Greetings Brethren,

I'm pretty new to this consulting game (about a year and a half) and while I try to avoid working through headhunters, sometimes I find that they're a Necessary Evil (although usually I find them to be just Plain Evil. :)

One clause I find in almost all agency contracts is an "exclusivity clause" that says 1) I agree to not to work for the company outside of the agency for some period of time (usually between six months and a year) after the end of the contract without their prior authorization and 2) if I do, I agree that they can sue me.

While I don't think that asking for exclusivity is wrong, per se, I do object it being put it into my contract. I feel that if the agency wants this sort of arraignment, then it should be between them and the company. After all, the agency has lawyers, the company has lawyers and if there is even the slightest possibility of any litigation, I want to keep it between them. I don't have any lawyers.

(As an aside, I do think that the "X months after the end of the contract" is too long. I think pegging any time constraint to the start of the contract would be fairer to both the contractor and the company. After all, if I work through an agency for six months, that should be more than sufficient compensation for whatever work the agency has put in.)

Normally this isn't a problem for me. Normally the agency will fax over the contract, I'll read it over and strike out or amend whatever I don't like, sign it and fax it back. Then there's usually a short phone call where I have to explain my thinking. Normally it's smooth sailing from there. I work, the agency gets paid and everyone is happy.

A couple of months ago, though, I had an agency contract fall through because we couldn't come to terms over the exclusivity clause (I also found out that this agency had trouble agreeing to a contract with the company, so maybe that particular agency is just incredibly inflexible.) I didn't mind terribly. I figure it's better for me to be a little patient and only sign a contract that I'm comfortable with, rather than sign something I might later regret.

How do my fellow monks deal with this? Does you find exclusivity clauses in your contracts objectionable or am I just being overly idealistic and/or paranoid?

-eg

In reply to Headhunters and exclusivity clauses by eg

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.