IT Employment

Would you sign this consulting agreement?

Read an Exclusive Right to Represent agreement that an IT consultant received from a recruiting firm. He did not sign it. Would you have signed this agreement if you needed work?

TechRepublic member James Huffman emailed me about a recruiting firm that he was considering engaging for their services. He had told them the rate he expected for work in the Dallas, Texas area. The recruiter came back to him with a rate $5 per hour lower than what he had stated for 1099 work, or $10 lower for W-2 -- and they attached an agreement for Jim to sign: an Exclusive Right to Represent. He did not sign the agreement, which read as follows (the recruiting firm's name has been removed and replaced with xxxx):

This Agreement is dated ______________________ .  The undersigned (also known as "Consultant") including Third Party Provider (also known as "Third Party Vendor"), hereby appoint xxxx, ("Company") as the Third Party Vendor and Consultant's Recruiter and grants Recruiter the exclusive right to represent the Third Party Vendor  and Consultant in order to facilitate and coordinate efforts to locate job placement opportunities. This Exclusive Authorization shall commence on the date of this Agreement and terminates at midnight, _____________________________ .

Recruiter agrees to use its best efforts to locate a position satisfactory to the Consultant and Third Party Vendor. Recruiter's service will include solicitation, screening, and analysis of job opportunities and, if Recruiter deems necessary, the solicitation of other Recruitment firms with relevant job placement opportunities available. Recruiter will use its best efforts to obtain complete details on all contemplated, and/or available placements which, in Recruiter's opinion, will be the most suitable for the undersigned's skills.

The Consultant and Third Party Vendor, will, in turn, refer all inquiries and offerings received by the Consultant or Third Party Vendor, whether from principles, other Recruiters, agents, or any other person to Recruiter. All negotiations shall be conducted solely by Recruiter and under Recruiter's direction unless agreed otherwise. The final job selection is subject to approval by the Consultant and Third Party Vendor.

It is agreed that Consultant and Third Party Vendor, during the course of Recruiters placement efforts, may come to develop certain relationships with Recruiter's clients and/or vendors which may lead to an awareness of other services desired by Recruiter's clients and/or vendors. Consultant and Third Party Vendor acknowledge that but for the exposure provided by Recruiter, Consultant and Third Party Vendor would not be aware of Recruiter's clients and/or vendors. Therefore, during the period of time in which Consultant and Third Party Vendor are being marketed for job opportunities by Recruiter and for a period of one year thereafter, Consultant and Third Party Vendor hereby agree and covenant not to approach, communicate or engage Recruiter's clients and/or vendors directly or indirectly through any third-party in an effort to provide Recruiter's clients and/or vendors like services. Consultant and Third Party Vendor further agree that during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one year after placement, Consultant and Third Party Vendor will not solicit, enter into any agreement with, or otherwise assign personnel to Company's clients and/or vendors.

Consultant and Third Party Vendor further agree that they will not approach the Recruiter's clients and/or vendors directly or indirectly for any employment opportunities, negotiations, or subsequent communications for twelve months (12) following the above period of representation by xxxx.

The Consultant and Third Party Vendor hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Agreement.   By signing this Agreement Consultant and Third Party Vendor understand and agree to the terms of this Agreement.  Consultant and Third Party Vendor also acknowledge that this agreement does not confer any duty owed to Consultant or Third Party Vendor by Recruiter and is in no way a guarantee of employment.

The intent of the agreement is to insure that our consultant James doesn't make contact with a prospect, kill the deal, and then resurrect it behind the recruiter's back in order to avoid their fees. That's reasonable enough, but in my opinion the language is far too broad. This agreement not only bars the consultant from seeking work with the company to which the recruiting firm has introduced them, but also any other company that has been a client or vendor to the recruiter. That could conceivably include every potential customer in the area.

Some people might say that the recruiting firm is just protecting its interests. Maybe they wouldn't go after people who didn't intentionally try to pull an end-around on them. No doubt their lawyers were trying to make the language as broad as possible so they wouldn't have trouble going after the egregious offenders. But are you willing to trust them on that?

The terms are so broad that they might not hold up in court -- the court could consider them an unreasonable restriction on the consultant's ability to earn a living. Personally, I wouldn't want to be the one to find out.

The only way I would sign this agreement would be if the recruiter appeared to be my only hope. Is that what enables recruiters to get these kinds of agreements with their clients? Are people that bad off? Or is it rather a case of signing without reading -- of assuming that the terms must be reasonable or they wouldn't ask for them? How do you spell naive?

On second thought, there is no way that I'd sign this agreement. I can do well enough on my own without tying my career to that ship's anchor, and I bet most anyone else could, too.

How about you?

About

Chip Camden has been programming since 1978, and he's still not done. An independent consultant since 1991, Chip specializes in software development tools, languages, and migration to new technology. Besides writing for TechRepublic's IT Consultant b...

73 comments
ananthap
ananthap

Whats the problem in working 8 hour days? Whats the problem in a job as ahelp desk / system builder & tester techie?

bc
bc

You have no intentions to work for the contracting company after the duration of the contract has expired, and if the duration were reasonably short. Otherwise, its a lame f@#$-around and waste of time. The whole 1-year thing is a bit ridiculous, but I'd be surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) to see that hold up in court.

redux
redux

First, shoot the lawyer. The language in the agreement is off-putting, to be sure. BUT -- beyond awkward legalese, what the heck is wrong here? If the contracting firm has lots of business and you think the guy you are working with is 'ok', then what's the problem? Are you looking to cheat them (only once works, anyway), or do you want to stay busy? If you come across an opportunity -- not through them -- wouldn't it be to your benefit to take it to them and have them run the paperwork, take the legal risks, do the invoicing and collection -- and take the collection risk, as well?? Why would you want to keep those risks? If you are such a great marketer of your own services that you are working 100% of your available hours -- instead of the more typical 25 - 50% -- then you are being stupid in not marketing yours AND other's services, and forget these guys. Otherwise, I don't really see the substance of the complaint! Otherwise, we're talking about $40 a week

network admin
network admin

A hospital I worked at a few years back required employees to sign an agreement upon hire stating you would not work for any of their vendors for at least 12 months after parting from your position (allied health positions only). The agreement also stated an employee could not apply for any (allied health) positions at a direct competitor within a 25 mile radius for 3 months after parting from a position. Yes, I signed it. The only other available jobs if I had not signed would have been janitorial/cafeteria jobs, doctor office help, or even Wal-Mart store positions; all paying much less. Most hospitals in the area had a similar policy. The one I signed with was closest to my home.

dullkit
dullkit

I did sign ones like that back in the 1970s when I had no job skills and no prospects of a job. This is a standard 'boiler plate' document. It is hard for them to find you, let alone catch and sue you for violating the agreement. Don't taunt them and they won't strike back at you. Most recruiters come and go. Six months after signing up with a firm they will have changed people enough that no one will know you.

tfiegener1
tfiegener1

The second paragraph sounds like he can not be offered a job at all (even on his own) without that recruiter involved.

PaulM999
PaulM999

I was working for a company for 6 months when one of the employees left and took accounts with him. After that the owner came up with this agreement and wanted everyone to sign it. I contacted a lawyer who told me go ahead and sign it, it would never hold up in court. Since I was already employeed the owner was applying unreasonable pressure, document had no value.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You'd need to check state laws but a great deal of it should not be legally binding even if signed. I can accept that the recruiter doesn't want its contacts contacted but they cannot legally stop you from working in a specialized field, in Canada and I would assume in the US even with such poor employment regulations. Example, if I am a security system sales rep and I sign a non compete agreement, it is barely legally binding, with the exception of me target marketing their clients. They cannot restrict me to region etc. as it is a field of specialty and not exactly something where I can market to a different clientele. The pay cut is for their own pockets of course, all recruiters get a cut of your income, but the work restriction is borderline. They are trying to stop you from fairly practicing your trade if you leave them, which they simply cannot do in any country that I know of.

carlsf
carlsf

This is an attempt to lock a jobseeker into a ONE WAY street Their way or you dont work. There should be a law against such contracts.

Slider7
Slider7

That had so much legalese written into it that it gave me a splitting headache... It would have to be a very cold day before I would sign a contract like that and I have actually in the 10+ years of doing freelance IT work have come across contracts like that one in the article that I told the recruiter to go and fly a kite and walked out of their office. Slider7

R Strain Consulting
R Strain Consulting

I was offered an agreement almost exactly like the one Chip highlighted. I demanded that it be reworded to describe just the single client. They did that, but seemed incredulous that I thought they were over reaching.

pgit
pgit

I had a verbal "contract" with the original founder/owner of a company I worked with. I worked great, all sides were exceedingly happy with the arrangement and it was among the most productive work I ever did. A new control-freak oriented "team" bought the place out and job one was reworking employee contracts, to get more work for less pay out of everyone, of course. But the main point was they wanted exclusive rights to 'market' our expertise. We would be prevented from doing any IT related work even if there was zero potential of impacting the company's bottom line. (ie no conflict of interest/competition) They particularly didn't like my arrangement, which was what I say goes, unless and until they didn't like it, then it's amicable splitsville. The new boss tried to pull a fast one in order to be able to claim my prior arrangement had been voided and I MUST sign the new deal or lose the job. Between jobs they simply declared I was "laid off," and then taken back in immediately, pending a new contract. I wasn't the only one to walk.

GRJensen
GRJensen

This agreement (assuming this is the full text of it) would not hold up. The 'Consultant' has no way of knowing who the 'Recruiter' has talked to or worked with unless the 'Recruiter' provides a list as an exhibit in the contract. And with no severability clause, a judge would have no choice but to throw the whole agreement out.

reisen55
reisen55

I have worked with several franchise firms of late, and I have kept a chinese wall between their efforts and my own efforts. While this is effective, my efforts PAY ME a far better rate than their work does and I am now very disenchanted with associative relationships like this. It is worthless to run around, do high end work and be paid pennies on the dollar. I am giving it all up.

cbader
cbader

The worst part (IMO) is the fact that he has to agree to run all job searches through the company and allow them to negotiate all terms on his behalf. I understand some parts of the contract are needed for the company to protect themselves, but if a potential client found my resume and called me directly I would never direct them to a recruiting firm.

Dr_Zinj
Dr_Zinj

Especially in places that deal with classified information. Ugh!

BoxersRule
BoxersRule

They would have to prove that they were materially damaged by the contractors behavior and 9 times out of 10 they are not, so the cases get tossed if it ever gets that far. The recruiters know this and have these contracts anyway as a way to discourage guys from working their own deals and it generally works. I'd sign it and ignore it, but not go out of my way to violate it.

ls1313
ls1313

Not if they were offering $5 - 10 dollars lower per hour than I had asked for. If they were offering more money per hour or really good benefits, maybe. I think if a recruiter wants this kind of exclusivity, they should offer me something more than lower pay and the prospect of a hassle down the line!

info
info

Earlier this decade it was very hard for me to find work because all of my skills were 'experience' based, and I had no formal training. I took agreements similar to this (although in Canada things are a bit looser in terms of legality, but it's changing) after talking to the recruiter. In a couple of cases I was told that they would allow me to be hired directly within 3 months, although the contract stated a year, without the employer being liable to having to pay any fees. They were always true to their word. But I think that sort of generosity is becoming more rare these days...

bblackmoor
bblackmoor

I have seen far worse "agreements" than this one, and no, I did not sign them. Fortunately, covenants not to compete are disfavored in Virginia, so this kind of agreement is very difficult to enforce in court unless it is both geographically specific and limited in time-frame. Personally, I think agreements like this one, as well as demands that applicants consent to medical tests before being considered for employment, should be made illegal.

gmcdonnell
gmcdonnell

I've had any number of companies try this sort of thing on my over the years. I've never gone for it. I'd rather tighten my belt than let someone else control my ability to gain clients. The worst situation like this for me was when a company snaked some business out from under me by taking advantage of a personal relationship (the infamous "brother-in-law" connection. They then tried to outsource the work back to me at half my normal rate with a similar "exclusive" agreement. Unfortunately for the client I refused to fall for it, and as the effort required highly specialized skills that the other consulting company did not have the project went down in flames.

Merlin100
Merlin100

I would not, but it does seem like the contract firms have the upper hand in this economy. My struggle right now is getting firms to work with me on a 1099 basis in spite of being incorporated and paying into liability, workman's comp and unemployment. Most of them want you as a W-2 which saves you some payroll tax, costs you a lot of write-offs. Anyone else having the same experience?

paultcook
paultcook

To support my family, I would go a long way. As long as I am not asked to do something illegal or unethical, and I needed to support my family, I would have to. Yes, times are that bad.

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

... for getting out of this if the recruiter doesn't live up to expectations. You could be saddled with this person or no work at all for up to a year (provided the agreement is binding, which it probably isn't).

Ron_007
Ron_007

Shoot all the laywers! I've been out of work 3 years and I wouldn't sign that contact as it stands. I would make amendments, which they would refuse, then I would feel just fine walking out the door. What is wrong. They want to make you their exclusive worker (slave) for the period of the contract. They want a part of any work you find totally on your own. I agree, the $5/$10 per hour "skim" is not bad, if that is all they take. I wouldn't be surprised if they took that money and then still billed the company at a higher rate. I too have seen "consulting" companies billing twice what they are paying their worker, and not providing any benefits during job or any sort of pay between contracts. I especially disagree with the 1 yr non-compete. That is totally unreasonable. If they want that kind of a restriction they had better be willing to pay for it. Which they never would. Sure labor laws may support you, but do you really want to take that chance, and do you want to go through the hassle if they decide to make you the "RIAA" example. They have deeper pockets than you do, and most of the time justice goes to the person with the most expensive lawyer.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

You don't think they do it for free, do you? You say that people should give these guys money for nothing (as they will not have done any of the setting up of that opportunity), and let them potentially (actually, very likely) screw up that opportunity with their very unprofessional control-freak attitude. People with a clean slate do not need offensive contract language. Know it. If they're restrictive, it's because they want to take advantage, and want you shackled hands and legs so you'll have to take it. You want to be their gimp? Go ahead, but at the very least, know what you're getting yourself into.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You can't restrict a person's trade, especially when a specialty. Sure you can't go and compete directly with them, but the radius is usually where these non-compete's fail in a courtroom. 25 miles isn't bad, I once had a US security company try and tie me into a 200 mile radius. I signed it and left 8 months later, they found out I was working their territory but after being sent the BC employment standards act they realized they had no recourse, 200 MILES!! LOL :D

sperry532
sperry532

Some 30 years ago, I learned a magic phrase that quickly sorted the reasonable from the not-to-be-trusted firms. After reading through the contract, I say "I'd like to have my attorney look this over," whether or not I had an attorney at the time. In over 3/4 of the instances, the firms refused to allow the contract to leave the room. Their excuses ranged from "it's proprietary" to "you might steal the text and use it for yourself"(!?!) to, "if you don't trust us, we can't work with you". Of those few firms that did allow me to take the contract home, all but a couple proved to be good at finding me adequate, appropriate, and quality work. When I did take the contract(s) to an attorney, s/he proved well worth the small amount I had to pay him/her.

manasseh
manasseh

My brother, not in the computer business, worked for a company for several years on a "verbal contract". The owner's son decided to get involved and asked all the salesmen to sign contracts including a non-compete. My brother said "No, fire me if you want". They kept him on, without the contract, and when the company started going down the tubes (probably due to too much legal stuff and not enough real work being done) he opened up his own shop 2 miles away and took the customers with him.

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

... when companies "clean house" one way or another, not realizing how much investment they're throwing away.

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

... about a job for which I was highly qualified. They were very excited about my involvement until I told them what rate I expected. After that, they never called me again.

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

... effectively makes the recruiter the consultant's agent, in the sports and Hollywood sense. Anybody that wants to talk to the consultant must talk to them first.

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

... on how much difficulty they have in finding consultants generally. Or rather, the definition of "enough" depends on that.

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

The Rules You Are Expected To Break syndrome. In some places, the speed limit qualifies. Some contracts, including payment terms for most vendors. They get you to agree to something much more restrictive than they expect, so that even if you stretch it they'll be OK. It's a form of dishonesty that presupposes a complementary dishonesty. Therefore truly honest people get walked over and called naive.

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

I hadn't thought about exclusivity as a marketable commodity, but you're right. If it provides them with a business advantage, they should pay for it (provided you're willing to sell it).

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

... slitting your own throat? You could possibly find yourself forced out of the IT business for a year by an agreement like this.

redux
redux

You know the problem here? Most programmers are cowards! YOU guys! That agreement doesn't mean crap -- you, I, or anyone could walk right through it. That agreement would NEVER prevent you from working. You wouldn't need to hire a lawyer, you only might need to stand up for yourself -- and just over the phone, at that. Amazing! Do ANY of you REALLY think the staffing company's lawyer would ever let his client do something as stupid as actually filing some lawsuit against you?? Ridiculous. After all, the lawyer would have to walk into court and face a judge -- who would probably find his client in contempt for filing the case in the first place. One disclaimer: I'm talking about the US -- where this event occurred -- not Canada, Holland, Britain or anywhere else, because I can imagine attitudes toward civil legal issues that could burn you at the stake. I don't know, of course. But here in the US, no programmer should fear an agreement like this. My wife and I were software contractors for years, and we both faced various restrictive agreements -- none of which were as aggressive-sounding as this one, but some where inappropriate nonetheless. If you don't like something in it, why not simply tell your contact that it sounds terrible. And as someone said -- make changes to it and initial your changes. 9 times out of ten, no one will even mention it -- or perhaps even notice. If they do and say something, explain why you think it is inappropriate. The guy will probably agree with you, tell you to make the changes, end of story. If not, and he can't explain what is reasonable about it, tell him to get back to you, and then explain your strengths as a software contractor. You will stick in the rep's mind, which is almost always a good thing. On the other hand, be an idiot and pass up the opportunity, hating the poor staffing rep that was merely passing on some HR moron's idea of "protecting" the staffing company's business. But here's a second disclaimer: are you planning to cheat & steal business from them? Then all bets are off, and you deserve to get dragged through the mud. But that's obvious, isn't it? Are any of you defending someone's "right" to do that? If you are, you are nothing more than a crook. But look at the off-based criticisms of this agreement: --"skim"?? How arrogant to act as though you "deserve" whatever the staffing company charges for your time minus an amount they "skim"! Nobody stopped you from calling on every tech company around to find work for the last 3 years! If you had, you wouldn't be considering this staffing company. Oh, I get it. "Sales" is beneath you, and you deserve the work by osmosis. That's just petty jealousy. --"the 1 year non-compete" What?? What "non-compete"? Do you know what a non-compete is? There is no non-compete. And though that agreement was written by someone who should be drawn and quartered, look again. It says you won't solicit from their "clients". It doesn't say "potential clients"; it doesn't say "past clients"; just "clients". In reality, it also only means "clients who know about you because the staffing company introduced you to them". So, do you really have a problem with that? They send you on an interview with a company, having told the company all sorts of glowing things about you, and the company likes you -- but you take some other assignment somewhere else, which ends after only a month. So, you think, "I should go back to that company and get that gig." Fine. Do you really think that would be the fair and honest thing to do (not going back through the staffing company that led you there in the first place)? If your answer is "yes", I assume you also steal presents from under Christmas trees -- and, by the way, so will most companies, who will probably tell you to take a hike "and don't come back". Beware, if the company says, "Hey, great, sure, come on in. It's cheaper to go around the staffing company!" then you deserve each other, but you are now working for a company that you should know cheats, like you do. Do you want to trust them very much?? They know not to trust you! On the other hand, your current gig ends, you call the staffing company and say, "Hey, I goofed. Do you think "X" still wants me?" The rep probably calls the client and says, "Guess what, that GREAT candidate we showed you that you liked is available!! I think we can get him for you. Congratulations!" -- and you have made the company happy about getting you, the staffing rep happy about getting a commission from placing you, the staffing company happy about another profitable placement, and your kids happy because it won't be a "slim" Christmas. And because you made all those people happy, they will (I sure hope) try a little harder to find your next assignment when this one eventually ends. Gee, tough choice. I guess being greedy and petty about whether they are charging more for your time than they are paying you makes sense. Not. --"exclusive worker (slave)" Well, here you have some sympathy from me. "They want a part of any work you find totally on your own." If you get it because they got you off your rear in spite of yourself, showed you how to interview, taught you how to write a semi-readable resume, got you to take a shower, then it wasn't totally on your own, was it? On the other hand, if they think they deserve a piece of your income from a company where you had contracted before, that calls you for an assignment -- they have some nerve!! The agreement's 3rd paragraph is my biggest sticking point -- "will, in turn, refer all inquiries and offerings received ..." I hope they meant (they should have said) "related to our efforts to promote you," or "related to consulting work to such-and-such industry," or specific companies, or ... OTHERWISE, you had better know a lot about the staffing company's reputation with other contractors, with their clients (and their credibility with them), and their ability to make money off of you. If all of those "scores" come back top-notch, then of course you'd sign -- you will be a star for them, and as you make them rich, they will help you to become rich. And why not take every opportunity to them? If their track record is golden, then you are doing your contacts a favor as well as the staffing company -- they have shown an ability to turn opportunities into 'wins' (which means 'wins' for everyone) -- and undoubtedly at a larger scale than you would ever have accomplished on your own. So you lose nothing and gain long term, secure employment. If they're lousy, don't work with them agreement or not.

redux
redux

Sorry, are you paying attention? They offered $5 an hour less -- $200 a week -- for 1099. When I was a contractor, I'd stay busy for 3 - 15 months and then have a 'vacation' that I wouldn't need. Paying someone to prevent that is cheap -- unless they're "unprofessional" and have "control-freak attitudes", as you mention. But that is something that is usually associated with many of the contractor / programmers I have known and worked with, not something associated with a good staffing rep -- most are quite personable. And why in the world would they "screw up the opportunity"?? I bet there are a lot more staffing types who can write a grammatical sentence and negotiate a reasonable assignment than there are programmers who can do so. Many software contractors are contractors because they are unattractive as full-time employees: they (some) don't (want to) work well in groups, THEY (some!) are control freaks who show up unshowered with personal hygiene issues who don't think it should matter because they write computer code! Now, I agree that the tone of that agreement is offensively 'aggressive' -- but if you took the time to read it, it does not have very sharp teeth. As a contractor, if you are between assignments for only a month, you lose $10,000 (or whatever). That would pay the "exorbitant" cost of working through a staffing company for a YEAR. Not bad insurance if you stay busy. Penny wise, pound foolish. And if you have known enough contractors, then you know some who worked for a small company that went out of business, leaving them short on what they're owed. Ouch. Fine, take that risk, if you know what you are doing.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

Signed one contract after being assured by them that they couldn't legally enforce it anyway. I got that in writing..... Just in case....

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

... are a huge red flag. Anybody who insists that you can't show a contract to a lawyer before you sign it is obviously trying to set a hook before you get away.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

they'd be shocked enough by him taking a poop right there in the interview room that they'd be unable to act long enough for getting to the wipe? I do agree that doing just that may be the most reasonable response; a poop for a poop as the saying goes.

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

You may find yourself forced out of the Workforce for at least a year if you sign that contract. No where in it does it limit your ability to not work to just IT. After all it says any work you find must be sent through the Recruiters Agency so it's not just IT work. No where does it specifically say anything about limiting this to just IT it says any Company who is a Client of the Recruiter you can not work for for at least a year. Then that definition of a Client of the Recruiter is wide open as well. ;) Col

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

either that, or someone who just signed the very same contract and needs to justify it to themselves. Nah, probably a recruiter.

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

I smell the blood of a recruitingmun!

HAL 9000
HAL 9000

[i]They offered $5 an hour less -- $200 a week -- for 1099. When I was a contractor, I'd stay busy for 3 - 15 months and then have a 'vacation' that I wouldn't need. Paying someone to prevent that is cheap -- unless they're "unprofessional" and have "control-freak attitudes", as you mention. But that is something that is usually associated with many of the contractor / programmers I have known and worked with, not something associated with a good staffing rep -- most are quite personable.[/i] That's OK provided that they actually provide the work. It's not beyond possibility that they sign you up to the above contract and then bankrupt you with no work and leave you in a position where you can not work because you are in breach of the contract. [i]Now, I agree that the tone of that agreement is offensively 'aggressive' -- but if you took the time to read it, it does not have very sharp teeth.[/i] While it might not have Sharp Teeth just how much time and money do you think it costs to go to court to prove that it has no teeth? [i]As a contractor, if you are between assignments for only a month, you lose $10,000 (or whatever). That would pay the "exorbitant" cost of working through a staffing company for a YEAR. Not bad insurance if you stay busy.[/i] The operative words here are [b]if you stay busy[/b] if you look at the contract there is no stipulation that they will supply you the work to Keep you Busy but if you get any yourself you have to forward it through them for their cut. [i]And if you have known enough contractors, then you know some who worked for a small company that went out of business, leaving them short on what they're owed. Ouch. Fine, take that risk, if you know what you are doing.[/i] Sorry but while some small companies have gone broke stiffing me it's not that common. However the bigger business saying Take me to Court and refusing to pay their bills are a different story. Sure they'll settle out of Court as you walk through the Doors for the Hearing but by that time you have wasted lots of $ and run up exurbanite bills just getting tot he Court Doors. You asked what's wrong with that contract I'll explain. No Proviso for the Contractor to End the Contract. No thought of/for the Contractor. No Give and Take it's all Take. If you sign something like that you have no guarantee of work to begin with and any you find your self can be claimed to have landed you in Breach of the Contract as the Recruiter/whatever can claim that your new client is a Potential Client of theirs and as you don't know who their current/previous or potential Clients are you are in breach of the contract just by looking for work outside that company. I'll not mention the NonCompete Clause either. You have to set yourself up for no income for at least a year after you cease working for this place. All that is required is that this place give you 2 hours work per month not necessarily in the same place they could break that down to 15 Minute Intervals across half a state with no transport costs or time to get there, and because you can not get yourself any outside work you have to live with the mess. Then also any work that you pass on to them that you may get under the terms of that contract they don't have to give it to you if they even manage not to mess up the negotiations they could be using you out of desperation to find work for others who are their [b]Favorites[/b] and they have you tied up stopping their others workers from being inconvenienced by your appearance/work. If you do not really understand what is wrong with that contract talk to a Lawyer and see what they think of it as Your Representative. Of course if you are handing out that type of contract it's great for you but no one else. Col

AnsuGisalas
AnsuGisalas

These particular people probably have learned the hard way, and have a button under the desk labelled "poop alarm".

Sterling chip Camden
Sterling chip Camden

... how things will go in such an unfamiliar situation. Until it becomes familiar.

gechurch
gechurch

It states the consultant will not "provide Recruiter?s clients and/or vendors like services". The next paragraph is unrestricted though - stating that you won't approach the client for any work at all. So they can approach you for dissimilar work, but you can't approach them for any work at all.

Editor's Picks