To think you honour your first commitment

[LampGenie]

Let’s say someone was offered a big piece of client facing work in the diary for six months away that they accepted. Very exciting, new area, brings new skills to the person and a new target client base.

Many months after the first piece of work they then get offered a second piece of work for the time period just before the first. Fits their current skill set very well, usual clients, exciting because they have been requested for the job but something they have def done before.

The people running the first piece then request that the person needs to isolate for 14 days before they start because of the nature of the work. Person refuses, ditches the first contract with less than a month to go and just goes with the second.

Aibu or really should they have stuck to their original agreement?

The first commitment changed significantly. When they accepted it 6 months ago, they did not agree to isolate first for two weeks, and that requirement has only recently been added in.

In those circumstances it’s fine for them to turn down the first commitment and go with the second offer instead.

Hard to say really as presumably, without the request to isolate they could have done both?

Frustrating for the people offering the first commitment, certainly.

But the self employed person shouldn’t be expected to have 2 weeks without work or pay because the first company is insisting on self-isolation.

Offer to pay them for that period or drop the request to self isolate.

The request to isolate changes the commitment completely.

The first contract is essentially dictating that they can't work for 14 days - I'm making two assumptions - that they're not paying for the 2-week period they're not able to work, and that the freelancer hasn't been abroad and would otherwise be able to go about their life normally without the quarantine.

In the freelancer's shoes I'd take the second contract too, and then find additional work to fill the gap of the first one when it finished.

I think unless the company are willing to pay for the 14 day they can't have command over what the person does in that time.

If she cannot isolate for 14 days (which is a strict but not unprecedented condition) then she cannot fulfil the first booking.

Or did they offer to pay her for 14 days work?

If the second booking is from people who are more likely to give repeat bookings (and less likely to throw in a n eleventh hour requirement to isolate) then it also makes business sense to stick with it.

(And a stray thought - the two weeks isolation was the second thing to arrive in the diary for those weeks. She is honouring the first commitment for that time, and taking on the chin the consequent losses from that)

It’s completely unreasonable to add in the requirement to isolate. If the client is that risk-averse I would assume the free-lancer would haVe to continue to be isolated (bubbled with the client) during the duration of the project too.

I agree with @RemyHadley - the first commitment moved the goalposts a long way. In those circumstances, I think it’s fine to renege (when normally it wouldn’t be).

I agree with others on this post. Are the people from the first commitment agreeing to pay, on full, for everyone to isolate fro two weeks? That's a big ask and could wipe out a couple of months of actual profit, depending on the type of work.

I agree that the late addition of isolation period changes the agreement significantly. If this had been laid out and agreed from the start, then I would agree with you.

Terms of the first agreement was changed significantly IMO so reasonable to withdraw. Would they have been paying this person for the two weeks isolation out of curiosity?

The original agreement changed because of the isolation request, so unless an offer was made to pay for the isolation time, then it’s fine for them to do something else instead.

If they expect someone to isolate for 2 weeks they need to be paid for those 2 weeks.

Millions of people are working in customer facing roles without any self-isolation. It's not a reasonable expectation.

The first agreement are massively unreasonable to change the terms and I'm presuming they didn't offer to pay for those 2 weeks of isolation. The second agreement is with a company that have provided work beforehand and are therefore likely to provide work again. Plus they have not made unilateral changes at the last minute.

I would have also cancelled the first agreement. In the long run pissing off contacts that have offered repeated business is less economically sensible.

Usually yes, but in this case because the first commitment changed so much they were entitled to refuse to agree to the new terms.

Nope, not when they change the terms like that!

Just for clarity the second role isn’t a repeat client, a new client offering the same type of job as before.

Fair enough! I guess the terms were changed but in my mind the first role was so unusual I might have stuck with it. It’s not a choice I am making luckily.

The company should pay for the two weeks isolation if they insist on it.

Fair enough! I guess the terms were changed but in my mind the first role was so unusual I might have stuck with it. It’s not a choice I am making luckily.

Surely that's only easy for you to say though as you wouldn't be the one losing out on 2 weeks pay and letting down the second client.

I assume from your update their was no offer to pay. I honestly can't believe client 1 even had the audacity to ask for someone to basically lose 2 weeks pay for their own convince without financially reimbursing them.

First client can't expect someone to go 2 weeks without pay because they should be glad of the opportunity. I would refuse to work with someone on that request alone.

I would not allow any prospective customer to dictate that I shouldn't work or earn money for 2 weeks before joining them.

Tough luck for that employer thinking they could get away with dictating unreasonable terms. They should have offered to pay for that additional two week period.

This appears to be a contract, but you seem to have expectations based on employment.
As an ex-contractor I was always aware that I walked a balance between my overall reputation in the market and what was best for me and my company.
As a contractor you can be canned at any time for a fair or unfair, good or bad reason. This means the company contracting for your services needs to understand that it's not the same as employment.

Unfortunately far too many organisations want an employee but don't want to bother with pesky things like employers NI and employment rights. You can't have it both ways.

I thought this was going to be about a dinner party or something!

If this is in the context of a business, you do whatever makes sense from a commercial perspective. The only considerations are weighing up the economics against the experience against the reputational risk of breaking an agreement.

I think everything else is a red herring, really.

Like a PP said the first committment massively changed so I don't think they have a responsibility to honour it under the new terms.