12 Month Maximum for Contractors - Client Rule

[whatif]

Anyone heard about a 52 week maximum rule for contractors at Citi?

My contract is ending due to the rule, but I had no idea that it was in place, nor it seems do many staff, and my agency didn't mention it. Just wondered if it was widely known or not. Apparently its always been in place.

[TykeMerc]

Anyone heard about a 52 week maximum rule for contractors at Citi?

My contract is ending due to the rule, but I had no idea that it was in place, nor it seems do many staff, and my agency didn't mention it. Just wondered if it was widely known or not. Apparently its always been in place.

Lots of clients have variations on that rule, obviously it's routinely ignored for some contractors in mission critical work.
Odds are the Agency as a whole knew, just the agent you talked to didn't or is playing dumb, either of which are entirely likely, the client staff may well not be aware of it unless they're in HR or routinely take part in contractor hiring.

[Scrag Meister]

J P Morgan bought in a similar ruling when I was there last.

Was a little too close to my year so was given another 6 months and then contract ended.

Its not abnormal would be my view.

[MrMarkyMark]

Varies from bank to bank, 1 year for some, 2 years, for others.
Obviously, there are always exceptions to the rule .

[BrilloPad]

DB was 9 months a while ago?

JPM used to have 3 rules - 2 year, 3 year, 10 year. Now it is just 1 year.

I don't think these rules are widely known. Did you ask if it is likely to be extended?

[BlasterBates]

IT management in banks on the whole do try to discourage taking on contractors and this is one way of doing this. This is not to say that you won't be extended, but the PM will probably have to fight his corner a lot harder after 12 months to keep you.

When I was contracting at a bank, the PM's had to spend a lot of time justifying extensions. The rule was unless there was an urgent justification then the contractor should be laid off.

I would clarify with your PM as the rule sounds plausible.

[DelboyTrotter]

We had 4 years at HSBC, 2 years at Barclays but I knew of people who could extend longer dependent on project deliveries and changing cost centres…..

[WTFH]

A pharma in north west London used to have a 6 month rule on IT contractors. They felt that if it was any longer the contractor became lazy or burnt out, so they would get in fresh blood all the time.


While they got lots of fresh contractors through their door, an 18 month project took 6 years to deliver because their was no continuity.

[MrMarkyMark]

I know someone who contracted for 25 years at current client co, he has since come back .
Wouldn't like to have that one investigated
Also, my mate did around 6 years at DB, left for 6 months, he has just gone back.

Different rules for different folks, has always been that way.

[ChimpMaster]

I know someone who contracted for 25 years at current client co, he has since come back .
Wouldn't like to have that one investigated
Also, my mate did around 6 years at DB, left for 6 months, he has just gone back.

Different rules for different folks, has always been that way.

25 Years!!! That's pretty much their whole working lives

When I worked in London City many years ago, there were contractors who had consulted at the same client/site for more than 12 years. Looking back, they were definitely 'part and parcel' by that point, given the way they worked.

Certainly one would get bored after that length of time - I couldn't imagine working in one place for more than a few years, regardless of the money.

The main branch of this client was not in the UK and at that office they had a max 3 year rule for contractors.