Consultant laws - limits on employment?

[cyberjamin]

What is the name of your state? CA

I am being told by my "temp agency" employer that "consutlants" can work a maximum of 18 mos at a client site by law. Is this true? I called the Federal Dept of Labor and the CA Dept of Industrial Relations and both had never heard of such a thing, yet this Nationwide Temp Agency has my employer convinced of this and I am being forced to leave my job. The client does not want me to leave as we are in the middle of a project and it would be detrimental to the project as I am the subject matter expert and the project lead. I am a high paid consultant who whould have never been brought in by this temp agency to begin with , but I was lied to upon hire saying I couldn't go corp-to-corp and I had to go thru them. I have since found out that this is not the case, but now they will not let me switch vendors...again touting it is illegal to do so.

Thanks,
Lei

BTW - this is the same Temp Agency that refuse to let me participate in their 401k program saying I make too much money. (see posting under Retirement)

 

[Beth3]

I am being told by my "temp agency" employer that "consutlants" can work a maximum of 18 mos at a client site by law. Is this true? It would be lawful for your employer to have a policy like this but no laws require it.

I called the Federal Dept of Labor and the CA Dept of Industrial Relations and both had never heard of such a thing, yet this Nationwide Temp Agency has my employer convinced of this and I am being forced to leave my job. I expect your employer has instituted this policy because of a widely publicized lawsuit within the last couple of years between Microsoft and the DOL. Many employers don't understand the ruling and have implemented policies that they believe limit largely imagined legal exposure.

While the staffing agency's policy may be completely misguided, it is not unlawful. If they want to pull you from the client after 18 months they can, no matter how much it upsets the client and how irate it makes you. Unless an agreement exists between you and the temp agency or the client and the temp agency to the contrary, the client can hire you directly if they wish to. (Although it wouldn't be surprising if the client and the temp agency have a "no hire" agreement regarding the consultants they place at their clients' sites.)

 

[cyberjamin]

I am being told by my "temp agency" employer that "consutlants" can work a maximum of 18 mos at a client site by law. Is this true? It would be lawful for your employer to have a policy like this but no laws require it.

I called the Federal Dept of Labor and the CA Dept of Industrial Relations and both had never heard of such a thing, yet this Nationwide Temp Agency has my employer convinced of this and I am being forced to leave my job. I expect your employer has instituted this policy because of a widely publicized lawsuit within the last couple of years between Microsoft and the DOL. Many employers don't understand the ruling and have implemented policies that they believe limit largely imagined legal exposure.

While the staffing agency's policy may be completely misguided, it is not unlawful. If they want to pull you from the client after 18 months they can, no matter how much it upsets the client and how irate it makes you. Unless an agreement exists between you and the temp agency or the client and the temp agency to the contrary, the client can hire you directly if they wish to. (Although it wouldn't be surprising if the client and the temp agency have a "no hire" agreement regarding the consultants they place at their clients' sites.)

I thought CA had a "right to work" law. If so, does this impede my right to work? Also, it is the clients policy, but at the temp agencies advice that it is illegal...and they use the term "illegal". I feel that this client is wrongly advised and it is impeding my right to work.

 

[cbg]

First of all, California is not a right-to-work state.

Secondly, even if it were, right-to-work does not mean what everybody evidently thinks it means. Right-to-work means that you cannot be forced to join a labor union in order to get work. It does NOT mean that you cannot be fired except for cause.

Rather, California is an employment-at-will state, which means that you can quit at any time and for any reason, and your employer can fire you at any time and for any reason not specifically prohibited by law.

BTW, every state in the US except Montana is an employment at will state, and even Montana recognizes that doctrine in some situations.

 

[Beth3]

I thought CA had a "right to work" law. If so, does this impede my right to work? What cbg said.

Also, it is the clients policy, but at the temp agencies advice that it is illegal...and they use the term "illegal". I feel that this client is wrongly advised and it is impeding my right to work. You have no "right to work" in the sense that you mean, as you are misconstruing that law.

To give you a trite but pertinent example, if I decide some law prohibits employees from eating oranges at work on Tuesdays, I can enforce such a rule in my workplace no matter how flawed my understanding of the law is. While I do completely understand your frustration, if your employer wishes to limit job assignments with clients to 18 months because they think that's what the law requires, they may. It may be incredibly stupid but it's still legal.

Why not talk to the client about hiring you directly or if that's not possible because of a "no hire" agreement between them and your employer, talk to the client about retaining your services through another staffing agency. They probably use more than one. There may well be a way around the current situation that would allow you to continue working for the client. The two of you need to do some brainstorming within the confines of whatever agreements you and the client company has signed with your employer.

 

[cyberjamin]

I thought CA had a "right to work" law. If so, does this impede my right to work? What cbg said.

Also, it is the clients policy, but at the temp agencies advice that it is illegal...and they use the term "illegal". I feel that this client is wrongly advised and it is impeding my right to work. You have no "right to work" in the sense that you mean, as you are misconstruing that law.

To give you a trite but pertinent example, if I decide some law prohibits employees from eating oranges at work on Tuesdays, I can enforce such a rule in my workplace no matter how flawed my understanding of the law is. While I do completely understand your frustration, if your employer wishes to limit job assignments with clients to 18 months because they think that's what the law requires, they may. It may be incredibly stupid but it's still legal.

Why not talk to the client about hiring you directly or if that's not possible because of a "no hire" agreement between them and your employer, talk to the client about retaining your services through another staffing agency. They probably use more than one. There may well be a way around the current situation that would allow you to continue working for the client. The two of you need to do some brainstorming within the confines of whatever agreements you and the client company has signed with your employer.

Thanks for the clarification Beth. The client does want ot hire me, but there is a pending acquisition and all hiring is frozen. Meanwhile, they have tried to switch vendors, especially since the company policy doesn't seem to apply to them, however the temp agency is trying to get those vendors thrown out saying they are once again..."illegally having consultants work passed the legal maximum". Basically, I have to leave while others get to stay 3+ yrs because they came in through other sources. Unfortunately, my boss didn't know about all of this, otherwise he would have brought me in thru one of them.

I appreciate your understanding of my frustration. It's like beating your head against the wall here.

BTW - re: the previous repsonse to my posting...I was unaware the CA was not a right to work state. When I was a headhunter a few yrs back (like 10), I was told it was. My bad. I guess I should stop saying it is.

 

[cbg]

I guess you should since, meaning no disrespect, you evidently don't even know what it means, let alone which states are and aren't.

Don't feel badly. You are by no means the first person who has mistaken what it meant by that phrase. Obviously whoever told you CA was a right-to-work state was another.

Here's a link that might help with the concept of right-to-work.

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

 

[Beth3]

The client does want ot hire me, but there is a pending acquisition and all hiring is frozen. Meanwhile, they have tried to switch vendors, especially since the company policy doesn't seem to apply to them, however the temp agency is trying to get those vendors thrown out saying they are once again..."illegally having consultants work passed the legal maximum". Basically, I have to leave while others get to stay 3+ yrs because they came in through other sources. Unfortunately, my boss didn't know about all of this, otherwise he would have brought me in thru one of them.

I'm sorry to say you are caught in the middle between a legally ignorant staffing agency and bad timing.