Reply to: Notice periods again

[VectraMan]

After all that, the agent caved straight away. So I now have a 4-week notice period.

He's adamant it's worse for IR35 this way, but I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation and that wasn't the reason I wanted it anyway.

[VectraMan]

Fraid I don't agree with that. Expanding that point slightly, are you saying if you sign up to a 6 month contract, 37.5 hrs/wk, you must be working all that time? No holidays, no nothing? How depressing. That's certainly not how I work.

No, but I would expect if I signed up for 6 months and told the client I was taking 4 months holiday they'd have the right to terminate the contract because I was taking the piss and not fulfilling their needs. And I'd expect the opposite to be true.

If the client wants the work doing and I want the work to earn the money that should be all that's required. Save giving each other reasonable notice, and being responsible with handovers etc., I don't see why it should be necessary to lock either party in.

I'm not a slave. Contracting is about freedom as much as anything, and if contracts with no notice become the norm then you'd have more freedom as a permie.

[ratewhore]

I do understand, but that doesn't answer Turion's point. Which is nothing in the contract stops the client sending you on gardening leave for a few months and then pick you up again, and there's little you can do about it.

It may be unlikely in reality (and the clients I've had have all been pretty reasonable), but it would be foolish to rely on an understanding when the contract terms contradict it.

Fraid I don't agree with that. Expanding that point slightly, are you saying if you sign up to a 6 month contract, 37.5 hrs/wk, you must be working all that time? No holidays, no nothing? How depressing. That's certainly not how I work.

Putting aside the fact that I would not sign a contract which stops me taking concurrent work, if a client tells me to bugger off home for a month, not bill and wait for the phone to ring I'd be sending in my subby straight away and moving on to the next gig.

Sounds to me there are people out there all too willing to be shat on...

[VectraMan]

Well, back in reality (based on over 10 years of contracting and hiring), it turns out that is not the case.

Which part of If the client no longer has the requirement for the services, then the contract has ended. did you not understand?

I do understand, but that doesn't answer Turion's point. Which is nothing in the contract stops the client sending you on gardening leave for a few months and then pick you up again, and there's little you can do about it.

It may be unlikely in reality (and the clients I've had have all been pretty reasonable), but it would be foolish to rely on an understanding when the contract terms contradict it.

[NotAllThere]

Vectraman, if the client has chosen you for the contract, you already have the ace hand. Agent will not want to lose this morsel. Tell agent you want a fair (equal) notice period, or you will accept another offer that you have just received . He will suddenly become very agreeable. Nuff said.

Quite right. Get the best terms you can. However, the idea that having no notice somehow puts you in IR35 is not congruent with reality.

I currently work on a call-off contract. I'm obliged to provide a certain number of days, within a certain period. ( Obviously, if that won't fit in within a five day per week, then the number of day I'd have to work is reduced!). I can't give notice. On the other hand I've a good relationship with the client, they want me, and they're not going to push it. On the gripping hand, they pay me much more than the going rate, and I can sub. All is down to negotiation.

[Turion]

Vectraman, if the client has chosen you for the contract, you already have the ace hand. Agent will not want to lose this morsel. Tell agent you want a fair (equal) notice period, or you will accept another offer that you have just received . He will suddenly become very agreeable. Nuff said.

[NotAllThere]

...To take any other work would be a breach of contract for him, and he isn't allowed to give notice.

Well, back in reality (based on over 10 years of contracting and hiring), it turns out that is not the case.

Which part of If the client no longer has the requirement for the services, then the contract has ended. did you not understand?

But hey, you turn down a perfectly viable contract on your incorrect understanding, that's another contract I can pick up.

[VectraMan]

Why?

Well it's not per se, but this contract at least has a clause about not taking on any other work that's likely to interfere as a reason for termination.

Okay so you may have a point, but what may be more of an issue is if the client was only providing you one day's worth of work a week which you can't get out of, but you'd find it hard to find a 4 day a week contract elsewhere.

[Moscow Mule]

I don't. I have Pay as You Go.



Assuming you as the client decide that. You could also decide to tell the contractor to go home for months at a time and wait by the phone in case you need him. To take any other work would be a breach of contract for him, and he isn't allowed to give notice.

Why?

[VectraMan]

I assume you have a mobile phone contract?

I don't. I have Pay as You Go.

If the client no longer has the requirement for the services, then the contract has ended

Assuming you as the client decide that. You could also decide to tell the contractor to go home for months at a time and wait by the phone in case you need him. To take any other work would be a breach of contract for him, and he isn't allowed to give notice.

[NotAllThere]

Then, by your reckoning, the client can just 'switch him on and off' whenever then have the need for him. Just pay for the time they need him and then he has to go home and wait (without pay), just in case they need him again during the project duration. He cannot even take another contract as he is effectively on call.

IR35 aside, this is a terrible arrangement. No business would accept those conditions. Even prostitutes are better off as they can seek new clients. Vectraman, just say no.

I've no idea how you reach that conclusion. To me it seems a complete non-sequitor. Having no notice does not imply a call-off contract.

And plenty of businesses do work this way. I assume you have a mobile phone contract? I have also hired contractors under such terms - they're obliged to work till the end of the project, and I can get get rid of them when I see fit. It seemed to work out. If the client no longer has the requirement for the services, then the contract has ended. No question of being on call, or unable to take other work.

On the other hand, if you're one of those contractors who has a confrontational, "us and them" attitude to clients, rather than a cooperative/flexible approach, then I can understand your rather irrational fear.

[VectraMan]

Been doing some searching here and on PCG's (tulipe) forum, and it seems there's two contradictary arguments. One is that by having no notice period it implies you have to accept work, and the other is that as an employee has to have the right to give notice by not having one you seem less of an employee.

Something else the agent said that I hadn't really thought about until now: he said they have a notice period to terminate the agreement with the client, it's just my contract with the agent that doesn't. So in other words, as far as the client is concerned I can give notice, just that the agent doesn't trust me.

Probably also means as the two contracts contradict each other, it's no use for IR35 either way.

I'm in two minds whether to just walk away, or accept that it's easy money which I could do with and that it's unlikely that I would want to get out of it and may have to accept some tulip if I do.

[Turion]

Right. He has 100% obligation
... to the client for the complete project duration, to provide the services specified in the contract.

No mutuality. No obligation outside what is specified in the contract.

I could hire a law firm for a year. When I have any legal work needing do, they're obliged to do it for me, during that year. When I haven't got any legal work doing, but my garden needs weeding, they're under no obiligation to help out.

Then, by your reckoning, the client can just 'switch him on and off' whenever then have the need for him. Just pay for the time they need him and then he has to go home and wait (without pay), just in case they need him again during the project duration. He cannot even take another contract as he is effectively on call.

IR35 aside, this is a terrible arrangement. No business would accept those conditions. Even prostitutes are better off as they can seek new clients. Vectraman, just say no.

[XLMonkey]

But is it better to have no obligation either way, or is half-moo still a half-pointer towards?

If a cow half-moos in a forest, would anyone hear?

[its not a half-pointer. all contracts are full of obligations, that being what they're for. the thing to look out for is mutuality of obligations to provide work and to do it]

[NotAllThere]

Wrong. He has 100% MOO to the client for the complete project duration. In theory, he has to accept any work the client gives him. ...[/

Right. He has 100% obligation
... to the client for the complete project duration, to provide the services specified in the contract.

No mutuality. No obligation outside what is specified in the contract.

I could hire a law firm for a year. When I have any legal work needing do, they're obliged to do it for me, during that year. When I haven't got any legal work doing, but my garden needs weeding, they're under no obiligation to help out.