The Sub By The Nads

Glasshousebltr

Melissa's thread about hiring subs got me to thinking. In the past, I've had a few subs creep in between the customer and myself. Whether it was doing additional work or flat ars steeling the project for they're personal profit and cutting me out of my fair due.

Here's what I have in mind.

A contract, between myself and the sub, stating if the sub is to preform work on any project, directly or indirectly relating to the customer I produce, without my consent or authorization, then the sub will pay to me 30% of the cost of the work related determined by myself or fair market rate.

Make em pay for the cookies and see how many hands leave the jar.

Input?

Bob

__________________
Bob

realpurty2

I include this with our Sub Agreement form. It stipulates the same concept you mentioned just in legal terms.

Attached Files

SUBPOLICY.DOC (60.0 KB, 164 views)

__________________
Woman in a Man's World.

Double-A

Glass, try this on for size. I would run it by an attorney if you can before you get too deep into using it, but I think it makes it clear about subs overstepping the bounds of propriety. Thanks to whomever posted the employee agreement in the Forms Section of the forums.
Purty's is a lot Purty'r than mine.

__________________
"My clients’ wishes are the center of my attention." -- David Guido, a contractor in Woodstock, N.Y.
New York Times, July 20, 2006

Glasshousebltr

Looks good Purty. However, I was thinking along the lines of nailing the thieves. Some fellas will give up a remaining balance if they think they can steal a big project.

My thoughts were if they can't cut me out, why steal the responsibility. I want them forced to pay me my due if they sneak in.

This hasn't happened often, but when it has it's been a good sting, and I'm getting sick of the f###s.

I'm working on one now. When I get it done I'll post it up and ya can give me some input.

__________________
Bob

Glasshousebltr

75 miles!.....yea....that's called getting em by the nads!

Thanks Double, I'm work a little wrenching between yours and Purty's then I'll add some of that Glass magic.

Bob

__________________
Bob

R&S Exteriors

Quote:

Subcontractor will not directly or indirectly engage in any business competitive with Contractor business focus with regard to contract # ________________________. This covenant shall apply to all work performed at the work site(s) listed in said contract and is to include any and all work for, on behalf of, or at the behest of all property owners, partners and/or agents of same, including family members, friends and/or acquaintances of property owners, partners or agents, herein known as "customer". This includes work performed at any and all properties customer may own, manage, has control of, or responsibility for, within the areas of a 75 mile radius of Contractor's business address and said contract work site(s). Directly or indirectly engaging in any competitive business shall include, but is not limited to, (i) engaging in a business as owner, partner, or agent, (ii) becoming an employee of any third party that is engaged in such business, (iii) becoming interested directly or indirectly in any such business, or (iv) soliciting any customer of Contractor for the benefit of a third party that is engaged in such business.

I can see where subs should not try to get business from the direct customer

BUT

Any subcontractor who would sign an agreement like this is NUTS.

I really question the legality of it. Both of these sound allot like your trying to control the internal business of the subcontractor which means they then are technically your EMPLOYEE"S.

Quote:

As a subcontractor of our company, you have become part of our team. We look to you to help our jobs run smoothly

.
If you want employees then hire some. Quit trying to cheat the system by hiring "Subs" and make them sign an agreement that for all intent purpose makes them your employee.

Quote:

Including family members, friends and/or acquaintances of property owners, partners or agents

Quote:

If any neighbor or passerby ask you to do a job

Since when does anyone have a right to limit who all of the above people are allowed to hire for a job. Or the right to say who a sub can work for in the future?

Luckily I do not sub much, but if after subbing for a GC I could not work for the customer, the customers friends, family, acquaintances, neighbors or passerby's I would pretty much be out of business since everyone around here is either related or knows each other.

If a passerby is admiring MY vinyl siding installation they are admiring my work not the GC. If you want them to admire your work hire some employees and take credit for the quality. The Subs quailty is HIS. He is an "Independent Contractor"

Now if the actually customer requested work from me, as a sub, I would definately refer them to the GC who hired me and I would even refer, voluntarily, any family members, but passerby's etc are open game.

I guess you should also put in the sub agreement that they have to wear T-Shirts with your company name on and have their company name removed from their vehicles and have you company logo put on their vehicle at the subs expense.

Maybe you could even open up a "company" store, like the old coal mining days, and require them to buy all their supplies, food, etc from you and then the sub could end up owing you money in the end.

I can't imagine anyone, but a hack signing an agreement like that.

A sub could end up "violating" your agreement unintentionaly just by doing work for someone, that happens to be the 5th Cousin of the customers Great Aunt's husbands friend and never knew there was a connection

mdshunk

I wouldn't sign such an agreement, and I wouldn't even feel bad about telling you so. If you hire me to wire a room addition you just built, and the homeowner asks me to fix a light in the basement and add a receptacle in the kitchen while I'm there, I'm gonna do just that. They can hire me just the same as you (the GC) hired me. I'll send you both a bill. The GC gets the bill for the room addition, and the homeowner gets the bill for the light in the basement and the receptacle in the kitchen. I don't even care if it makes the GC mad (and none has ever expressed any anger to me, and I do such things all the time). I'm busy enough. If it upsets you, hire someone else, and take your chances with them or hire an electrician as an employee and put them on your weekly payroll.

mahlere

R&S, well put. I think there is a tremendous disconnect between GC/Sub - and no offense Glass, but you seem to have a dislike for subs in general.

We are an electrical contractor, however, we rarely do work for GC's. We typically get brought in by the customer, and tick off the GC because his guy isn't in there to give him his cut.

That being said, the few GC's we do work for, we work together very well. I don't do any work on their jobs without them being involved. I refer them whenever I get the chance. I don't even ask for a referral fee when I refer them.

But, when a customer who I acquire through them calls us for additional work after the initial project. Or call us for a different property. Or refer us to a friend or neighbor. The GC has no part in that.

Maybe y'all are referring to similar trades (framing, roofing, siding, etc) and not specialty trades (plumbing, electric, etc), but there is a reason why you have a hard time finding good subs. Very few GC's actually care about their subs success. Help your subs succeed and they will help you. Try to beat them over the head for every penny, and they will look to screw you.

R&S Exteriors

Must be a Pennsylvania thing

Grumpy

This happened to me twice. The first time was for one of our good customers who called me immediately. I then asked him if he minded if I put the job on hold for a day or two so my other crew could finish. He agreed. The first sub got a phone call saying to pack his stuff and leave and send an invoice for the work completed and do nothing more.

The second time it happened to me the job excluded window capping. The customer changed his mind and decided he wanted capping. He asked my sub how much. The sub gave him a price, realized after he did the caps that I would see, and called me to tell me what happened. After I chewed him out he asked if I wanted a cut. I declined, however I stopped using him for other reasons.

I really don't worry too much about this. If it happens it happens, and the sub gets fired. I see it as a blessing, the guy is too stupid to realize he is penny wise and pound foolish.

giddonah

when I was a temp, they'd barr us from working for someone we were sent on assignment. You'd have to quit the agency and then wait six months to get hired at a place you just worked at as a temp.

not really apples and apples, but just fyi.

Grumpy

When I am a sub I try hard not to sign sub agreements. This is one thing I would NEVER sign: "Violations, direct or indirect, will result in nullification of Subcontractor Agreement and forfeit all remaining balance or portion thereof."

mdshunk

I see where the difference is coming in here....

Grumpy sells window capping, and uses subs for the actual mechanical execution of the work. If they also sell more capping or similar services to a customer, they're cutting in on him.

The GC's that I work for are mostly carpenters of a sort. They don't sell electrical work, per se. While I'm sure they do make some profit on the work I do, they're mostly only using me because they have a rapport with me and know my work. I do extra stuff for their customers all the time (it's almost inevidable), they don't seem to care at all, and still use me again and again.

Mike Finley

I'd probably have a problem with that, especially when the homeowner is grilling me why you charged him $120.00 to install your light and I was charging him $175.00.

Double-A

R&S, you didn't read this all that well, it seems. The word 'team' is just a word, it has no legal definition in this sense and therefore implies nothing binding. It in no way implies an employer/employee relationship.

The other part you seemingly missed was the all important phrase 'According to our original contract with the client...'.

This tells me that the client is contractually bound or the subcontractor is contractually bound to the terms Purty is referring to.

Even if its not, it still seems to me that this is just two perfectly willing parties entering into a contract to do some work.

Taking control of the 'internal business' of the subcontractor would require much more than just having them sign a non-compete clause.

These types of contracts are quite common when a business is sold, so as to its legality, I'm sure precedent wouldn't agree with your assumption.

__________________
"My clients’ wishes are the center of my attention." -- David Guido, a contractor in Woodstock, N.Y.
New York Times, July 20, 2006

Double-A

Good point. You never know what is in the contract the GC has with the homeowner or how you're gonna mess things up by just assuming its OK to jump in and do that extra work. The courteous things is to run it by the GC. Courtesy and respect is a two-way street after all.

__________________
"My clients’ wishes are the center of my attention." -- David Guido, a contractor in Woodstock, N.Y.
New York Times, July 20, 2006

mdshunk

That's cool. You just wouldn't be using me as one of your subs. I will never ask a GC for "permission" to do other electrical work the homeowner wants done. If the homeowner goes through the GC right off the bat, fine, whatever. You're just scared to talk about profit and overhead, and you don't want a sub leading you down that road. That's fine. Unless there's an Amish hostile takeover of the country, there will always be plenty of electrical work for me. I can continue to conduct my business with wreckless abandon.

R&S Exteriors

Elaborate. Was the sub drumming up business or did someone come up to him with business?

Once again it looks like they are not "Independent Contractors". If you have a signed contract with them and you "Fire" them in the middle of that contract then you are treating them like "Employee's" and not an independent contractor with which you have a contractual obligation.

Quote:

A business’s ability to terminate the work relationship at will, without penalty, provided a highly effective method to control the details of how work was performed and, therefore, tended to indicate employee status. Conversely, in the traditional independent contractor relationship, the business could terminate the relationship only if the worker failed to provide the intended product or service, thus indicating the parties’ intent that the business not have the right to control how the work was performed.

Sounds to me like allot of GC's want it both ways. They don't want to have the expense and headache of employee's BUT they also don't want the independent contractor to be independent. They want to control every aspect of that Independent Contractors business and work

They want to keep growing at the expense of the subcontractor and keep the subcontractor beholden to them for their next meal.

The biggest reason I rarely sub.

I can make allot more money on my own jobs then putting up with a bunch of crap for pennies on the dollar.

PipeGuy

BINGO!

__________________
Fortunately I keep my feathers numbered for...for just such an emergency. -Foghorn Leghorn

mdshunk

I musta missed that day in class. Honestly, from what I can tell, nobody in my labor market really cares. Apparently, I wouldn't be able to get away with that practice in other labor markets.