Reply to: BNPP at it again (snip snip)

[Taita]

Broadly true although a key person who does it just before a deadline would have a stronger hand (not that I am saying anyone should do it).

Probably why the banks traditionally time their cuts in contractor rates for December!

[northernladuk]

Agree with all that. Its a balance and something to be considered at each point. Not just an across the board attitude some people have. But that's my take on it. Anyway.. Said my piece now.

[DotasScandal]

If the odd client does this which causes every single contractor to become mercenary just because their incorrect assumption that this is what clients will do then all hell will break loose. I'd like to think on the whole everyone acts professionally with the odd client pulling this trick and the odd contractor acting like a Dick. We might achieve some middle ground and not descend in to chaos. You can have tulipty clients and tulipty contractors but I'd like that to stay a minority.
Maybe I should take my rosy spectacles off and get back to real life. .

Agree with you that everyone should act professional, and that ideally we should all just try to get along...
But one must recognize that the non negociable, take-it-or-f*-off rate cuts have become an unpleasant trend in the past few years.
And if there is a an increase in the mercenary mindset, it is largely due to the increasingly hardball approach to contractors of the buyers.
I do tend to agree with the "fiduciary duty to one's ltd" argument. Sometimes jumping ship for better pay is not being greedy, it is just good management of your ltd.

[northernladuk]

It is indeed the exact same (yet opposite) of the client dumping a contractor earning X and replacing him with a contractor earning Y (where X > Y), or just generally enforcing the reduction of contractor rates, so as to reduce his costs. Dumping a lower paying contract for a higher one is simply increasing your revenue and acting entirely within your fiduciary duty to your Ltd.

To be honest i've never seen a client dump a contractor mid period just to go for a cheaper one unless it's a bigger strategy to replace a number of people with a new supplier..and thinking about it I cant remember that ever happening. I'm sure it might have happened somewhere though.

Thing is we are really happy when the odd client does this aren't we? <sarcasm tag>. If the odd client does this which causes every single contractor to become mercenary just because their incorrect assumption that this is what clients will do then all hell will break loose. I'd like to think on the whole everyone acts professionally with the odd client pulling this trick and the odd contractor acting like a Dick. We might achieve some middle ground and not descend in to chaos. You can have tulipty clients and tulipty contractors but I'd like that to stay a minority.

Maybe I should take my rosy spectacles off and get back to real life.

[billybiro]

I reiterate a client supplier relationship is not a level playing field.

I agree. I'm not naive and I understand the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules and all that. However....

Jumping ship just because you want more money is mercenary and a tad unprofessional. The situation really dictates to what extent.

No, it really isn't. At all. It's the one situation where that uneven playing field you talk about is suddenly tilted in your favour, not the clients.

Jumping ship mid-contract for more money (and assuming you've factored in the ill-will that it may cause - i.e. you just may never want to go back to that client in the future anyway) is good business for your Ltd.

It is indeed the exact same (yet opposite) of the client dumping a contractor earning X and replacing him with a contractor earning Y (where X > Y), or just generally enforcing the reduction of contractor rates, so as to reduce his costs. Dumping a lower paying contract for a higher one is simply increasing your revenue and acting entirely within your fiduciary duty to your Ltd.

[SussexSeagull]

Its about quantities of scale

Contractor pulls that to thier Client who is 100% of their income source = Contractor loses
Clinet does this to Contractors 10% of whom walk = Client wins

Broadly true although a key person who does it just before a deadline would have a stronger hand (not that I am saying anyone should do it).

[SimonMac]

Fair enough that as NLUK its a different relationship....

Just imagine walking into client one day slapping a piece of paper on the desk, and saying 15% more, let me know by the end of the week, take it or leave it and I walk out the door. There'd be a riot.

Its about quantities of scale

Contractor pulls that to thier Client who is 100% of their income source = Contractor loses
Clinet does this to Contractors 10% of whom walk = Client wins

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

Oddly enough thinking about it I don't know anyone that's bailed mid contract in real life but in here nearly everyone that has asked about bailing is because of more money. A certain now reformed character on here bailed out of his first three gig's for more money. Based on that I'd have to disagree with that comment.

now who would that be?

[DotasScandal]

Although it can be delicious to say "sod it, I don't need this", they have probably factored in the cost of those who walk out into the savings they make.

That's a bold assumption! Generally there are a lot of hidden costs that are NOT being correctly factored in...

[northernladuk]

I'm still trying to imagine the riot at the client when PC submits his new wage demands

There would be a riot bearing in mind he should be invoicing not getting a wage

Although to be fair PC moans about clients more than most permies do so maybe that is the right phrase!

[northernladuk]

Agree it's all about the situation. Most if not all, I believe, jump ship not for the extra money per se, but for better perspectives or because the current situation has become unsustainable. No one like to take a risk and jump into the unknown unless there is good reason... a handful of percent better pay generally isn't.

Oddly enough thinking about it I don't know anyone that's bailed mid contract in real life but in here nearly everyone that has asked about bailing is because of more money. A certain now reformed character on here bailed out of his first three gig's for more money. Based on that I'd have to disagree with that comment.

[DotasScandal]

Jumping ship just because you want more money is mercenary and a tad unprofessional. *The situation really dictates to what extent*.

Agree it's all about the situation. Most if not all, I believe, jump ship not for the extra money per se, but for better perspectives or because the current situation has become unsustainable. No one like to take a risk and jump into the unknown unless there is good reason... a handful of percent better pay generally isn't.

I think you are over exaggerating with riot. There would be a level of annoyance and the client would make a choice. Accept or let him go. Same as in this situation.

Agreed. Most seasoned professionals would be pragmatic about it - albeit (perhaps very) annoyed as you say.

[Antman]

very few do...

I reiterate a client supplier relationship is not a level playing field.

Jumping ship just because you want more money is mercenary and a tad unprofessional. The situation really dictates to what extent.

I think you are over exaggerating with riot. There would be a level of annoyance and the client would make a choice. Accept or let him go. Same as in this situation.

It's not level in that generally they have the money and generally we still have to work for it. However we do have some power from the inconvenience of them having to find someone to replace you to (rarely) being a point of failure in their systems.

Although it can be delicious to say "sod it, I don't need this", they have probably factored in the cost of those who walk out into the savings they make.

I'm still trying to imagine the riot at the client when PC submits his new wage demands

[DotasScandal]

They do. When I was there there were a few permies who did WFH. The department's managers really do not like it though.

This.
The "we don't have the infrastructure" is of course an excuse...as you say it's a matter of policy. They don't like people to do it, they don't want people to request it, so they come up with some BS to discourage people from even thinking about it. Old story.

[northernladuk]

Fair enough that as NLUK its a different relationship....

Just imagine walking into client one day slapping a piece of paper on the desk, and saying 15% more, let me know by the end of the week, take it or leave it and I walk out the door. There'd be a riot.

Possibly but again it's not a level playing field. It's unfortunately more common for clients to bully suppliers as the client holds the purse strings. A few of my previous clients have agreements in place that their suppliers must provide a year on year cost reduction in the contract. The suppliers are signing a contract to get squeezed!!! It's how business work.. The position power flows down the chain. Some fight back if they are willing to get canned as per your example but very few do...

I reiterate a client supplier relationship is not a level playing field.

Jumping ship just because you want more money is mercenary and a tad unprofessional. The situation really dictates to what extent.

I think you are over exaggerating with riot. There would be a level of annoyance and the client would make a choice. Accept or let him go. Same as in this situation.