Dan Waters
df.waters at comcast.net
Wed Dec 21 12:43:48 CST 2011
What I'm familiar with is an agreement where the client can't hire a temp until at least x days have passed (typically 90). If they hire a temp after that and before the contract expires, the agency then gets a prorated 'kickback' to cover their lost income. But I've never heard of a restriction After the original working time expires. This sounds onerous enough to wonder if it's legal. Or perhaps legal in one state but not in another. Sounds like a 'job-killer'. Seriously, call your congressman to get this fixed. Dan -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Mark Simms Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:36 PM To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: Re: [AccessD] I told you of this one before....."wrong direction" You're very sharp Susan....as you picked-out a very powerful weapon used by the agencies. It was a onerous 1 year agreement. The count-down BEGINS the day after no longer do any work for that client. Since the client used this agency for other personnel fill-ins as well, they did not want to chance a lawsuit over breaking this agreement. The agencies get away with this because the downside EFFECTS of such an agreement are never made known. It's the agency's "big secret". That's why this is such a great story of CAUSE and EFFECT. Here is a clear cut case of the clause causing harm to the client. You never hear or read about the stories related to this, do you ? I can see it now.... "Greedy Agency Harms Own Client Over Onerous Non-compete Agreement" > ========The non-compete was 100% binding? Most will have a clause that > restricts you for a certain number of weeks or even months, so how > long were you there? > > > Susan H. -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com