No notice period

[SlipTheJab]

Ah. Interesting. There is this article which is why I did suggest the other version..


You are welcome.

Boom! He's back in the game

[unixman]

The agency has now said that the reason for the clause is this: the client has SLAs from their own clients and can't take the risk of people leaving. ie. a complete reverse ferret on their earlier "IR35" story.

Basically it's what missinggreenfields first said. It doesn't make much sense, for all the reasons discussed here and in other threads.

I mean, if the client has such "turnover" problems that they feel the need of this clause, it kind of suggests that working there must be awful. Also it displays a lack of trust which (in my view) IMO is inappropriate to doing business.

It will be interesting to see if any more convincing explanations "emerge".

[SueEllen]

6 month contract with no notice smells to me that the client and/or agency has issues with contractor turn over. The reason can be innocent things like client location, to not so good ones like dreadful working environment.

There are ways of adding exit cla uses in such contracts one of which involves adding in a dispute clause that commits you for 7-20 days if the dispute can't be resolved. Higher contracts often do actually have these clauses in but the trick is trying to get it mirrored in your contract.

[ShandyDrinker]

The agency has now said that the reason for the clause is this: the client has SLAs from their own clients and can't take the risk of people leaving. ie. a complete reverse ferret on their earlier "IR35" story.

Basically it's what missinggreenfields first said. It doesn't make much sense, for all the reasons discussed here and in other threads.

I mean, if the client has such "turnover" problems that they feel the need of this clause, it kind of suggests that working there must be awful. Also it displays a lack of trust which (in my view) IMO is inappropriate to doing business.

It will be interesting to see if any more convincing explanations "emerge".

While it may be inappropriate to doing business from your perspective, to them it's entirely justified to protect their own business. What I do think is inappropriate is the bullsh*t excuses as mentioned in this thread that they come out with to attempt to justify themselves.

What I would say in the defence of the banks for example, is that no matter how much people bitch on forums like this about the contracts (probably me included), it's amazing how many people will still sign up making it an entirely acceptable approach to business from their perspective. The sad thing is that as soon as any of us won't sign, there are probable 100 others waiting for the role that will...

[GB9]

The agency has now said that the reason for the clause is this: the client has SLAs from their own clients and can't take the risk of people leaving. ie. a complete reverse ferret on their earlier "IR35" story.

Basically it's what missinggreenfields first said. It doesn't make much sense, for all the reasons discussed here and in other threads.

I mean, if the client has such "turnover" problems that they feel the need of this clause, it kind of suggests that working there must be awful. Also it displays a lack of trust which (in my view) IMO is inappropriate to doing business.

It will be interesting to see if any more convincing explanations "emerge".

And again, what is the penalty for leaving? Does it state one?

And just because you sign a contract it doesn't make it enforceable by default. Plenty of contracts have clauses that judges are well within their rights to strike out. Somewhere in your contract you may find a clause that states if a clause is found to be unenforceable that doesn't impact upon the rest of the contract.

[SueEllen]

With very dodgy clauses I have sometimes phoned the client to confirm it is them who have it the clause in.

It has lead to "interesting" situations where the agents think the client won't renew me. They forget most IT roles require you to have an eye for detail....

[dx4100]

You know you don't have to take the gig if you don't like the offer...

Personally, I wouldn't take any gig without some form of notice period... Life is too short to be stuck in an awful work environment...

[LondonManc]

You know you don't have to take the gig if you don't like the offer...

Personally, I wouldn't take any gig without some form of notice period... Life is too short to be stuck in an awful work environment...

There is the other option - the handcuff clause (which is essentially what it is) could be mitigated with cold hard day rate.

[lukemg]

Ok, my view was always that these clauses are a joke and you can walk anyway but recent experience says no.
Chap I know was signed up for some pseudo contract (more like FTC) with a smaller company and was not only locked in but had 25k liability for walking - yeah, he will read the next contract I expect.
Anyway, turned into a nightmare, burmese railway job, he looked shell-shocked when I saw him, hated it, couldn't sleep etc.
They wouldn't agree to him leaving and when he ran it past an employment lawyer they said they could come after him for the 25k quite easily and even the costs to defend would be brutal.
So - make sure its a time period you can definitely do or at least insist on 8 weeks notice (which will seem great if the alternative is 10 months).
Interestingly, the lawyer specifically said they wouldn't recommend that he go sick at any point although he had known this to happen in similar circumstances in the past.....

[GB9]

Ok, my view was always that these clauses are a joke and you can walk anyway but recent experience says no.
Chap I know was signed up for some pseudo contract (more like FTC) with a smaller company and was not only locked in but had 25k liability for walking - yeah, he will read the next contract I expect.
Anyway, turned into a nightmare, burmese railway job, he looked shell-shocked when I saw him, hated it, couldn't sleep etc.
They wouldn't agree to him leaving and when he ran it past an employment lawyer they said they could come after him for the 25k quite easily and even the costs to defend would be brutal.
So - make sure its a time period you can definitely do or at least insist on 8 weeks notice (which will seem great if the alternative is 10 months).
Interestingly, the lawyer specifically said they wouldn't recommend that he go sick at any point although he had known this to happen in similar circumstances in the past.....

I keep asking what the penalty clause is but either he doesn't know or doesn't understand the importance.

In the situation you mention I would work exactly the hours stated in the contract and put the emphasis on the client to terminate.