Anyone ever accepted a job and then changed their mind?

[electricrelish]

Today I was offered a contractor position that starts on June 1st. The opportunity is a good one where I can really learn and grow as a professional. They sent me letter to sign and FAX back to them. The letter says that if I don't start the contract that I will have to pay eighty times the hourly rate. See below. Has anyone ever seen or had to sign anything like this? I've never seen this. I was planning to accept, but this stipulation sounds absurd. Something could happen between now and June 1st that would prevent me from starting.

 

 

I hereby commit to start ________(start date) my contract through CompanyName for ____________ (client) at the rate of ________(hourly/daily). I also agree to be bound by the liquidated damages of ten times my daily (or eighty times hourly) rate if I fail to start the contract on the date specified.

Edited May 13, 2010 by electricrelish

[twiley]

I've had 2 people call me after they've accepted positions to let me know they're taking another job. It screwed up not only the entire hiring process but internal procedures on new hires and current deadlines. I basically had to start over each time. Personally, I see where that company is coming from and will probably due something similar going forward.

 

You're either going to work for them or not work for them so they don't want you wasting their time because what it boils down to is that their time is currently worth more than yours. No offense intended.

Edited May 13, 2010 by twiley

[electricrelish]

I've had 2 people call me after they've accepted positions to let me know they're taking another job. It screwed up not only the entire hiring process but internal procedures on new hires and current deadlines. I basically had to start over each time. Personally, I see where that company is coming from and will probably due something similar going forward.

 

You're either going to work for them or not work for them so they don't want you wasting their time because what it boils down to is that their time is currently worth more than yours. No offense intended.

 

OK, so if I have a family emergency, and I have to take care of a relative, then I should have to pay them some outrageous fee? That's absurd.

[The Irish Doggy]

OK, so if I have a family emergency, and I have to take care of a relative, then I should have to pay them some outrageous fee? That's absurd.

 

 

I suspect the contract's intent is to keep people from jumping to a different job - not prevent them from attending to unpredictable life events. I would seek some clarification on that point. If you have every intention of working for that company, it shouldn't be a problem if you have a health emergency in the family. And if it is, I think that tells you something about the culture of the company that might make you reconsider the position..

[wildcat2334]

ridiculous - and I have never heard of such a thing for a contract opportunity. I am in staffing, and while I deal ONLY with at-will employment states, under a contract position you can quit and they can fire you ANYTIME. It is a freaking contract opp right? 6, 9, 12 months? I deal with contract positions all the time, and as much as we always want our contractors to commit and complete the contract, we understand they can and do bolt for other opportunities - without penalty- ever. As brutal as it is, peeps SIGN offer letters and never end up starting- diff offer, cold feet, counter from old employer, whatever, it happens and you are under no legal obligation I know of to pay a penalty of any kind

 

A non-compete could come into play, but at least in our industry that only to prevent a contractor from working with the same client but thru a different agency.

 

the way companies have treated employees lately, especially contractors the idea of an 80x/hr penalty?? right............

 

complete bullchit

[electricrelish]

ridiculous - and I have never heard of such a thing for a contract opportunity. I am in staffing, and while I deal ONLY with at-will employment states, under a contract position you can quit and they can fire you ANYTIME. It is a freaking contract opp right? 6, 9, 12 months? I deal with contract positions all the time, and as much as we always want our contractors to commit and complete the contract, we understand they can and do bolt for other opportunities - without penalty- ever. As brutal as it is, peeps SIGN offer letters and never end up starting- diff offer, cold feet, counter from old employer, whatever, it happens and you are under no legal obligation I know of to pay a penalty of any kind

 

A non-compete could come into play, but at least in our industry that only to prevent a contractor from working with the same client but thru a different agency.

 

the way companies have treated employees lately, especially contractors the idea of an 80x/hr penalty?? right............

 

complete bullchit

 

Yeah, it's a scare tactic. I doubt this kind of thing would hold up in court. I plan to accept the position because I like the opportunity. I'm not crazy about contracting and paying all for my healthcare, but I do like this opportunity. This scare tactic is a real turn-off.

[electricrelish]

I've had 2 people call me after they've accepted positions to let me know they're taking another job. It screwed up not only the entire hiring process but internal procedures on new hires and current deadlines. I basically had to start over each time. Personally, I see where that company is coming from and will probably due something similar going forward.

 

You're either going to work for them or not work for them so they don't want you wasting their time because what it boils down to is that their time is currently worth more than yours. No offense intended.

 

It's gotta work both ways. Before this, I had accepted another position. I got an offer letter. I signed everything and waited for the start date. They called me and rescinded the offer. Circumstances had changed on their side. No penalty for this company. This left me unemployed for the last 2 months. I had to quickly scramble and look for other positions.

 

I sympathize with the problems of a company, but it works both ways. This company changing their mind cost me a lot of money as well.

Edited May 13, 2010 by electricrelish

[polksalet]

I don't sign non-compete agreements. I would most certainly not sign something like that.

[cre8tiff]

It calls into question the quality of the company. I think this is a major red flag. I have signed with a few contracting agencies and never run into this before.

 

Call them and discuss, but don't sign.

Edited May 13, 2010 by cre8tiff

[westvirginia]

I've had 2 people call me after they've accepted positions to let me know they're taking another job. It screwed up not only the entire hiring process but internal procedures on new hires and current deadlines. I basically had to start over each time. Personally, I see where that company is coming from and will probably due something similar going forward.

 

You're either going to work for them or not work for them so they don't want you wasting their time because what it boils down to is that their time is currently worth more than yours. No offense intended.

 

Think about that twiley - it should really go both ways if you're going to do it. Stuff happens.

 

If I were you 'lectric, I wouldn't sign that part. In fact, I'd cross it out. Unless they're willing to guarantee a length of employment, then maybe it's fair.

[twiley]

Think about that twiley - it should really go both ways if you're going to do it. Stuff happens.

 

If I were you 'lectric, I wouldn't sign that part. In fact, I'd cross it out. Unless they're willing to guarantee a length of employment, then maybe it's fair.

True, I see where you're coming from - definitely needs to be a middle ground where both parties can cover their ass.

[Caveman_Nick]

Think about that twiley - it should really go both ways if you're going to do it. Stuff happens.

 

If I were you 'lectric, I wouldn't sign that part. In fact, I'd cross it out. Unless they're willing to guarantee a length of employment, then maybe it's fair.

 

In a sense it does go both ways.....Companies just get it on the other end if they fire you and get penalized in unemployment insurance.

 

But...I would never endorse a policy like that or sign such a thing.

[Duchess Jack]

sound reasonable. if its a good job, its a good job - and we're only talking about 2 weeks salary and only if there is a crazy circumstance that prevents you from doing what you agreed to.

 

heck - if you feel that strongly and something happens - go to work the first day - and than step away. you will therefor have started your contract. you just won't be completing it.

[wiegie]

Believe it or not, this is a really cool example that I will use in my comparative economic systems course when I talk about transactions costs and the theory of the firm (ala Coase who won the Nobel Prize in 1992 for his research on the topic of why firms even exist in a market-based economy (rather than just all employees being independent contractors)).

 

I don't think I'd sign it as it stands though--they are putting 100% of the risk on you when too many things are outside of your control.

 

I'm no lawyer, but perhaps you could add in a clause like " I also agree to be bound by the liquidated damages of ten times my daily (or eighty times hourly) rate if I fail to start the contract on the date specified (excluding situations for which a reasonable and prudent person would consider an inability to start the contract excusable)."

 

This way you are signalling to the firm that you are serious about wanting to work, but you aren't going to be held liable in case you end up in the hospital because somebody crashes into you on your way to start the contract.

[The Holy Roller]

Once in Thailand I was offered a job but I couldn't go through with it when she took her teeth out and put them on the table...

[bpwallace49]

Believe it or not, this is a really cool example that I will use in my comparative economic systems course when I talk about transactions costs and the theory of the firm (ala Coase who won the Nobel Prize in 1992 for his research on the topic of why firms even exist in a market-based economy (rather than just all employees being independent contractors)).

 

I don't think I'd sign it as it stands though--they are putting 100% of the risk on you when too many things are outside of your control.

 

I'm no lawyer, but perhaps you could add in a clause like " I also agree to be bound by the liquidated damages of ten times my daily (or eighty times hourly) rate if I fail to start the contract on the date specified (excluding situations for which a reasonable and prudent person would consider an inability to start the contract excusable)."

 

This way you are signalling to the firm that you are serious about wanting to work, but you aren't going to be held liable in case you end up in the hospital because somebody crashes into you on your way to start the contract.

 

I would also include penalities for the firm if they decide to revoke the offer as well as a hefty severance pay package. You can make that risk go both ways . .

[frankf]

I accepted a job once, showed up and walked out 3 hours later, you talk about a sweatshop!

[JoJoTheWebToedBoy]

Once in Thailand I was offered a job but I couldn't go through with it when she took her teeth out and put them on the table...

 

Once you have had a gumjob, you can never go back.......

[i_am_the_swammi]

Once you have had a gumjob, you can never go back.......

 

[gilthorp]

Don't sign that piece of paper.

 

Freakin ridiculous and someone's grand idea of "this will stop our fall off ratio".

 

If they want you to start on June 1, they should offer you a job 2 weeks before June 1, or less than that if you don't need to put in two week's notice.

 

People back out, it happens all the time, but it doesn't happen when there is a fundamental trust built during the recruiting process.

 

That piece of paper and those terms are as lame as it gets.

[ljbrun]

Personally I wouldn't bother, but since it concerns you. Did you consider calling the employer and telling them that, while you like the opportunity and will sign the contract, you find that contract stipulation usual and was hoping they could comment on why it's there?

 

My guess this is reflective of the policy maker's attitude (somehow distrustful or adversarial, which I doubt they'd admit to) toward employees in general or maybe contractors specifically. Who knows? It may be language that was put in place by somebody who's not even there anymore and they haven't had a reason to change it. It may not be a place you'd want to work for a long of time, but it's better to have an income than not. In the meantime, if a better opportunity comes up you just let them know that your availability is sometime after June 1st.

 

It's funny how businesses can be so different. I've been working as a contractor at a place since Feb 1st. The agreement was based on a handshake, though every once in a while the president says he needs to put something on paper. Haven't had any problems and they pay my invoices within 24 hours

 

BTW -

In a sense it does go both ways.....Companies just get it on the other end if they fire you and get penalized in unemployment insurance.

1099 people aren't employees and have no impact on a company's unemployment insurance. So, unless I misunderstood something, this shouldn't be a factor in this case.

[The Holy Roller]

Once you have had a gumjob, you can never go back.......

 

I am going to be so mad if this isn't the greatest...