10-12mth Contracts: Bad for the Contractor?

[PTP]

I'm on one where they extended it for 10 months even though they expect it to only last 3 - 4 months (a few weeks have passed since), all because

gaining approval for renewals (was) a convoluted process

This week I handed in notice because I've been offered something better and I expect to be easier and I thought there's always the risk of current client having some of their many graduates becoming free and them giving me notice.

I rang the agency to mention it to them first in case they wanted to do anything to make me tempted to stay. What I got was them having the cheek to say "We want to be sure you know all the implications of breaching the contract" What b**ls**t. When I pointed out it is not a breach as the contract says I can terminate it with 2 weeks notice, they then decided to rephrase it as "breaking the contract"....which is just the same. So I said that "ending the contract" is an appropriate term.

If this is was a breach, then clearly the client is long planning to breach the contract by extended it to Dec with a plan to end it May/June. So I just went on with handing the notice to agency.

[BolshieBastard]

and in turn this notice period is worth even less than the piece of paper it is written on.

I would check their terms though. I thought these long contracts came with no option to give notice. One of the banks was certainly doing this last year.

The majority if not all barcrap contracts have no contractor termination clause. TBH, LTSB, BoA, NR and my current bank have all had contractor termination clauses. LTSB may have changed recently though. I know a few people who are up for these 9 - 12 monthers.

[JoJoGabor]

Just my 2c from experience, but I have found the longer contracts are usually the horrible contracts and they are attempting to sign up the contractor for a longer period due to a bad project. I'm sure this isn't strictly true, but my best contracts have been multiples of 3month contracts

[northernladuk]

If you are going to take a contract with a long notice period be very careful with the deliverables. They still have to be well defined so you can prove your are carrying them out for IR35 purposes.
It would be very easy for the client to offer you a long contract and offer you a wooly job description allowing control over what you do making you permie style resource. Not good for IR35.

If the client admits you will be moving between project in this time make sure you get each detailed, don't accept a generic role.

[bobspud]

and in turn this notice period is worth even less than the piece of paper it is written on.

+1

A large two letter acronym starting with H Just served notice on myself and my team this week. We had not even started the role. To make matters worse we had been waiting 4 months for them to get off their arses and get the agreements and P.O raised, and they told one of the guys it was safe to jump from his permie roll...

Never expect anything until the invoice is signed.

[bobspud]

The down turn has showed that there is no feeling to honour contracts by large firms, so why would a contractor care any more. Take contracts for what they are, namely an option to perform work over a given timescale. I see no reason not to take a 12 month contract with the intention of leaving in week 3 if that suits your needs.

I am less worried about the duration than the end date for the project. I try to be in work over the winter and look for new work in the spring.

[northernladuk]

From a Contractor's perspective I don't think it is so advantageous, whist it looks good at first - contract duration is only as certain as your length of notice e.g. 1 month.

and in turn this notice period is worth even less than the piece of paper it is written on.

I would check their terms though. I thought these long contracts came with no option to give notice. One of the banks was certainly doing this last year.

[apb]

If it was a straight contract, yes I would.

If it was a fixed term contract, no I wouldn't.

Yep, I'm not thinking of fixed term contracts.

[cojak]

If it was a straight contract, yes I would.

If it was a fixed term contract, no I wouldn't.

[apb]

Increasingly I am seeing roles advertised with a 10-12mth duration, particularly from one of the major banks where gaining approval for renewals is a convoluted process.

From the Client's perspective it's all good - relative certainty that you have a resource for a reasonable duration for a project and no need for a renewal anytime soon - whilst retaining the right to serve notice.

From a Contractor's perspective I don't think it is so advantageous, whist it looks good at first - contract duration is only as certain as your length of notice e.g. 1 month.

When I enter into a contract I do so with the intention of honouring it and I expect it is frowned upon to leave early. However I have been in the position that due to a perm becoming free I have been served notice, so it doesn't always work both ways.

I like contracting as it gives me more freedom and choice so usually after 6 months I can either walk away, extend or try to re-negotiate. I don't think I like the idea of being locked in for 12 months.

If you were applying for such a role - how would you play it? Try to renegotiate the duration which may rule you out of contention or just accept it??