RE: Consultants:Dim or Delete the Non-Compete?

[KMcLauchlan -at- chrysalis-its -dot- com]

If a time is mentioned in a non-compete clause 
with an agency, it should be a duration from 
the START of your work with the customer company, 
not the END of it. It shouldn't be a standard, 
boilerplate number unless they are getting you 
contracts and work terms that are similarly 
standard, boilerplate durations and conditions.

It only makes sense, as Andrew says, that you 
not make some side deal, a short time into your 
term with the employer, to squeeze the agency out 
of the picture. That would indeed be screwing them.

On the other hand, if the clause attempts to impose 
a "non-compete" stricture on you that extends from 
(or past) the end of the specific contract they have 
obtained for you, with the current customer -- in 
other words, if they want to control your life and 
employability beyond the scope of their own efforts -- 
then that would be them screwing you.

That is, something like: "The best we can get for 
you is a five-month contract, but we demand that 
you bindingly exclude yourself from any work for 
that employer for an additional period, beyond what 
we were able or willing to negotiate with them" is 
just a tad greedy and manipulative, don't we think?

So, if they negotiate a ten-month contract, you work 
the contract, you get paid and they get paid, and then 
the employer asks you to continue, that continuation 
should be on your terms, and free of any non-compete 
entanglements. At that point, you owe the agency nothing 
more, because it is patently obvious that it was your 
own efforts that got you the new offer.  You might care 
to keep the agency in the picture if you see yourself 
needing their services in the relatively near future.
You don't want to p**s in the local watering hole...

If the agency wants to lay claim to a chunk of your 
compensation beyond the ten months, then they should 
have been better negotiators in the first place, 
shouldn't they?

OK, so that's a little harsh. You wouldn't have gotten 
the initial foot in the door without them... and maybe 
the employer wasn't sure that the market would need 
further work of your sort, back when negotiations were 
going on.

Maybe what's needed, in anticipation of such an eventuality, 
is some sort of protocol that treats all parties fairly 
enough that they won't mind working together in future. 
Not a total sacrifice on the part of one party or another, 
but perhaps also not everthing that they could possibly 
squeeze out of a turnip.... whoops, mangled a metaphor there...

So, in the end, you should have such possibilities in 
mind when you first devise a contract with the agency.
The point is to cover the likely scenarios ahead of 
time, and to not just accept language that leaves 
either side feeling screwed.  Your ability to do so, 
though, might hinge on your established track record 
and the leverage it brings -- or doesn't.  :-)

That said, it's good to have these kinds of things 
brought to light in a forum like this, so that other 
contractors -- especially those just getting into 
contracting -- can know some of the pitfalls and 
practical considerations outside just the narrow 
scope of getting words and pictures on paper/phosphor.

/kevin


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check it out! Get some cool freebies when you buy RoboHelp! You'll receive
SnagIt screen capture software and a 10% discount voucher for RoboHelp
Consulting. This special offers expires March 29, 2002.
www.ehelp.com/techwr
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.