Reply to: Have you had luck with striking out handcuff clauses from contracts before signing?

[TheDude]

I tried appending an extra zero to my day rate but no luck.

[cannon999]

I didn't end up pushing for it to be removed, not that relevant as they were paying top rate anyway.

[vwdan]

I've had a few removed, where I felt they were onerous and likely not enforceable. For example - one role tried to prevent me from working for any of their clients, or their clients clients - the job? Working for BT. They agreed that would be a bit silly and impossible to enforce, so removed the "clients clients" clause

[Whorty]

Many large companies will not engage contractors directly.

I've worked a mix of agency and direct. In every company I've worked in there have always been contractors there who are direct - whether it be insurance, financial cos like asset management, entertainment, pharma, media, property. Maybe public sector won't work direct, can't answer for them, but private sector in my experience want the best people for the job in hand.

[malvolio]

It's amazing how many large companies with such rules can find work-arounds if that is the only way to get a skill is to engage directly. I guess this is the one way for contractors to truly test if they have rare niche skills or are just kidding themselves.

But, most such companies will just go back to the agency and find someone else.

Most companies aren't allowed direct hires. It's a combination of HR policies meant to stop managers hiring their mates and ensuring that anyone they do hire fits into their view of corporate unity and a reluctance of procurement to get involved with HR areas of... well, "expertise" is probably too strong a word. Acquiring necessary skills is not the top of the requirement matrix.

I've had a few direct gigs over the years, invariably with smaller, agile but still significant companies not interested in corporate bureaucracy: Sun Microsystems (as was) for example...

[Paralytic]

Many large companies will not engage contractors directly.

It's amazing how many large companies with such rules can find work-arounds if that is the only way to get a skill is to engage directly. I guess this is the one way for contractors to truly test if they have rare niche skills or are just kidding themselves.

But, most such companies will just go back to the agency and find someone else.

[jamesbrown]

Many large companies will not engage contractors directly.

Many will. I dare say all will, depending on your skillset and how screwed they are. Either way, you should build a network. Takes time, but works.

[jamesbrown]

I wasn't recommending it!

Sure, I didn’t think you were!

[TheDude]

Complete aside, but I'm not sure why you're bothering with agencies if you have niche skills that are in-demand - just go direct.

Many large companies will not engage contractors directly.

[NotAllThere]

I wasn't recommending it!

[jamesbrown]

Exactly and, while there may be no loss/damage in this instance, it's a bad idea in general - false representation or concealment of material fact is probably opening you up to a claim of civil fraud. Classic scenario of someone thinking they're being clever when really they're being a moron.

[northernladuk]

Probably wouldn't stand-up unless the change were flagged to the counterparty, so probably pointless, although an interesting anecdote.

I'd say this as well. Minor issues can be changed by hand, initialled and dated but a major change or removal of an entire clause would usually require the person to discuss the change in contract. At best what he did will be seen as sly and underhand and courts don't like that. The first document is the one the agent is agreeing to be bound by, the editted one is the one the contractor is agreeing to be bound by. There is no mutual agreement of the contract to be signed which is fundamental to the reason a contract is created, to mutually agree to the terms. Yes the agent is probably an idiot for accepting it without reading it but fundamentally a contract of mutal agreement has not been created so won't stand up. Obviously has to go legal to prove. It's gonna be a proper bun fight up to that point so the contractor making the change hasn't really won anything.

[jamesbrown]

I know someone who edited the PDF that had been sent them, removed the clauses, signed it. And received a copy back (complete with changes) signed by the agent.

Probably wouldn't stand-up unless the change were flagged to the counterparty, so probably pointless, although an interesting anecdote.

[NotAllThere]

I know someone who edited the PDF that had been sent them, removed the clauses, signed it. And received a copy back (complete with changes) signed by the agent.

[eek]

But that's where agency regulations come in, no? There is only 8 weeks allowed

Only on the worker agency side - never on the agency end-client side of things so again it makes no actual difference