Contract duration: For whose interest?

**Wotan** · 7 October 2005, 21:26

In general, I think contract termination periods should be symmetrical.

However, for a 3 month contract you aren't being tied down too much. If it was for longer than this, then I wouldn't be happy.

That issue might arise when after 3 months, the issue of renewal comes up. If you do well, they would likely want to renew you for a further 6 months, and then you certainly should consider challenging the terms.

Look very switched on in the first week!

**Fungus** · 7 October 2005, 21:35

Originally posted by malandri

Greetings,

Just saw a contract stating that:

In the first week, they can terminate me any time effective immediately
After the first week, they have to give me 20 days notice
I can not give any notice and i am obliged to work for the full term of the contract
Opt out (of course)

The contract is for 3 months: I do not have other experiences, but it doesn't look that good.

Any opinions? Which of the above terms are typical in a contract and which not?

Good weekend !

Before I started contracting, some contractors told me that it takes a client one month to realise you are incompetent, and one month to decide what to do about you, followed by a one month notice period. So you should easily get 3 months. The rest is a bonus. Maybe not the most positive/confident way of looking at the matter.

Fungus

**thunderlizard** · 7 October 2005, 22:24

That's very neat Fungus! I shall remember that. Though I'd prefer "1 month to satisfy themselves you're good, 1 month to decide what to hire you for next, and 1 month to get the money for it"!

That contractual setup is pretty normal, especially since IR35. Most agencies were very quick to implement IR35-relevant clauses where it gives the contractor less control (e.g. no notice period) but not at all interested in IR35-relevant clauses that would give the contractor more control (e.g. location of work, staffing).
But notice periods tend to be a part of the contract that is easiest to change, if the client is in agreement.

**boredsenseless** · 10 October 2005, 08:02

You could always work like a business and just accept that things change, projects get canned and people hire who they like.

So sometimes guess what they try to bin you without notice - its they way the real world works

**Fungus** · 10 October 2005, 08:48

Originally posted by boredsenseless

You could always work like a business and just accept that things change, projects get canned and people hire who they like.

So sometimes guess what they try to bin you without notice - its they way the real world works

Exactly. The whole point about contracting is that you are prepared to take risk, and enjoy the rewards, unlike those who need the security of a 'permanent' job. That means that sometimes you will be canned, and ushered out with little warning.

Fungus

**ratewhore** · 10 October 2005, 10:52

I once got told I had no option to serve notice as it shows commitment to the contract. My answer to this was 'fine, you show the same commitment and get rid of your option as well'. Needless to say I ended up with a matching clause and don't accept contracts without it. I don't consider myself a pseudo-permie, it helps me work out my pipeline!!

**bridder** · 15 October 2005, 12:14

I was offered a six month contract with a 28 day get out for the agency and none for myself, I did not see this as reasonable so asked for the same option for myself, the agency were very obliging and quickly modified the contract to allow me the same luxury. I would add that I probably wouldn't mind a very short term contract with no notice period, but anything like 6 months or above...

brid

Contract duration: For whose interest?