Offered Two Contracts
What do you do when you have signed one IT contract, and then you are offered another contract? The agency will expect you to take the job and bring up such subjects as morals and honesty.
I would suggest that if there is a notice period in the contract, that you utilise it straight away.
The company may want you to come and work for a month, but I very much doubt it.
In many contracts there is a one week notice period for the first month.
Is it dishonest or immoral to utilise this when offered a better contract?
The Agency wants the right to be able to make hard-nosed business decisions, and the employing company wants the right to be able to make hard-nosed business decisions, but they expect the contractor to make one out of loyalty and ‘not letting them down’.
There is a double standard here.
Even in the situation where the contractor has signed the contract with the agency and the agency with the employer, if the project got canned, or word came from on high that project staff cuts were to be made, there would be no argument about ‘not letting the contractor down’.
The employer would cut him and try to get away with paying the legal minimum, and would try it on first of all to try to get away with not paying him a penny.
Is there anyone who doubts this?
Now, what would the agency do?
It has a signed contract with the contractor but no job. What do you think that the agency would do?
Would they first of all think of their business obligations to the contractor and ‘not letting HIM down’, or would they go for with the legal minimum, and try to get away with paying nothing?
I don’t think we would have to hold a poll on those questions, so why is it thought to be dishonourable and dishonest for a contractor to change his mind and take a higher paid job BEFORE he has even signed a contract, unlike the case with the other two.
Using Business Judgments when Offered New Contract
Even if he has signed a contract, and it is no longer in his best interests, and there is a notice clause in his contract, then he is quite entitled legally to use it when offered another contract.
As far as the morals of the situation are concerned, one can argue the case, but if he decides to sign the contract for a job that he no longer wants, he’ll find that he is the only one using morals as a criteria rather than just straight business judgment, and business interests.
Why is the contractor ‘not allowed’ to act in his best interests whilst the agency and the hiring company always will?
It’s because the contractor is seen as an individual rather than a small company, and people expect different moral standards from individuals than they do from a business.
Why that moral ‘pass out’ should be given to people acting on behalf of companies and not for people acting on behalf of themselves (even with limited companies), is a whole different subject for debate.
Suffice to say that IT contractors should remember that they work for their own company and that it is their duty to act in the best interests of that company, as agents do for their agencies and employers do for their companies, and they’ll know what to do.
When offered a second, better, contract the contractor should choose the best one offered.