Computer Futures, enormous trouble with contract, stopping me from getting a job!

moycullen14

Gheadphone wrote: »

Your company has been naive and not planned for an expanded project. I feel bad for you but i see this as a problem with your company, not the agency. All agencies work this way.

Either -convince the company to pay the agency
OR -Find another contract

Maybe go back directly to the company once the cool off period has elapsed.

Much as we might like to berate the agencies, the problem here is with companies. In a country as small as Ireland, there should be no need for them.

Anyone in the market for a contract or job should know where the jobs are.

Recruitment agencies are sorta forced into working the way they do because of companies attitude towards IT recruitment. Within companies, I think HR have a lot to answer for. If you are an IT company then the very least your HR dept. should be able to do is run an effective hiring program.

15% of the first years salary or 15% of ongoing contractor cost adds up to a hell of a lot of money. I'm amazed that companies/contractors are willing to pay it - especially US companies who are notoriously stingy.

srsly78

If you try searching for IT jobs you will see most of the results are ads placed by agencies, without mentioning who the employer is. Most companies seem to be willing to effectively outsource their recruitment efforts, rather than simply post an ad or whatever.

There was a website setup recently to try the whole "no recruiter" way, but it seems to have gone inactive. You could also try linked-in, I have had companies contact me directly using it (usually indian "seo experts" tho) but it's mostly recruitment agents.

bpmurray

One thing to remember is that if CF refuse to let you work for the company, then they are responsible for paying you while you're out of work. This you-can't-work-for-them-for-a-year clause cuts both ways, so they are obliged to put you on "gardening leave".

markpb

bpmurray wrote: »

One thing to remember is that if CF refuse to let you work for the company, then they are responsible for paying you while you're out of work. This you-can't-work-for-them-for-a-year clause cuts both ways, so they are obliged to put you on "gardening leave".

Gardening leave is paid where an employee is contractually prevented from working for any company in the same industry. CF aren't stopping the OP working, just working for this one company.

Graham

I'd also be surprised if the OP was actually employed by CF. It's more likely the OP works for, or is a Director of a Limited company that has a contract with CF.

Jim2007

dannny1 wrote: »

Has anyone came up against this crap? Computer futures have profited greatly from my work since January and are now barring me from getting more work over money they will never see!

No one forced you to sign the contract, if you did not like the terms then why did you signed up??? But now that you have you are expected to comply with the terms of the contract and CF are fully within their rights in enforcing the contract.

I've spent over 20 years contracting and this is part and parcel of doing business. If you don't like it, then perhaps you are better suited to permanent positions.

ChRoMe

Jim2007 wrote: »

No one forced you to sign the contract, if you did not like the terms then why did you signed up??? But now that you have you are expected to comply with the terms of the contract and CF are fully within their rights in enforcing the contract.

Indeed, this is all standard stuff, this thread was over on the first page.

micosoft

ChRoMe wrote: »

Indeed, this is all standard stuff, this thread was over on the first page.

Agreed. Though there are a large number of people with little knowledge of contract or company law willing to tout their expertise on the subject.

It would be great if people paused and thought to themselves - why has this market worked this way for decades; yet I with no background in this sector have found a surefire way of circumventing the basic contractual principles of this sector, probably worth 10's of millions with significant companies (CPL, Harvey Nash) etc in less then 5 minutes. It would suggest that your "interpretation" is incorrect.

fergalr

micosoft wrote: »

Agreed. Though there are a large number of people with little knowledge of contract or company law willing to tout their expertise on the subject.

It would be great if people paused and thought to themselves - why has this market worked this way for decades; yet I with no background in this sector have found a surefire way of circumventing the basic contractual principles of this sector, probably worth 10's of millions with significant companies (CPL, Harvey Nash) etc in less then 5 minutes. It would suggest that your "interpretation" is incorrect.

I agree with your general point; and I'm on the 'read your contract' side of things in this thread.

At the same time, you can go overboard:
Companies do frequently put unenforceable terms into their contracts.

Sometimes its even industry practice to do so.

One example is non-compete law - what is and isn't enforceable is quite complex, and just because a company's standard contract has a non-compete, and no one has challenged it before, doesn't mean it would necessarily hold up in court. It can be a long time before someone challenges something.

Employees have a lot of rights.
You'd need to be a lawyer to understand whether particular terms are actually legally enforceable.

drumswan

Has anyone been successfully sued for violating such a clause? That would be a good indicator of their enforceability.

Graham

fergalr wrote: »

Employees have a lot of rights.

It would be a very unusual arrangement were the OP to be an employee of either the agency or the company he is on assignment to.

Graham

drumswan wrote: »

Has anyone been successfully sued for violating such a clause? That would be a good indicator of their enforceability.

An agency would be unlikely to sue someone like the OP for breach of contract (at least initially). Much more likely they would issue an invoice to the OP's new employers for their agreed finders fee and failing payment would start proceedings for an unpaid debt.

fergalr

Graham wrote: »

It would be a very unusual arrangement were the OP to be an employee of either the agency or the company he is on assignment to.

I was really talking about non-compete as an example of when its hard to tell whether terms are enforceable or not, purely on the basis that they are widely in contracts.

I accept that its usual for contractors to be employees of their own special purpose company...

Jim2007

drumswan wrote: »

Has anyone been successfully sued for violating such a clause? That would be a good indicator of their enforceability.

The client does not want hassle, so when the agency informs him that the contractor he was trying to keep on, without paying the agency is about to be sued and he will be named as a co-defendant... It is usually enough to make him decide he does not need that particular contractor after all.

I've seen it all before - contractor makes deal with client company to cut out the agent so they both benefit, but at the first sign of trouble client bales and contractor gets done over twice - no lucrative contracted and agency black lists them and if the agency is a major player....

jimmycrackcorm

We had a contractor with the same issue. He finished up with the Agency and set up his own company. We deal with him via his company.

TBH the clause is unenforceable in a similar manner to those that prevent an employee from working for a competitor after leaving. However, obviously the company cannot directly employee the contractor.

micosoft

fergalr wrote: »

One example is non-compete law - what is and isn't enforceable is quite complex, and just because a company's standard contract has a non-compete, and no one has challenged it before, doesn't mean it would necessarily hold up in court. It can be a long time before someone challenges something.

Sure. Many company decisions on contract enforcement are based on cost and likelyhood of winning. Going to court is a major drain on resources - both financial and worse, management time. It depends how existential the threat is - in some cases even though they have an enforceable contract they let it go as it's not worth the return. That said, the OP's "issue" is par for the course in this sector, it happens all the time. Therefore I suspect they have a fairly well thought out low cost low investment process to deal with contract enforcement.

moycullen14

micosoft wrote: »

Sure. Many company decisions on contract enforcement are based on cost and likelyhood of winning. Going to court is a major drain on resources - both financial and worse, management time. It depends how existential the threat is - in some cases even though they have an enforceable contract they let it go as it's not worth the return. That said, the OP's "issue" is par for the course in this sector, it happens all the time. Therefore I suspect they have a fairly well thought out low cost low investment process to deal with contract enforcement.

I'd agree. In my experience, agents are just far more aggressive about getting their money than either the client or the contractor. They will fight like weasels to get the contractor in there and keep him there because that's how they get paid. Management generally can't be bothered with the fight and the contractor can always go off somewhere else.

The idea of a contractors black list is laughable. Most agents in my experience would submit a serial killer if they thought the client would hire them. It would have the added advantage of more vacancies when the contractor wiped out half the development team. :-)

kryptonmight

Isn't there some Irish or eu employment law that those conditions breach? I used to be on a similar contract with another agency and was told the 6-12 month embargo is not enforceable as it breaks employment law as its restricting where you can work. Although i was never told this by a solicitor or anything so i don't know how accurate that is.

one guy i know insisted that clause be removed from his contract before signing it as he found the job with the company himself and all contractors had to use this one agency. They actually removed it too apparently.

Some agencies can be very aggressive. I had one guy recently try to convince me that turning down an interview for a 6 month contract was a mistake, even though I'd been offered and accepted a much longer contract elsewhere. They will do and say anything to get their cut for placing you somewhere.

Graham

kryptonmight wrote: »

Isn't there some Irish or eu employment law that those conditions breach?

Employment law generally doesn't come into it. The OP is likely working for his own Limited company, a situation that nobody has suggested is being prevented.

moycullen14

kryptonmight wrote: »

Isn't there some Irish or eu employment law that those conditions breach? I used to be on a similar contract with another agency and was told the 6-12 month embargo is not enforceable as it breaks employment law as its restricting where you can work. Although i was never told this by a solicitor or anything so i don't know how accurate that is.

one guy i know insisted that clause be removed from his contract before signing it as he found the job with the company himself and all contractors had to use this one agency. They actually removed it too apparently.

Some agencies can be very aggressive. I had one guy recently try to convince me that turning down an interview for a 6 month contract was a mistake, even though I'd been offered and accepted a much longer contract elsewhere. They will do and say anything to get their cut for placing you somewhere.

I'm pretty sure that the law has nothing to do with it. I've never heard of one of these cases going to solicitor's letters, never mind court. Sad fact is that the agency will fight and neither the client or the contractor will.

I would suspect that if the client was willing to face down the agent, that agent would probably buckle.

Graham

moycullen14 wrote: »

I would suspect that if the client was willing to face down the agent, that agent would probably buckle.

I've seen the opposite on more than one occassion.