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

Subject: Re: Binding arb clause in new contract--unfair?!
From: Marilynne Smith <marilyns -at- QUALCOMM -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 15:07:05 -0800

I've done as Roger said, struck out clauses and added new ones. The Agency
was a bit surprised, but not against it. In one case, the contract was so
awfully written that I edited the whole thing. When it was rewritten, I
signed it, and only then. So, you can say it's done in the industry.

However, I am concerned about the fact that this company has some
characteristics that you are not comfortable with. My advice is not to
sign.

Marilynne


At 9:39 AM -0800 3/24/98, Roger Mallett wrote:
>>>>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
>>
>>~~~
>>
>>
>>
>


~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~
Marilynne Smith Sr. Technical Writer
QUALCOMM marilyns -at- qualcomm -dot- com
"We'll have the whole world talking"




Previous by Author: Re: Should we skip HTML?
Next by Author: Graphics for both PC and Mac
Previous by Thread: Re: Binding arb clause in new contract--unfair?!
Next by Thread: Re: Binding arb clause in new contract--unfair?!


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads