Reply to: 30 days notice to agency?

[tim123]

That's total tosh, even if it's true.
.

ISM that those two are mutually exclusive.

Any contractor from any country could decide to up sticks for any reason (justified or not) and basically there is f-all anyone can do.

To the individual I agree, but there is lots that they can do to other indiviuduals.

If clients want guarantees they need to pay the for it by hiring via the big consultancies. A Big Con can easily cope (often by finding another contractor), but then the clients pay big money for this 'guarentee'.

This is exactly what they did do, except that they found a source which doesn't cost any extra.

tim

[Turion]

When a contractor pulled that stunt at the last (overseas) place that I worked, the response was "no more contractors at all from agents in that country".

I really don't think that he knows how many people he ****ed over because he CBA to sit down with (a very reasonable boss) and arrange a smooth handover.

tim

That's total tosh, even if it's true. The sort of bollox that's said in the pub and then quietly forgotten.

Any contractor from any country could decide to up sticks for any reason (justified or not) and basically there is f-all anyone can do. If clients want guarantees they need to pay the for it by hiring via the big consultancies. A Big Con can easily cope (often by finding another contractor), but then the clients pay big money for this 'guarentee'.

[DodgyAgent]

I would not recommend that, when a contractor has pulled a stunt like that I have seen my companys agressive legal department sue for loss of profit

Yeah, right.

When it comes to suing contractors agencies are all talk, mine included.

[tim123]

I would not recommend that, when a contractor has pulled a stunt like that I have seen my companys agressive legal department sue for loss of profit

When a contractor pulled that stunt at the last (overseas) place that I worked, the response was "no more contractors at all from agents in that country".

I really don't think that he knows how many people he ****ed over because he CBA to sit down with (a very reasonable boss) and arrange a smooth handover.

tim

[TheFaQQer]

One of the standard questions that Qdos ask if you apply for their IR35 insurance is whether you can give notice or not. They are saying that not having a notice period is more likely to produce MOO, since you are obliged to work there as you can't get out.

I reckon (in my expert legal opinion ) that you could probably argue it either way, and it's not much to rely on as your IR35 defence.

[TheFaQQer]

It's pretty good, getting a paid holiday at contract rates!

AIUI that is MOO and is IR35 bang to rights.

It's all about the marketing.

It's not a paid holiday.

It's not payment for not doing any work (which would be IR35 caught).

It's a penalty fee that the client is paying for early termination of the contract prior to the agreed end. Which isn't MOO, if you market it right

[orchid]

Thanks

Thanks everyone for your advice.

Orchid

[diesel]

what 30 day notice period!! i wish!

Most i have ever heard of and been give on my contracts is 5 working days!!

I thought any more than 5 days means you look like a "disguised" employee??

[expat]

You usually find that the contractors who have the biggest problems with notice clauses are those who tend to p*** the clients off the most. Interesting Turion how you look at your client in comparison with LG RB Notall there, SillyMilly etc!

Your language is interesting. You cearly look upon "clients" in an adversarial way. The best contractors tend to take the view that if they are any good and needed they will be kept on, and that if clients like them they will go out of their way to keep them in work.

Obviously a contractor should seek to maximise his/her situation to their own benefit, and by all means look for a soft landing clause as clients will "dump", but there is a world of difference between a contractor looking to reduce risk and a contractor with an attitude problem.

I agree with you there wholeheartedly, Dodgy. I see the fact of being in demand, as my best insurance against being out of work. That's what contracting is about.

More than that: I may have trouble standing out from the crowd before the contract: but once I'm in, my value will be recognised. Big-headed I know: so regard it as an aspiration, then. I'd rather try to be valued by the client, than protected against being canned.

[The Lone Gunman]

I suspect we are coming from opposing sides but actually are misunderstanding one another.

From the top then. For example - major trading floor client liability clause to agency is £100M - not sure your average ltd co contractor would want to weigh out the indemnity insurance for that (but I could be wrong). Either way as an agency we do - £500K don't touch it. Recently was asked to payroll a "direct" contractor because he/she was not willing to sign a contract directly due to the "huge" liability clause exposure. The contractor wanted an agency between his/her Ltd Co and that of the end client.

Yep pay JS £16 for an ad and then get 100+ candidates applying for your ad because they have a linked search set up that auto sends individual's CVs to agencies if the words Tester and LoadRunner happen to be in an ad (for example).

I am not restricting myself the client is. Client "I want a BA with OTC Derivatives experience. Must be accountant (ideally CIMA) qualified. Don't send me anyone that doesn't match that ideal". They don't want me to send them the ideal candidate with a caveat that the candidate can also supply a load of similar people...the client don't care.

But that is just it, the clients want it all ways and the agents just want their cut.
The client wants a business like liability clause but wants an employee like contract.
For that kind of liability I would not be looking at a 50 - 100 quid and hour contract.
The restrictions on who my Ltd can send also puts me in IR35 territory so I would want to up the rate on that. This client is also leaving themselves open to an employee status case at a later date too. The agent will be busy calming the client saying because there is an agent in the chain blah blah the contract says blah blah. This is fraud.

It is quite clear that you understand that you are obtaining services by deception. You are advertising for independant contractors and signing off IR35 compliant contracts that you know the client has no intention of honouring.

[Another Dodgy Agent]

All the agency-contractor contracts I've ever seen have the liability clause. And most contractors carry over £500,000 PI insurance because they know they're liable for losses.

Even a one-man ltd company can put up a Jobserve ad and have an equally skilled substitute within a fortnight.

If you do want to restrict yourself to supplying 1 consultant at a time, that's fine. But you have to accept that you are seriously stifling the consultant's ability to do a fantastic job for the course of the project. A lot of contracts these days require a range of skills. No one person is going to be brilliant at all of them, and if the same person tries to do everything himself he's never going to be able to do a great service.

I suspect we are coming from opposing sides but actually are misunderstanding one another.

From the top then. For example - major trading floor client liability clause to agency is £100M - not sure your average ltd co contractor would want to weigh out the indemnity insurance for that (but I could be wrong). Either way as an agency we do - £500K don't touch it. Recently was asked to payroll a "direct" contractor because he/she was not willing to sign a contract directly due to the "huge" liability clause exposure. The contractor wanted an agency between his/her Ltd Co and that of the end client.

Yep pay JS £16 for an ad and then get 100+ candidates applying for your ad because they have a linked search set up that auto sends individual's CVs to agencies if the words Tester and LoadRunner happen to be in an ad (for example).

I am not restricting myself the client is. Client "I want a BA with OTC Derivatives experience. Must be accountant (ideally CIMA) qualified. Don't send me anyone that doesn't match that ideal". They don't want me to send them the ideal candidate with a caveat that the candidate can also supply a load of similar people...the client don't care.

[thunderlizard]

All the agency-contractor contracts I've ever seen have the liability clause. And most contractors carry over £500,000 PI insurance because they know they're liable for losses.

Even a one-man ltd company can put up a Jobserve ad and have an equally skilled substitute within a fortnight.

If you do want to restrict yourself to supplying 1 consultant at a time, that's fine. But you have to accept that you are seriously stifling the consultant's ability to do a fantastic job for the course of the project. A lot of contracts these days require a range of skills. No one person is going to be brilliant at all of them, and if the same person tries to do everything himself he's never going to be able to do a great service.

[Another Dodgy Agent]

Well in that case you are expecting your contractor to fulfil his obligation, but you are tying his hands behind his back.

Nope I am not tying his hands behind his back, the contractor is. Because he is typically a one man Ltd Co, he doesn't have anyone he can substitute and if he did then the client (and the gig the client is taking said contractor on for) would not be valid.

If you are a genuine consultancy then you would have agreements in place covering providing another member of staff on site. Typically Consultancy firms don't use agents to get the next gig, they do that themselves and agree who will be going on site. But then a consultancy firm is happy to sign the liability clause (like an agency has to agree to) which a contractor ltd co doesn't.

[thunderlizard]

Well in that case you are expecting your contractor to fulfil his obligation, but you are tying his hands behind his back.

If you are bringing in additional staff, obviously you sort out the practicalities in advance, and work alongside them for a few days to hand things over. Security passes are easy. Either you arrange it in advance, in which case the client's security people are waiting with the camera for him on day 1; or else you arrange a day pass for him.

Again, when one of the big name consultancies sends one of their new fresh-faced grads on site, it's the same story. All that happens is that the lead consultant tells the client that Johnny Comelately will be coming in the following morning, and can you please sort out a desk for him? The client hasn't interviewed him. The client hasn't reference checked them etc. But he still gets in. And the work still gets done and it's not a problem.

[Another Dodgy Agent]

Why is that a snag? The contractor is still liable for the quality of his brother-in-law's work and his professional conduct. When the big-name consultants go on site, they supply a never ending procession of people. They all get passes easily enough, and I bet they aren't named personally on the contract.

Because like it or not, when you accept a contract assignment to work on a client site, it is YOU not a.n.other. The pass is with your photo id, it is you that is working onsite. You can quote right of substitution but in reality you go on hols and subsitute you for your brother in-law (to maintain the theme), when he turns up with no pass etc. the client is not going to allow him on site. They didn't interview your substitute, nor reference check, (credit check if financial firm) etc. consequently he isn't getting in. When you return from hols, the work has not been carried out, you cannot bill for the work and the client is (however many holiday days) behind.