On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 14:10, James Kaufman wrote: <snip> > My contract reads that I will be paid a specific hourly rate for "hours > billable and paid for by <client>." Since Karlsson won't be getting > paid, they *might* not pay me (they are "thinking" about it). From > now on I will not sign a contract for which my pay is determined by the > contract house getting paid. I did the work. I should get the money. > > What do you think? Is that clause normal for contractors? Is that one > of the acceptable risks? IMNAC [1], but that clause opens up a world of abuse. First, your pay will be delayed three times, once for the time it takes the firm to bill the client, then the 30 days it takes the client to pay, and then until the consulting house pays you. Second, as you've found out, it passes liability for a non-paying client on to you. This is unfair in your situation, because if the issue was between the consulting firm and the client, there's no way you can correct that. Here's a relevant quote from "The Computer Consultant's Guide, Second Edition" chapter on contract clauses and payment terms: "The contract is where you spell out exactly what you expect to be paid, and just as importantly, when you expect to receive your money. This second condition is far more important than most beginning consultants, accustomed to receiving regular paychecks, may imagine. The tendency of most businesses is to hold invoices unpaid as long as possible to enjoy the use of the money involved, and as an independent contractor you may find yourself with almost no leverage when your client's accounting department continues to assure you that your invoice is being processed, but no check appears in the mail." Negotiating a better payment term than the abovementioned clause may cost you a contract or two, but it beats working for free. -- Carl Patten [1] "I Am Not A Contractor" - but I researched it a couple years ago in case my job hunt failed.