Reply to: What would you do?

[SimonMac]

I think the summary of this discussion boils down to those who are embedded in a project against those who just do BAU, the BAU people will walk at the end of the assignment as they are not really invested beyond doing what they have to do. Those who have put blood, sweat and tears into a project will not walkaway without seeing it live, even if that means working on a day-by-day notice until its done.

[billybiro]

Rubbish. They are the clients. Not giving out free money.

Exactly. That's precisely what I'm saying.

If the project is finished, and your contract is finished, you're done. The client will not (and is under no obligation to) extend your contract for even one more day.. After all, why should they?

[psychocandy]

Discuss the situation with the client.

If there is a six month contract on offer (and it's actually going to start) then you assess the impact of leaving at the end of the contract compared to that of staying.

I had a client where they only offered four week extensions post go-live, and they were surprised when people left early or didn't accept the next extension. But if you want someone to stay, then you need to plan properly and communicate that with the supplier.

I'd have no qualms about not extending if the project had gone live, but at this stage I'd probably stick it out and then move on once you've successfully delivered.

I would agree with the discuss with client idea.

You mention stick it out until you've delivered. You have - up until the end of the legally signed contract. If this contract was time-based rather than deliverable-based then the way I see it is that anything else is a new contract. Fair enough dont be a bell end about and accomodate clients if you can but at the end of the day....

You proved it yourself. Offer short contracts and people will decline and go elsewhere. A client can't "expect" contractors to hang around until they decide.

[psychocandy]

And you would be happy if the norm is to over extended and chop everyone early when needed? You'd be calling the client all the names under the sun if that kept happening.

No point discussing it with you when you think it's 'misguided loyalty' and 'bending over and taking it'. You'll never understand.

Keep up NLUK mun. You know my views - if its in the contract that ether party can terminate with notice then IMHO there should be no complaints from EITHER party.

What the OP and others are discussing here is some sort of out-of-contract "agreement" that its wrong not to extend for a few weeks because the client wants you to do so.

[LondonManc]

The late payments issue should not come into this - it's a separate grievance that should be addressed separately.

Manage expectations with current client co and potential new client co.

Can you get any assurance of a hard stop on the current project engagement?
Are new client co insisting on a particular start date or is this all speculative at the moment?
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.

Manage the situations as they arrive, not what they might be.

[TheFaQQer]

What would you do?

Discuss the situation with the client.

If there is a six month contract on offer (and it's actually going to start) then you assess the impact of leaving at the end of the contract compared to that of staying.

I had a client where they only offered four week extensions post go-live, and they were surprised when people left early or didn't accept the next extension. But if you want someone to stay, then you need to plan properly and communicate that with the supplier.

I'd have no qualms about not extending if the project had gone live, but at this stage I'd probably stick it out and then move on once you've successfully delivered.

[northernladuk]

So you keep saying. Still think a client can have zero complaints if a supplier chooses not extend their relationship beyond an initial contract period.

Of course, client could have offered a longer initial contract and added some contingency in to ensure the project was completed in the timescale. But, no, they won't do that because they want to get the contractor on board for as short a time as possible. Also, they know if it does overrun they can appeal to the contractors misguided loyalty and throw them a few more weeks and they'll bend over and take it.

And you would be happy if the norm is to over extended and chop everyone early when needed? You'd be calling the client all the names under the sun if that kept happening.

No point discussing it with you when you think it's 'misguided loyalty' and 'bending over and taking it'. You'll never understand.

[v8gaz]

Now that bit is a given! I do plan to have something of a hurrah on the last day. I do have good relationships with the vast majority of people here.

Make sure the guy who pays the invoices late's cake stays in the box until everyone else has enjoyed theirs. Then grudgingly hand it over.

[psychocandy]

It's a client supplier relationship. It's not equal and many things that work one way will not work the other as it might in an equal one. You just can't apply this thinking.

So you keep saying. Still think a client can have zero complaints if a supplier chooses not extend their relationship beyond an initial contract period.

Of course, client could have offered a longer initial contract and added some contingency in to ensure the project was completed in the timescale. But, no, they won't do that because they want to get the contractor on board for as short a time as possible. Also, they know if it does overrun they can appeal to the contractors misguided loyalty and throw them a few more weeks and they'll bend over and take it.

One client I worked for did this. Added a month on at the end. Seemed sensible. Project overran by two weeks in the end and they did serve the weeks notice and end it two weeks early. Fair enough it was in the contract they could do this - would rather have worked the extra two weeks of course. But point being, no-one made plans for that extra month because they were in contract - even though it was possible it would end early.

As opposed to the situation where client screws it down to a minimum then ASSUMES contractor will be jumping up and down to take it from behind with a few odd weeks they kindly throw....

[northernladuk]

Dunno if you're agreeing with me here or not but do they ****....

Similarly, project ends early - two weeks before end of contract. 99/100 client will think - hmm save a few quid - bye contractor.

A) 99/100 is utter crap. You've just made that up and...
B) that is exactly why they use contractors and we should know that and..
C) If the project has finished you should be leaving of your own accord. What else are you going to do? Let the client direct you to do more work?

[northernladuk]

Put the shoe on the other foot.

Imagine the contract is at an end and the project is completed. You've secured a new gig, but it doesn't start for 2 weeks. You go to your existing client on your last day and ask for a 2 week "extension" to your current gig to tie you over between gigs, even though the project is complete and there's really no further work to be done?

Does the client consent to that?

It's a client supplier relationship. It's not equal and many things that work one way will not work the other as it might in an equal one. You just can't apply this thinking.

[psychocandy]

Put the shoe on the other foot.

Imagine the contract is at an end and the project is completed. You've secured a new gig, but it doesn't start for 2 weeks. You go to your existing client on your last day and ask for a 2 week "extension" to your current gig to tie you over between gigs, even though the project is complete and there's really no further work to be done?

Does the client consent to that?

Dunno if you're agreeing with me here or not but do they ****....

Similarly, project ends early - two weeks before end of contract. 99/100 client will think - hmm save a few quid - bye contractor.

[BlasterBates]

In my view if you have a long term project and that means you can't renew then it's not going to mean "bad blood", but you need to let the PM know in advance. Though I can't see how adding two weeks on to your contract is going to make any difference to whether you land a new contract. So why not just agree, and leave with a warm fuzzy feeling. You just look for a contract two weeks later than you intended.

[psychocandy]

A better analogy is work is running behind on agreed job (for what ever reason, might not be the plumbers fault, might be the chippy or sparky etc), plumber buggers off onto another job without finishing the original job he was hired to do because a bigger job is lined up

Maybe but depends whos fault the delay is. Still think a plumber would say, look I'll do what I can to help finish off etc but ultimately I aint knocking this big job back because things have run over through no fault of mine.

[jmo21]

A better analogy is work is running behind on agreed job (for what ever reason, might not be the plumbers fault, might be the chippy or sparky etc), plumber buggers off onto another job without finishing the original job he was hired to do because a bigger job is lined up

If it's not the plumbers fault, don't expect it to be done when you'd like it to be done, especially if they have a bigger job lined up the following week. They should come back to do it of course.