Most contractors don't realise that recruiters actually MARKET the fact that the contractor can be sacked at any time with no questions asked. Many recruiters even offer to provide an alternative contractor free of normal recruiting fees if the employer decides to sack the first one.

This issue is called asymmetrical termination. It means, as Paul points out, the employer gets the benefit of four weeks notice if the contractor decides to leave, but the contractor gets no warning if the employer decides to terminate the contractor.

The ability to sack without notice also encourages employers and recruiters to lock up contractors for periods longer than a contract is expected to run, so they will be available if required. Contractors will be told the project is for six months, when it's really for three months. This can mean the contractor declines other projects, even though the employer has no serious intention of providing work for the stated six months.

The existence of these arrangements also highlights that IT contractors working through recruiters are not really contractors at all, but casual workers. Casuals can be dismissed at will. Genuine contractors have fair arrangements that protect their own interests.

Although it is sometimes possible for savvy people to negotiate changes to contracts, recruiters are much better at getting their way than are contractors, and they have a range of dodgy behaviours to ensure this occurs.

The best solution to this situation is legislation that requires either fair notice in contracts, or symmetrical termination. That is, the same notice period for both parties. As in all these issues, an ethical recruiting industry would have no problems with this. But instead you will see ITCRA fighting tooth and nail against proposals like this.

If you would like legislation that encourages genuine contracting, including fair contracts, you might like to send an email to the Contracting Inquiry . They are still looking at submissions and welcome input from actual contractors.

The immediate termination on the client side, and the 30 days notice is a typical ploy, however centainly in contract law in the UK, it works both ways, the contract must be equal and fair, otherwise it is referred to as a penalty and does not form part of the "boiler plate" and must be agreed to separately, either as part of the attached schedule or a witnessed amendment.

I once had a client who insisted 1 day on their side and 4 weeks on mine, I found another contract part way through, and with very simple advice from a Barrister friend of mine gave them 1 week, there was nothing they could do.

I've had pretty much every variation of contract in my working life. The worst was a 6-month contract which allowed me no way to terminate, but the client could give 1 day's notice. Ouch! Fortunately, most contracts are fair and give (usually) 4 weeks on either side.

Your ability to terminate early is your safety net if you find yourself in an intolerable position. It protects you against intimidation and improves your bargaining position. And it's just fair to have the same rights.

My advice: refuse to sign a contract without an acceptable termination clause. I've never encountered an agency which would not agree to change the contract in this way (eventually). Look at it this way: you've been accepted for a job... the search is finally over for the client, and the agent's commission is virtually in the bag. They will not jeopardise it just to maintain an unfair clause. Sure, they'll kick up a stink, but it's surprising how quickly they can move when they're motivated :).

Many agents try to slip you a contract to sign without much chance to read it. Always demand a copy of the contract in advance of the start date, so you can check the details and potentially get legal advice. The agent should be happy for you to do this, and if they resist I'd be even more determined, since it just raises my suspicions about why.