I want to get a feel for how common/uncommon this is or is becoming in the industry and would appreciate feedback.
Basically I've just been lucky enough to secure a new contract. On reviewing the schedule I noticed there is a notice period of 1 week for the client but it states that the "supplier cannot terminate the contract". I obviously queried this with my agent and said that I'd be unhappy signing the contract without a termination clause from my side. After what felt like hours on the phone with the agency it basically boiled down to either sign it or you don't get the contract!!
From what I can make out looking at t'internet it's fairly common for the termination clause to be mutually reciprocal and it's uncommon to have no termination clause for the contractor. I fully understand and appreciate that at the end of the day I don't have to sign anything I don't want to but the agency were basically saying it's either sign it without the termination clause or you don't get the contract. So no choice really (other than walking away from the opportunity but with the way things are at the mo I thought better of that).
The agency's argument on this was that they wanted to make sure I carry out the full contract and don't go looking for another role half way through. They also made the point that it's fairly common practice for contracts to be written up in this way now but I'm not so sure. From my point of view I see nothing wrong with expecting the same level of "protection" from my side as I am giving the client by signing the contract. There are some genuine (albeit very unlikely) reasons for possibly wanting to terminate a contract (being treated unfairly or unreasonably, being asked to do stuff outside the boundaries of the contract, etc)
Just trying to get a feel for whether this is common practice or whether it's just the more unscrupulous agencies that use these tactics.
Basically I've just been lucky enough to secure a new contract. On reviewing the schedule I noticed there is a notice period of 1 week for the client but it states that the "supplier cannot terminate the contract". I obviously queried this with my agent and said that I'd be unhappy signing the contract without a termination clause from my side. After what felt like hours on the phone with the agency it basically boiled down to either sign it or you don't get the contract!!
From what I can make out looking at t'internet it's fairly common for the termination clause to be mutually reciprocal and it's uncommon to have no termination clause for the contractor. I fully understand and appreciate that at the end of the day I don't have to sign anything I don't want to but the agency were basically saying it's either sign it without the termination clause or you don't get the contract. So no choice really (other than walking away from the opportunity but with the way things are at the mo I thought better of that).
The agency's argument on this was that they wanted to make sure I carry out the full contract and don't go looking for another role half way through. They also made the point that it's fairly common practice for contracts to be written up in this way now but I'm not so sure. From my point of view I see nothing wrong with expecting the same level of "protection" from my side as I am giving the client by signing the contract. There are some genuine (albeit very unlikely) reasons for possibly wanting to terminate a contract (being treated unfairly or unreasonably, being asked to do stuff outside the boundaries of the contract, etc)
Just trying to get a feel for whether this is common practice or whether it's just the more unscrupulous agencies that use these tactics.
Comment