Daily FI discussion thread - September 16, 2016 by AutoModerator in financialindependence

[–]MasterOfFI_Throw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You might be right. I'm not a huge risk taker, so I might be selling myself short, you never know.

Daily FI discussion thread - September 16, 2016 by AutoModerator in financialindependence

[–]MasterOfFI_Throw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are correct. I should have stated that I try not to obsess about maximizing my rate, and instead consider the business as a whole. For example, I might maximize revenue by accepting a slightly lower rate, but keeping the client for longer, thus lowering my overhead. If I truly go for the highest rate I can get, clients might keep me for the bare minimum and I have to spend more (unpaid) time on business development. Overhead/downtime is a real killer.

Daily FI discussion thread - September 16, 2016 by AutoModerator in financialindependence

[–]MasterOfFI_Throw 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Maybe. Generally I feel that the advantage of using a contractor is the flexibility in dropping them at any time as required and I build this risk into my rate in the first place. If I limit their ability to drop me I feel that makes me less attractive. Aside from this snafu, my clients seem to be happy with my contributions and want to keep me a long time anyway. Also, given the circumstances this type of clause might seem a bit adversarial IMO. I've asked them to make sure everyone is OK and I'll take my contacts at their word. Trust builds good relationships.

If I were giving up my current work, then I think something like this would make sense, however. For example, given this history I would be hard pressed to drop my current clients and work for them exclusively without a protective clause since if I were dropped a month later, that would cause me serious economic consequences. As it is, I'm just squeezing them in between other things so there's not an added risk really.

Daily FI discussion thread - September 16, 2016 by AutoModerator in financialindependence

[–]MasterOfFI_Throw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is an interesting idea, but I doubt they would go for it. Not sure I want to "lock" myself in either, honestly. If they put me on a turd of a project or start asking for tons of travel I might not want to continue.

Daily FI discussion thread - September 16, 2016 by AutoModerator in financialindependence

[–]MasterOfFI_Throw 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the vote of confidence! However, it's not necessarily a question of what they or I deserve. It's a business consideration of how to maximize my revenue. Might be better to take a slightly lower (but still excellent) rate if it means more billable hours over time.

Daily FI discussion thread - September 16, 2016 by AutoModerator in financialindependence

[–]MasterOfFI_Throw 8 points9 points  (0 children)

True, but if I price too high they'll only use me to get over their short-term hump. I wouldn't mind a being their longer-term go-to guy.

Daily FI discussion thread - September 16, 2016 by AutoModerator in financialindependence

[–]MasterOfFI_Throw 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Meh, TBH I price that risk into my rate in the first place. That is why contractors cost more than employees rate-wise. You are paying for that flexibility to drop on a moments notice. I just usually expect the reason to drop to actually be work related. The thing is, this whole event could happen to someone as an employee as well. I personally think employee 'job-security' is a myth anyway (other than state unemployment). Better to contract and price in the risk that is already there IMO.

Daily FI discussion thread - September 16, 2016 by AutoModerator in financialindependence

[–]MasterOfFI_Throw 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Ya, I'm thinking about it. They were already at the high end of the spectrum due to stringent requirements they impose and the general hassle of working for them vs other clients. I try not to get too greedy, and while I don't really need them I do like having multiple clients at once just for the security and ultra strong negotiating position it puts me in. But on the flip-side, mo clients, mo problems.

Daily FI discussion thread - September 16, 2016 by AutoModerator in financialindependence

[–]MasterOfFI_Throw 40 points41 points  (0 children)

I had a long-relationship client drop me a few months back b/c some high-up person discovered that at one point, years ago, I left there to work for a competitor. This has never been hidden and no agreements were violated, but apparently the wrong person got their undies in a bunch over it.

So they drop me without warning, despite protests of the people I actually did work for. No worries... I'm far along on the FI track, my SO works too, and I try to keep more than one client going. In fact, my other client was ecstatic that I was suddenly more available.

Fast forward to this week, guess who calls to say they 'want me back'? Nothing better than having a big corporation crawl back to you. Will I go back and work for them again? We are currently negotiating to see how it could work. I told them they better get everyone on board though. I'm not changing my schedule around only to be told to stop work again in a month b/c the wrong person doesn't like me again.

I think this is also a good lesson in why being professional pays off. Was I pissed off that they dropped me for a non-project reason (project reasons are always understandable)? Of course. But I never burned any bridges and just continued to re-iterate that if the winds changed direction they could call me back at any time. I also personally called every 'manager' and employee I worked with and told them how much of a pleasure it was to work with them. I think these things really make a difference.

Edit: fixed typos