No notice period

[unixman]

Okay this has been discussed a couple of times here. Currently looking at an opportunity where this clause has been specified, even before the CV has gone forward. Contract period is 6 months and I have never met or worked with this client before.

"Client - 7 days notice, You: Must complete duration of contract."

The agent has given the explanation that this is to protect both parties from IR35. Make of that what you will. I don't make much of it.

It has been said on these forums that these kind of clauses are weightless, because, if needed, you could always negotiate a way out of the contract by talking to the client and coming to a mutual agreement. As others have said, nobody wants an unwilling contractor on site. Common sense, assuming the client is reasonable - and they are most of the time, but not always.

Anyway, my question is not "should I take this contract" or "would you take this contract" - but rather - why do they put these clauses in? How often have you seen them, personally ?

[BrilloPad]

They put them in as they are trying it on. It is legally unenforceable.

[missinggreenfields]

why do they put these clauses in? How often have you seen them, personally ?

Why is it there? Because the client / agent is worried that you're going to disappear mid-contract for a better offer and want to prevent that from happening.

How often have I seen it? Every contract I've had over the past 6 or 7 years.

[missinggreenfields]

They put them in as they are trying it on. It is legally unenforceable.

Can you provide a case which has set that precedent in a B2B contract?

[unixman]

Why is it there? Because the client / agent is worried that you're going to disappear mid-contract for a better offer and want to prevent that from happening.

How often have I seen it? Every contract I've had over the past 6 or 7 years.

Yes, it could discourage the contractor from leaving mid contract, but would seem to be addressing a problem that isn't really there. Maybe different in your area, but in my experience (unix systems engineering) it is very rare for contractors to leave mid contract. So that does not seem a sufficient explanation. What is your area by the way?

I checked out the IR35 claims and haven't been able to substantiate them so far.

[SlipTheJab]

Why is it there? Because the client / agent is worried that you're going to disappear mid-contract for a better offer and want to prevent that from happening.

How often have I seen it? Every contract I've had over the past 6 or 7 years.

I've never had that in any of my contacts. Its always been reciprocal (and I've never broken a contract yet regardless), it's probably more the agent looking to protect his revenue stream than the client though.

[SlipTheJab]

Oh and the IR35 protection bit sounds like typical agency bollox.

[eek]

Only reason for not wanting contractors to leave midway is crap treatment of contractors or rate cuts causing people to leave early.

Barclays ( but to be honest all banks are now the same) are one place whose reputation proceeds them

[missinggreenfields]

Yes, it could discourage the contractor from leaving mid contract, but would seem to be addressing a problem that isn't really there. Maybe different in your area, but in my experience (unix systems engineering) it is very rare for contractors to leave mid contract. So that does not seem a sufficient explanation. What is your area by the way?

I checked out the IR35 claims and haven't been able to substantiate them so far.

Functional / Technical database consultancy (or some kind of buzzword matching algorithm)

If it's happened to the client before then they may well be wary. I've left a contract by giving notice before, but in line with the contract, and to move to a long-term role rather than one where at the end of each month they would begrudgingly say "here's another four weeks support work".

I've tried to negotiate it before and some places would do it, some wouldn't - IBM, for example, refused to even consider it.

The only argument for IR35 is that there's no way that an employer could have a contract with an employee where the employee couldn't give notice, therefore you can't be an employee in this situation. Not sure how that really strikes at any of the three basic principles of being an employee, but that's the argument that I've seen.

[northernladuk]

The only argument for IR35 is that there's no way that an employer could have a contract with an employee where the employee couldn't give notice, therefore you can't be an employee in this situation. Not sure how that really strikes at any of the three basic principles of being an employee, but that's the argument that I've seen.

Are you sure that is right. I was under the impression it is zero notice, not can't give notice i.e. instant termination. Employees cannot be instantly terminated which is the differntiator you are after. I think the argument you saw said no notice period, not no notice can be given...