Reply to: Two Weeks Probation

[kingcook]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this aspect yet...

Strictly speaking, for a legal contract to exist, an exchange of money (the legal phrase is "consideration") needs to take place. If they don't pay you then the contract cannot exist in law and this puts them in a very dangerous position.

You could take it, but on day 1 make a copy of all their source code, if they don't pay after 2 weeks you can sell it to the competition. Legally no contract exists so there's nothing they can do about you breaking any terms of their so-called "contract".

C'est la vie.

So I can sign up to an 18-month BT Infinity contract, and not pay my monthly fee, ever. Then when they fight for their monies through court, I can just say that no contract ever existed because I never paid anything?

Nice!

[v6g]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this aspect yet...

Strictly speaking, for a legal contract to exist, an exchange of money (the legal phrase is "consideration") needs to take place. If they don't pay you then the contract cannot exist in law and this puts them in a very dangerous position.

You could take it, but on day 1 make a copy of all their source code, if they don't pay after 2 weeks you can sell it to the competition. Legally no contract exists so there's nothing they can do about you breaking any terms of their so-called "contract".

C'est la vie.

[NotMyRealName]

Two weeks probation and other fine print

What is the name of this cowboy outfit ? Walk away from it.

I agree that we should start naming agencies that try this. Asymmetric contracts like this will become more commonplace if we don't push back..

I'm just discussing a very similar clause with an agency and their legal department claim it is "standard across the industry" which is clearly BS.

I've no problem with not being paid if I fail to deliver as promised and it is my fault, but the contract conflates non-delivery with vaguer terms like "consultant is unsuitable". This could be used to argue that the consultant may be fine (and indeed what the job spec says and what was discussed in the interview) but is not what the customer now needs and is therefore "not suitable". The clause goes on to say if this happens in the first two weeks the agency can retain any payments made by the end client to cover their costs!

The role was also sold to me as a one week notice (in writing) by the Agency. Not ideal but I thought I could live with that. After interviewing twice I was offered the role. When I saw the contract it included a clause allowing zero notice if the client has a "budget change"/"re-org"/without limit.

I've had a long period on the bench so don't really feel in position to be tough. If I had an alternative I would walk away.

[Gentile]

I agree, but it wasn't simple to set deliverable targets because the role was to resolve a conveyer belt of post migration issues, unknown in volume and quantity, these had to be fixed on the fly and the only criteria was MAX SPEED, especially since the initial resourcing was overloaded and the project is 2 months behind.

The high rate reflected the skill demanded but it doesn't excuse the 2 weeks probation penalty. Good luck to them.

Sounds like you made a good decision, BS1397. I've no doubt that you'd have "won" this role, had you agreed to their unreasonable terms. I'm equally certain it'd have been a nightmare, whether or not you made it through their "two weeks probation".

FWIW, I have offered to do a day's work for free before, on one rare occasion where there wasn't enough time to do a proper interview because a key person was leaving. However, it was at my suggestion, and it was only a day. That role turned out to be pretty good fun, working for nice people, and was well-paid. There's a world of difference between making that sort of gesture as a supplier, though, and risking ploughing 75 hours into a project unpaid for a customer that doesn't appear to know what it is that they want and apparently has a track record of failing to recruit the type of resource they later feel they need.

I hope you find a better alternative soon. You'll be more likely to do so without this monkey of a role on your back.

[SueEllen]

I agree, but it wasn't simple to set deliverable targets because the role was to resolve a conveyer belt of post migration issues, unknown in volume and quantity, these had to be fixed on the fly and the only criteria was MAX SPEED, especially since the initial resourcing was overloaded and the project is 2 months behind.

The high rate reflected the skill demanded but it doesn't excuse the 2 weeks probation penalty. Good luck to them.

The company sounds a mess.

Seriously how can you bring someone in to fix things if you don't know what they are and their impact?

You are well out of it.

[BS1397]

For future reference if the client wants to see how you work they should set a deliverable, an agreed standard and an agreed delivery date for the first few weeks/first month of your contract. If then you don't deliver it on time or it's a poor standard they can get rid off you immediately and only then refuse to pay you if you really didn't produce anything.

I agree, but it wasn't simple to set deliverable targets because the role was to resolve a conveyer belt of post migration issues, unknown in volume and quantity, these had to be fixed on the fly and the only criteria was MAX SPEED, especially since the initial resourcing was overloaded and the project is 2 months behind.

The high rate reflected the skill demanded but it doesn't excuse the 2 weeks probation penalty. Good luck to them.

[SueEllen]

All done and dusted... I sort of knew where I was heading but the feedback helped to make up my mind.
In the end I decided that if the client pulls a fast one then I am 100% sure the agent will blame me too.
Meanwhile both would have profited at my expense and I wouldn't have got a reference or another gig instead.
Cheers.

For future reference if the client wants to see how you work they should set a deliverable, an agreed standard and an agreed delivery date for the first few weeks/first month of your contract. If then you don't deliver it on time or it's a poor standard they can get rid off you immediately and only then refuse to pay you if you really didn't produce anything.

[darmstadt]

I had something similar once for a bank owned by a very large motor company. The first week would be the phasing-in period for which I would not be paid and I would be expected to work 1 day a week without pay. Told them to take a running jump (I asked the recruitment agent if he worked for free and he did state that he wouldn't be getting anything for the time I wasn't getting paid!!!)

I will admit that I was looking at a project and went in to the place for a few hours a couple of times to get the feel of things and know the people but as it was between Christmas and New Year and 5 minutes walk from home it didn't bother me too much. Didn't take the gig even though they were expecting me to turn up at the start of the New Year.

[BS1397]

I can see why a client might think this makes sense - they perhaps have been burned before - but simply explain you can't accept such ludicrous terms.

All done and dusted... I sort of knew where I was heading but the feedback helped to make up my mind.
In the end I decided that if the client pulls a fast one then I am 100% sure the agent will blame me too.
Meanwhile both would have profited at my expense and I wouldn't have got a reference or another gig instead.
Cheers.

[d000hg]

I can see why a client might think this makes sense - they perhaps have been burned before - but simply explain you can't accept such ludicrous terms.

[BS1397]

To be honest, that clause is such a red flag that I wouldn't consider working with any agency or client that suggested it, even if they were to back-peddle furiously after belatedly realising they'd pushed me too far. There are certain ways you don't do business. This is one of them.

I think only a fool would argue with you and others here with more experience than I. It really doesn't feel right nor should it be common practice regardless if all parties have good intentions (or not?), but I suppose if too many accept this clause then sooner or later other clients and agencies might jump on the band wagon, and that is like handing over a club to be beaten with.

Thanks for all your feedback.

[psychocandy]

Absolutely if you're on the bench you have nothing to lose. Go for it.

All the advice on turning it down assumes you're in demand.

I guess you have a point. Nothing to actually lose apart from time.

[psychocandy]

They did say that only once they had to get rid of a contractor because he was not skilled as per his CV. I would have been much happier if they asked for a technical test but I guess they don't have the time. I am now benched so I suppose I have nothing to lose especially as my skill set is more than a match for the role, it is just that I never heard of this request before.

Yeh but thats not really your problem. They should sort out their interview process.

[psychocandy]

I had a similar thing years ago.

Client wanted me to come in for one day to do some work/tests etc. But they'd pay me for the single day. I was on the bench at the time so thought why not.

Anyway, turned up and it was OK to be honest. Didn't do a huge amount but it was like an extended interview. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

In the end, I didn't take the contract even though they did offer. They spent too long fannying around and something else came up anyway so I took that.

Also, if I remember correctly I had a holiday booked for the August (it was April), so out of courtesy I told them about it (it was all booked/paid for) but they weren't happy about this and wanted me to cancel. Not cool.

But to be fair, they did pay me the one day.

[fullyautomatix]

Great feedback, I am impressed with the verbal/email progress report idea so a big thanks for that and the other comments expressed. Actually, I should ask for a 1 week probation as I can absorb the hit and leave early if I believed all is not well and the feedback from existing contractors was negative.

Normally I would have walked out if it had been a (me too) agent with a nobody client, however in this case it involves a large blue chip insurance client and an established agency looking for a few extra resources to catch up on a roll-out project which slipped schedule hence the short duration, and 2 weeks is about a quarter of the assignment if it lasts and this annoyed me a little.

The rate offered is at the top end of the scale. and the contract may lead to other higher level work with the client and the agency, and this is a consideration too.

One thing I forgot to mention is that I will not be working for the client directly but via an outsourced business engaged for this specific project, and they said they had a contractual agreement with the end client to provide resources on these terms.

Cheers

In which case they can easily afford to pay a contractor for 2 weeks work. Probation etc comes for a permie role not a contractor role where they can get rid mid way if they are not happy.