End client refusal to sign timesheet

[Amy Shrotersfield]

Do you have evidence of time put in at the client site? Travel receipts etc?
Should give you some leverage if they're disputing whther or not you were actually there.

[Epiphone]

You handled this very poorly. You shouldn't be involving multiple people at ClientCo but instead speaking to your agency on Day 1 and make it their issue.

Wouldn't be surprised if you got canned now as you'll be marked as a troublemaker.

[NotAllThere]

You handled this very poorly. You shouldn't be involving multiple people at ClientCo but instead speaking to your agency on Day 1 and make it their issue.

Wouldn't be surprised if you got canned now as you'll be marked as a troublemaker.

Depends very much on the exact setup. If he's replaceable bum on seat then the chances of being canned are higher than if he's a value for money specialist. I've seen permies get canned for going against some contractors - although that was where the program manager was a shareholder of the agency...

[simes]

Wasn't at all sure Epiphone's point was worth responding to.

To wit, I am at a set up currently whereby the agency (or in this case more likely, the payroll company) have absolutely no involvement with representation or the resolving of issues. Everything is essentially up to me to resolve. Timesheet approving, contract renewal, rate rises etc. All me.

And, I have been in environments in which the agency does take a larger role.

But the 'getting canned for being a troublemaker' comment...!

[Lance]

But the 'getting canned for being a troublemaker' comment...!

If the client management have 2 pissed off people. One who's a perm and may well be the instigator, and another who's a contractor who's making noise..... the simplest solution is to fire the contractor.

[northernladuk]

But the 'getting canned for being a troublemaker' comment...!

Not sure why you've got a problem with comment. I don't agree that the OP is likely to get canned for this but he doesn't look good at all.

I do totally believe being a 'trouble maker' doesn't end well for contractors, particularly if there other factors involved, not so great performance, head cut coming etc.

I challenged a blanket decision and tried to see the results of my determination at a public sector client once and the line manager took me aside and gave me a pretty stern dressing down saying it is what it is, drop it or go. Was rather testy in the office from there on in so definitely gained myself that label. So yes, being labelled a trouble maker is a real thing.

[simes]

Re-reading the OP's posts;

1. there is nothing there to suggest he Has been a trouble maker.
2. which makes the 'getting canned' bit entirely redundant.

Chasing down approvals for payment does not, in and of itself, constitute making trouble. In my humble opinion...

Onwards.

[northernladuk]

Re-reading the OP's posts;

1. there is nothing there to suggest he Has been a trouble maker.
2. which makes the 'getting canned' bit entirely redundant.

Chasing down approvals for payment does not, in and of itself, constitute making trouble. In my humble opinion...

Onwards.

You should be absolutely correct saying this.. Problem is you are dealing with people and then can form an opinion even if they are in the wrong. They also the client so they won't really appreciate a supplier causing a fuss, even if that supplier is correct.

The manager told him 'sternly' he has to go monthly. Anything after that, in the managers misguided opinion, is hassle which will cause him to form an opinion. Sometimes, that's all it needs.

Not saying it's right at all, but it can happen. You are right in your opinion but that's not always how it pans out. As I said I don't agree in this instance that being canned is something the OP may face but it can. I'm sure we've had threads along this line on here.

Remember, there's now't as queer as folk... if you are allowed to say that anymore

[Epiphone]

Wasn't at all sure Epiphone's point was worth responding to.

To wit, I am at a set up currently whereby the agency (or in this case more likely, the payroll company) have absolutely no involvement with representation or the resolving of issues. Everything is essentially up to me to resolve. Timesheet approving, contract renewal, rate rises etc. All me.

And, I have been in environments in which the agency does take a larger role.

But the 'getting canned for being a troublemaker' comment...!

The OP is via an agency but chose to take up the matter direct with the client. There isn't a negotiating relationship there, it should have been left to the agency.

The client then had to spend more time on this as the OP went over his head internally (which, IMHO, is a terminating offence).

If I were responsible for extending OP's contract then he'd be gone. The entire thing was handled unprofessionally by OP no matter how out of order the client was by wanting the change. There are ways to handle situations like this, and this was the wrong way.

[Lance]

The OP is via an agency but chose to take up the matter direct with the client. There isn't a negotiating relationship there, it should have been left to the agency.

The client then had to spend more time on this as the OP went over his head internally (which, IMHO, is a terminating offence).

If I were responsible for extending OP's contract then he'd be gone. The entire thing was handled unprofessionally by OP no matter how out of order the client was by wanting the change. There are ways to handle situations like this, and this was the wrong way.

yup.

I've come across agencies who will remove the contractor from site for breaching the contract by trying to have the wrong conversation with the client.