges with you and you'd never trust them again.

Same as if I had to give them a notice period but then didn't honour it because of MOO. I just wouldn't expect to ever be asked back.

[northernladuk]

Couple of things that spring to mind here... and most have been done but again..

Clauses in your contract will say payment upon sign time sheet and also agent will only pay if client pays so if there is no work to do you can't get paid. If it's in the contract it's a fact. No one seems to complain when the client requests you don't come in over the xmas period, or bank holidays. You are a contractor, you are available to work. The client is not offering you work over these days so you don't bill/don't get paid. Most people already do it without thinking about it so why get upset when he does the same thing at the end of the gig?

There is also the situation that this doesn't happen a lot and I am sure there are more cases of contractors bailing out of gigs early and breaching contract than there are clients. We just get upset when a client does it to us and put it down to us looking after ourselves when we do it to them. If everyone starts suing and it becomes common practice to uphold terms of contract I have have a feeling contractors would lose out in the long run.

All that said there is a really interesting page on another contractor site listing a pages of links to legal issues facing contractors and a section on termination.

Legal: Contractor Legal Information for UK contractors

One in particular deals with this question which would indicate you have every right to full payment but
How contractors should handle being terminated

in another article linked below Roger Sinclair does say

As Roger Sinclair, a lawyer specialising in contractor affairs with the London-based Egos legal consultancy points out, you do have a right to payment for all of the time you actually worked up to the end of the period of notice.

How contractors should handle being terminated

I'm of the view that a 6 month contract is one where you leave 6 months after you start.

I'm not. That's a job. I leave when the work is done or the client doesn't need me any more. Expecting to stay for the duration when the work is complete means you will be looking for something else to do which is likely to lead to MoO/part and parcel/D&C issues.

Gotta put all this in perspective though. The percentage of terminations without notice compared to clients that do honour notice or the end of the contract is pretty bloody small.

[SueEllen]

What I haven't got my head around is if you sign a 6 month contract with a business, why many people on this forum believe that the business can simply ask you not to turn up for work and then not pay you.

1. Contracts normally have clauses in them where the client and agency can tell you not to come in if your performance is unsatisfactory. What is considered unsatisfactory is up to the contractor to negotiate with the agency.

2. As a contractor you are a flexible resource. The project you are working on may be for another organisation, this organisation maybe internal or external, and your client may be the intermediary. If your client isn't going to get the full payment from that other organisation for the project due to some issues outside their control they need to have the option to terminate their contractor contracts. Again it's up to the contractor to negotiate a termination penalty in the contract.

If you want stability you need to become a permanent employee as organisations also do this with larger consulting companies.One client I had was so frustrated with the performance of another large company they asked to do some work for them, that for the final 3 months of the contract they didn't give them any work to ensure they didn't have to pay them further.

[malvolio]

Lets' be a little more precise here....

Our contracts are either for the delivery if a given "thing", such as a workable product up and running in BaU, or for a service such as producing code for a series of project-related deliverables or expertise in a given field such as proposal costing or service design or security or whatever on an as needs basis.

If you do no productive work under either grouping for any reason, you have no claim to being paid for it. That's why companies use contractors after all.

If you are working to deliver something to a fixed price, then duration is irrelevant (unless of course delivering it by a given date is a requirement) and you get paid the same as long as it's delivered regardless of how long it takes (hence IBOYO, and the ability to make money by delivering early)

In every other case you are providing a resource on a call off basis; the budget underpinning your contract does not entitle you to any more money that you get for days worked. If the work stops after three days, well that's a shame but hey, you wanted to be a contractor.

HTH. BIDI.

[TraceRacing]

I'm of the view that a 6 month contract is one where you leave 6 months after you start.

I've yet to put any credence into contract duration. There is no greater value to a contractor of a "6 month contract" or a "1 month rolling contract" or in my case a 3 month contract which is about to go into it's 6th extension (I really need to change jobs, I've been here longer than some permies)...

[LondonManc]

That clears that up then - thanks.

Untouchable1

Just one caveat on what I mentioned before - if you have a minimum engagement clause, you need to be able to provide a substitute if you're ill/on holiday to meet your side of the obligation. If they aren't up to scratch then end of contract. Can't have it both ways.

[Untouchable1]

Exactly that. If the contract is breached, then you sue for the remedies entitled to you, based on the contract. If the contract is not breached, then you can't sue.



Not everyone does.

There is a general assumption that agents include a clause which says that if you don't work, you don't get paid, or you need an approved timesheet in order to be paid. Following on from that, there is a general assumption that most people don't negotiate to remove those clauses. Finally there is a general assumption that most people don't have a clause in the contract which instead of having a paid notice period (bad idea) there is a penalty clause for early termination.

That clears that up then - thanks.

Untouchable1

[Untouchable1]

You need to stop thinking like an employee..

You need to stop thinking like a contractor.

I'm thinking like a business.

[TheFaQQer]

Depends what's written in the contract.

Exactly that. If the contract is breached, then you sue for the remedies entitled to you, based on the contract. If the contract is not breached, then you can't sue.

But my point is this: on this forum everyone seems to (inblanket fasion) suggest that contracts are not worth the paper with regards to end dates. For example:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...-me-pup-2.html

So what's that all about?

Not everyone does.

There is a general assumption that agents include a clause which says that if you don't work, you don't get paid, or you need an approved timesheet in order to be paid. Following on from that, there is a general assumption that most people don't negotiate to remove those clauses. Finally there is a general assumption that most people don't have a clause in the contract which instead of having a paid notice period (bad idea) there is a penalty clause for early termination.

[stek]

Depends what's written in the contract.

But my point is this: on this forum everyone seems to (inblanket fasion) suggest that contracts are not worth the paper with regards to end dates. For example:



http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...-me-pup-2.html

So what's that all about?

You need to stop thinking like an employee..

[Untouchable1]

Yes.

So what stops that taking effect?

Depends what's written in the contract.

But my point is this: on this forum everyone seems to (inblanket fasion) suggest that contracts are not worth the paper with regards to end dates. For example:

Someone's already said it better on this forum, but why should it be the contractor who is expected to take a lower rate when the contract is long? The agent benefits from a long contract too, so why can't they drop their commission?

Also, I don't think contracts are even as good as their notice period: what with MOO and all that. To paraphrase someone from this forum again, contracting is like a middle-class zero hours contract.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...-me-pup-2.html

So what's that all about?

[TheFaQQer]

Assuming the contract has a start and an end date, surely these would be the dates that the contracts effects?

Yes.

So what stops that taking effect?

[Untouchable1]

Assuming the contract has a start and an end date, surely these would be the dates that the contracts effects?

[LondonManc]

You tell me - you are the one making the assertion, so back it up with some legal cases to support it.

Unless there is a minimum engagement clause, they will struggle.

[LondonManc]

It's an interesting point and I'm of the belief that most companies secure a budget for six months of contractor rate and you work it. If a company has budget pulled mid-project, then there are bigger issues afoot and just get whatever timesheets signed that you can asap to get your money out of the place. Others are just prone to do what they want and treat contractors with the contempt they believe we deserve because we're earning more than the hiring manager ever could.