Reply to: Benefits Of Long Contract Vs Short Contract

[Green Mango]

I got a contract with Enron, back in 1997. The start was delayed a week, and then the agency (McGregor Boyle) told me that the contract was cancelled, and that since they'd got a weeks fees due to contract breach, and passed on my share! I was due to start the monday, but started a new contract, at better rates the following Tuesday.

Which was nice.

So it does happen very rarely.

I was working with one client when someone heard on the way in that they had gone into administration.

All the contractors were let go an hour later and I thought I'd lost half a weeks pay, but my agency (part of Thales)
covered me and even paid to the end of the week. Next week we we were all recalled to work for the
client in adminiistration. Many did lose a month or twos money as their agencies went down.
Sometimes it's worth being with the big agencies ...

[NotAllThere]

I got a contract with Enron, back in 1997. The start was delayed a week, and then the agency (McGregor Boyle) told me that the contract was cancelled, and that since they'd got a weeks fees due to contract breach, and passed on my share! I was due to start the monday, but started a new contract, at better rates the following Tuesday.

Which was nice.

So it does happen very rarely.

[Sysman]

If a project gets shut down, or you do something silly, you can be told DCM (don't come Monday) Complain all you like, go to your lawyer etc. In the end you will only get a bad name, and waste time you should be using to find a new role.

In contracting you need a different mind set, thinking a company owes you 3 months pay for doing nothing is not it.

The closest I've come to getting paid notice without working was a full month "at standard hours". This was a year's contract cancelled at the end of the first month.

We were given the option of not turning up on Monday and taking a month's pay, or continuing another couple of months up to the 3 month mark. We all chose to stick it out (market was bad at the time), and spent the time looking for other work.

[Sysman]

After 6 to 12 months, the danger is you start to get into a comfort zone, you start to learn fewer new things, and you become more of an insurance policy rather than the ultimate fire-fighter. Still very valuable to the client, and they're happy to keep paying for this service, but it just feels more like "going through the motions" ie becoming a permie. I'm sure many here will disagree with my analysis; it's just how I feel about the subject.

That certainly happened to me on several contracts. Interesting and plenty to learn and do at the start, but once active development stopped the clients were simply using us as an insurance policy in case things went wrong. When the market is buoyant you can simply move on, but when it's dead you end up accepting the extension. At its worst the client doesn't even want to upgrade to the latest OS version and/or tools, so you can get trapped in "old technology".

[MrMark]

After getting back into work following a year on the bench, I suppose I should favour the longer contract. Yet I don't feel that way. Part of the attraction of contracting is the challenge of coming to a new site, learning the new rules and jargon, making a contribution and bringing your skills and experience to benefit the new client. After 6 to 12 months, the danger is you start to get into a comfort zone, you start to learn fewer new things, and you become more of an insurance policy rather than the ultimate fire-fighter. Still very valuable to the client, and they're happy to keep paying for this service, but it just feels more like "going through the motions" ie becoming a permie. I'm sure many here will disagree with my analysis; it's just how I feel about the subject.

[alreadypacked]

As a newbie and not knowing enough about contracting can you just confirm whether you are certain as far as that is concerned?

A notice period is a notice period - If they do not have work for you do they not pay you 'gardening leave'?

If a project gets shut down, or you do something silly, you can be told DCM (don't come Monday) Complain all you like, go to your lawyer etc. In the end you will only get a bad name, and waste time you should be using to find a new role.

In contracting you need a different mind set, thinking a company owes you 3 months pay for doing nothing is not it.

HTH

[mudskipper]

As a newbie and not knowing enough about contracting can you just confirm whether you are certain as far as that is concerned?

A notice period is a notice period - If they do not have work for you do they not pay you 'gardening leave'?

I think there's a difference between a 'contract' as contractors understand it, and 'fixed term contracts' that are now increasingly popping up and are effectively more like perm employment. In the former, most contracts will not pay you if there is no work (search mutuality of obligation).

Have you ever been north of Watford?

[Gonzo]

As the others have said, forget the length of the notice period, it will not apply.

Most contracts say that if there is no work to do then you cannot charge your client (this is actually a good thing).

I have also heard of contractors being walked off site due to fabricated sexual harassment allegations and also racial hatred allegations (although those were real by the sounds of it).

Basically, don't think that the notice period will apply for one minute and make your decision accordingly.

[DeludedAussie]

They're not obliged to give you work during that three months. You only get paid when you work. So a three month notice period is useless.

As a newbie and not knowing enough about contracting can you just confirm whether you are certain as far as that is concerned?

A notice period is a notice period - If they do not have work for you do they not pay you 'gardening leave'?

[VectraMan]

You're never going to get a three month notice period from them, and as others have said it's worthless anyway. Agents like to sell you on longer contracts as a way of getting you to accept a lower rate, but all the term actually means for certain is you're agreeing the rate for that long. Longer term is of no benefit to you, only to them, especially if you have no ability to give notice.

[SofaKingdom]

My thinking is that this provides insurance

My thinking is that this is permie thinking and that your thinking is flawed. As NAT says, long notice periods are of very little value in the contracting world.

[NotAllThere]

They're not obliged to give you work during that three months. You only get paid when you work. So a three month notice period is useless.

[DeludedAussie]

Why would the fact that they are so restrictive mean you should drop your rate. Doesn't really come into it for me but I think you could argue for a higher rate with those restrictive terms.

My question is whether having a 3 month notice period is valuable for the contractor? I would have to push for this to be the case and accept a slightly (5%) less rate.

My thinking is that this provides insurance should I get booted out as I would have three months to find a new gig

Do you see that?

[Sysman]

Unless you have added significant, measurable value in the first 6 months you are likely to be easily fobbed off when asking for an increase. A guaranteed 12 months work would be my choice every time.

Or do what I did on one 12 monther. Before I started I asked for a review at the 3 month mark. I got it.

[gingerjedi]

First time here so please be gentle -

Hypothetically what is better from a contractors view point:

A 12 month contract or a 6 month? I suppose one could argue that you can renew in 6 months and ask for a pay increase

Similarly would you take a slightly lower rate of there was a 3 month notice period for either side?

I am trying to weigh up a new offer that has just been made

1 week if you're lucky.