Re: Binding arb clause in new contract--unfair?!

[Roger Mallett <roger -at- CSICAL -dot- COM>]

>>>Any advice? I don't know how severely they want to make their binding
>>>arb clause. I'd settle for something like the language in the original
>>>contract, which also invoked binding arb but was far less draconian. I'm
>>>pretty much ready to tell them to take a walk if they don't agree, given
>>>the good job market for contractors these days. The client is very happy
      >>with my work and doesn't like the agency either.

Very simple answer to this:  strike it from the contract (as well as
anything else you don't like or want modified).  If they state that such
a clause is no big deal and not to worry about it, point back at them
and say if it isn't such a big deal then strike it.  If they don't want
to work with you, then let the manager for whom you work know what is
happening and ask if he would step in the gap for you.

Do not fear rewriting the contract to work best for you.  I they don't
like it, they risk loosing you and a good client.  The possibility of
such a loss is quite uncomfortable for the agency.

I have struck done such several times, with success each time.


---------------------
Roger Mallett
Control Systems
(714) 458-5040 x 239

>----------
>From:  Randy[SMTP:ghost -at- NETAXIS -dot- COM]
>Sent:  Tuesday, March 24, 1998 6:06 AM
>To:    TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject:       Binding arb clause in new contract--unfair?!
>
>
>Hi, all--
>
>I'm working through an agency as a W-2, writing online help for a large
>company dealing in financial information services. I've had the
>position
>for over a year, with steady renewals of 3-month contracts (the short
>contract length is what the client prefers for all its contractors).
>
>For each renewal, my agency had me sign a separate "Schedule A" as an
>attachment to the original contract I signed with them. Now, however,
>the agency has been bought by another outfit and they've revised their
>contract. Two points:
>
>A) The ostensible reason for me to sign the new contract is that the
>original contract was only good for a year. However, looking through
>the
>original, I don't find any such limitation; rather, it is to be
>considered extendable every six months unless otherwise terminated.
>There's the usual language about the agency having the right to
>terminate at any time for any reason.
>
>B) My real objection is that the new contract has what I consider to be
>an extremely severe binding arb clause; it asks me to waive *all*
>rights
>to go to *any* court, whether state or federal, for *any* reasons,
>including violations of any local, state, or federal laws. The mediator
>would be J.A.M.S./Enddispute of New York, NY.
>
>This agency has not been particularly pleasant to deal with, both for
>myself and at least one other tech writer I know--I've twice had to
>harrass them into paying me retroactive amounts due me by contract when
>my rate went up (duties increased on the job). They're a sloppy
>operation, somewhat greedy, and don't pay their bills to the client on
>time either. So they are the last people on earth I want to sign all my
>rights over to in the event of another, more serious dispute.
>
>Any advice? I don't know how severely they want to make their binding
>arb clause. I'd settle for something like the language in the original
>contract, which also invoked binding arb but was far less draconian.
>I'm
>pretty much ready to tell them to take a walk if they don't agree,
>given
>the good job market for contractors these days. The client is very
>happy
>with my work and doesn't like the agency either.
>
>An e-mail reply as well as a post would be appreciated if anyone has a
>perspective/opinion/tip on how to handle this.
>
>--Randy Burgess
>
>~~~
>
>
>