Reply to: What right do I have as a contractor?

[fatboyslim]

Not sure how your contract was worded but this risk is factored into my decision making process(whether to remain contractor).
Can I reject an extension and choose to leave? Yes I can, and I like it that way. And I like the ability of companies to hire and fire me at will, this is a benefit to contract market and overall good for all of us.
I hope govt/courts dont not try to be a do gooder and spoil it for us by brining some regulation that makes it harder to fire contractors. This will only force managers to play safe and prefer permies.

[MrMarkyMark]

Hi guys,

I have sucked it up, so to speak and moved on. This post is not about "poor old me ..." I have been a contractor for 10 years.

The point is that I did agree to the contract extension in writing. Notice period does not come into this, I am working up the end of my contract which ends next week. I have looked into the contract law aspect and I have to admit it is very vague in this area. There must be something around getting a formal agreement and reneging on it. This company is a global billion pound org. The key point is that we "contractors" deserve respect. I turned down a couple of opportunitie between 22nd Oct and end of Nov when they changed their mind. I had agreed a transition plan with my manager which took us to April next year. The fact I had to do a handover in 5 weeks left me limited time to look for new work. These are the key points. At the end of the day, managers cannot get away with this type of behaviour regardless if you are a contractor or not.

Regards.

Stuart.

Hmmmmm.

Maybe you have been lucky over the last 10 years

I won't begin to describe certain things I have been through over the last 18 years and I can assure you my CV is like a recruiters wet dream, in the terms of "global million pound orgs"


Just move on, you might feel better for it

[billybiro]

Hi guys,

I have sucked it up, so to speak and moved on. This post is not about "poor old me ..." I have been a contractor for 10 years.

The point is that I did agree to the contract extension in writing. Notice period does not come into this, I am working up the end of my contract which ends next week. I have looked into the contract law aspect and I have to admit it is very vague in this area. There must be something around getting a formal agreement and reneging on it. This company is a global billion pound org. The key point is that we "contractors" deserve respect. I turned down a couple of opportunitie between 22nd Oct and end of Nov when they changed their mind. I had agreed a transition plan with my manager which took us to April next year. The fact I had to do a handover in 5 weeks left me limited time to look for new work. These are the key points. At the end of the day, managers cannot get away with this type of behaviour regardless if you are a contractor or not.

Regards.

Stuart.

Unfortunately, I think you'll find they just have.

[ashley]

It is their decision whether to renew or not, unfortunately no obligation on them as you already had sufficient time.... I had same experience in past.

[DannyF1966]

had lunch my xmas lunch with my Agent yesterday

I'm curious about this... do you only have one agent? Were taking him to lunch or was he taking you? And if this was your office xmas party couldn't you have found someone better to go with than your agent?

Enquiring minds want to know, etc etc

[woohoo]

This was it.

It is basically the lack of get out clauses which means you can get them to pay up.

In my case, and the other cases I know, the clients were consultancies who had to set up a project quickly for the ultimate end-client so went to a lot of trouble and expense of acquiring sufficient contract resources in a matter a couple of weeks. This meant if the contract was terminated early they wanted compensation to cover their costs, and probably to make it more punitive they asked for the third parties to be compensated as well.

Yeah but that's not a penalty clause - if you can show you have spent cash on some resource required for a contract yes you can sue for that regardless of a clause. If you have added punitive charges in there then the chances are if it went to court you wouldnt get it.

[SueEllen]

You have to be realistic about what you can expect. My first contract guaranteed a retainer in the event of no work, it was a clause in the contract. Now if your contract has a notice period but no clause on conditions about whether they only pay if there is work, they would be obliged to pay you for the month. Generally though there is a clause about only paying if there is work; that only protects against being replaced, i.e. they can't terminate you and send a replacement in.

This was it.

It is basically the lack of get out clauses which means you can get them to pay up.

In my case, and the other cases I know, the clients were consultancies who had to set up a project quickly for the ultimate end-client so went to a lot of trouble and expense of acquiring sufficient contract resources in a matter a couple of weeks. This meant if the contract was terminated early they wanted compensation to cover their costs, and probably to make it more punitive they asked for the third parties to be compensated as well.

[BlasterBates]

You have to be realistic about what you can expect. My first contract guaranteed a retainer in the event of no work, it was a clause in the contract. Now if your contract has a notice period but no clause on conditions about whether they only pay if there is work, they would be obliged to pay you for the month. Generally though there is a clause about only paying if there is work; that only protects against being replaced, i.e. they can't terminate you and send a replacement in.

It's up to the contractor to know what he's letting himself in for and set the rate accordingly.

[woohoo]

Some clients already do.

However in the case of an extension which hasn't started you would get SFA as you have sufficient time to look for another contract.

I've never seen a penalty clause in a contract for early termination. I really don't know how it would be enforced, unless one of
the parties actually lost something. Perhaps it's worded in another way? But I don't see how a penalty clause could be enforced.

I'm willing to be educated on this.

[SueEllen]

That would result in losing one of the major advantages of a company using a contractor. Now if they terminate the contract early they have to pay a penalty?

Some clients already do.

However in the case of an extension which hasn't started you would get SFA as you have sufficient time to look for another contract.

[Hobosapien]

The clients hold the money, so they make the rules. It's simply a fight between us and the parasites agents as to how much we can get of it.

Where's Harry Hill when we need him. He knows how to settle these disputes.

[LondonManc]

If their plans project a contractor resource is required for a specific timeframe then yes ideally they should pay some compo for their poor planning.

Like I said, it would only be entertained if the contractor had something the client was desperate for, such as projecting that a 6 months contract even if paid in full despite being cut short would still cost less than using one of the consultancies for the shorter timeframe. Though that would require clients to look at the bigger picture.

All ideal world stuff that sadly is unlikely to ever apply to common or garden contractors.

The clients hold the money, so they make the rules. It's simply a fight between us and the parasites agents as to how much we can get of it.

[Hobosapien]

I think there's a move into dodgy ground and fabricated reasons for having contractors marched off site.

Depends if the cost financially was worth the possible cost reputationally for the client.

After all projects are supposedly resourced up front so the cost is swallowed at the start, so not like it's an unexpected cost if the project finishes early yet they have to pay full term for the temporary resource.

If only we had a contractor body/union to stand up for our rights.

[Hobosapien]

That would result in one of the major advantages of a company using a contractor. Now if they terminate the contract early they have to pay a penalty?

If their plans project a contractor resource is required for a specific timeframe then yes ideally they should pay some compo for their poor planning.

Like I said, it would only be entertained if the contractor had something the client was desperate for, such as projecting that a 6 months contract even if paid in full despite being cut short would still cost less than using one of the consultancies for the shorter timeframe. Though that would require clients to look at the bigger picture.

All ideal world stuff that sadly is unlikely to ever apply to common or garden contractors.

[LondonManc]

That would result in losing one of the major advantages of a company using a contractor. Now if they terminate the contract early they have to pay a penalty?

I think there's a move into dodgy ground and fabricated reasons for having contractors marched off site.