[Pat Chrysalis]

The End of the Story

Just to let you all know… I was offered the contract. One year, part-time, at a very nice hourly rate. But the contract did contain a draconian non-compete clause.

Wiping away a tear of regret, I told them to remove the non-compete clause or no deal. Through several conversations with several people going up the ladder, I was polite, professional, sympathetic to their concerns, but absolutely implacable. In the end, they removed the offending paragraphs.

We both signed the contract and we’re in business. Hooray! Score 1 for the creative freelancers of the world!

[Pat Chrysalis]

I am a freelance instructional designer and just discovered Creative Cow. This is a great resouce! Thanks to all of you who participate and share your knowledge and experience.

I just posted on another thread an ethical dilemma regarding a non-compete clause with a recruiter ( https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/17/873388 ). Having read this thread, I now think that I will not sign the non-compete clause, but I will offer the recruiter 10% for any additional contracts stemming from is efforts. I think that’s fair to the recruiter and to the clients. And, as you say, it may motivate the recruiter to find more contracts for me than if I just told him flat-out “No” to the non-compete clause.

Thank you all!

[Pat Chrysalis]

First, I want to thank you all for taking the time to discuss such an important topic. For the first time in 10 years I am currently faced with a decision about non-compete, and your insights are invaluable. Thank you.

I am a freelance instructional designer. I got a call from a recruiter a few weeks ago asking if I was available for a subcontract from a media company. After several interviews, checking references, etc., the media company wants to hire me for a 6-month period. The odd thing is, however, that I will technically work as a contractor for the recruiter– the recruiter will bill the media company directly and give me my share (about 2/3 of the billing rate). Sounds to me like the client is paying a lot of money to the recruiter, but that’s not my business.

Then today, at the 11th hour, the recuriter mentions that he’s about to send me the contract and, by the way, it contains a non-compete clause where I can’t work for this client directly for 1 year. If the client wants to hire me for another job, they have to go through the recuriter again and pay the recruiter’s percentage.

This sounds to me like some of the situations discussed in this thread– the recruiter does not have my skill-set in house, is doing nothing hands-on to complete the project, and wants to continue milking this particular cow for as long as possible. Ethically, I don’t mind them getting a percentage for the current contract (assuming I sign it). They had the approppriate recruiting/search skills and did the work to find me and set me up with the client. Fair enough. But if the quality of my work results in the media company wanting to hire me again, why should the recruiter continue to get a cut of the action? I’m sure the recruiter would claim that “placing” people is their business and by “placing myself” with the media company I would be hurting their business.

I would apppreciate your thoughts on the ethics of this business model.