>>>So his advice is to get rid of that clause.
>
>Depends why it's there. If they've been burned then protesting may cost you the business. While I'm a great believer in not selling your future creative potential for an hourly rate, it's only worth attention it if there's a realistic chance you might find yourself in that position. Otherwise cheerfully agree to the clause but ask for definitions - e.g. "conflict of interest" refers to creating bespoke systems for real estate companies in St Augustine for 6 months after this contract ends. You might set a price on that- e.g. suggest an $x monthly retainer for a year in which case of course you'll commit to shun competitors of your special customer. It's a good time of year to meet with them for lunch and propose a mutually satisfactory arrangement IMHO. Good luck, and have you been watching the Antipodean cricket? ;-)

I agree completely. I have signed dozens of these things over the years and don't give them a thought other than reading them before signing to make sure there is nothing egregious in there. Besides, it's been quite a while since I worked on anything I would want to steal ;-)

The way I look at it is the exact opposite of what Michel said in this thread -- "Don't they want you to work for them?" (or words to that effect). In this economy, especially for those of us still doing FoxPro work, the more appropriate question IMO is "Doesn't he want this job?" I am sure not going to blow a gig by nitpicking over employment/contractor contracts which are in fact standard.

That was not in any way aimed at Frank, BTW. There was indeed some problematic language in the contract he was asked to sign. I just found some of the hard line advice amusing. The posters would have viewed it differently if it was their client/income in question, I suspect.