I think one of my clients (let's call him Stan) is actually doing client work for someone else (let's call him Fred) (who I thought was their business partner), and holding my work out to be their own and charging even more for it.
I am a developer with a pretty strong software development backgr...
"I even send my invoices to Stan, who forwards them to Fred who pays them." - unless Fred is stupid, he sees your name on the invoice, and thereby knows who does the work. Relax. As long as you are being paid the agreed-upon amount, you should have no concerns. Next time, get your own direct contracts and avoid using middlemen.
@SolarMike Well that's quite literally the case right now. The migration is almost finished, but took way longer than expected because there were a lot of additional details that we needed (many of them Stan added after the fact) - I sent an invoice to Stan, to be paid by Fred, and my invoicing software is showing that the invoice hasn't even been viewed - so my impression is that Stan is literally holding back sending the invoice to Fred until site launch.
@JoeStrazzere I suppose that's true, but I was also billing a very low rate, as it was a relatively early client of mine (from 2018), and then I find that Stan is charging almost 10x my rate to Fred - it grates me a bit. I can't imagine he's doing that without essentially claiming I am just helping him in some way.
@JoeSmentz - you live and you learn. If it's going to bother you for some reason, next time write up a contract prohibiting this subcontracting. And establish whatever rate you feel is fair for the duration of the contract. No sense complaining about it now. Frankly, you appear to be getting paid exactly what you contracted for. And whatever Fred pays Stan doesn't impact you at all. I don't understand why it bothers you.
@sf02 Because I thought they were business partners, and Stan had paid two of them, when they were in the low hundreds. I thought they had some sort of agreement between them on who pays what invoices, and I just dealt with Stan, so I sent them to him to be dispensed how he and Fred pleased.
This is the nature of contracting. Nothing to see here. Stan pays you to perform work. What he does with that work and how he presents it to his client is of no concern to you.
@joeqwerty I guess I just can't see it that way. To me, Stan charging a client tens of thousands of dollars over multiple years for doing essentially nothing comes off as incredibly unethical. Especially when I kept my rates low for them as I thought they were utterly broke.
@JoeSmentz: There's nothing unethical about it. Subcontracting is a part of business. Many businesses will hire contractors to perform work and then charge out exorbitant rates that the contractors themselves could never charge. There are a ton of companies that do this. They generally have stiff contracts that prevent the contractors from undercutting or going around them (such as Solar Mike was suggesting). When I was a contractor, companies charged 3 times what they paid me.
I don't understand the problem. If you are correct, then that would make you a subcontractor, and the prime contractor is being paid by the client. If you don't want to be a subcontractor for Stan, stop doing the work, and be hired as the prime contractor by Fred. There is absolutely nothing unethical about a primer contractor charging more than what a subcontract gets paid.
@JoelEtherton He's just one dude though, and we have no such contract. I don't care about THAT sort of agreement - that sort of agreement is honest. I care about being lied to and having Fred being lied to about the nature of the situation by someone who is a middle man and hasn't really done much of anything in the past 3 years, besides made my work more difficult (because he has to be trained on everything, ostensibly so he can fake his knowledge well enough to make it seem like he did most of it)
@Donald It's more the lying about the relationship I am unhappy about.
@JoeSmentz I don't see anyone who has been lied to. If there was dishonesty happening, you would have absolutely no knowledge of Fred through normal channels. Nothing has been done under the table, you're simply disgruntled because you're getting significantly less money from Fred than you feel you deserve. The only one here who has made a mistake is you. Fortunately you don't have a contract so you can correct it. If you want to be mad at someone, take a look in the mirror. No one in the equation has mistreated you, and if you mistreat "Stan" as a result of this you could alienate "Fred".
Did you sign a contact with Stan? It's quite likely to say something to the effect that you can't cut him out and contract directly with Fred (I'm assuming that if Stan isn't good at coding he's probably good at contracts). Whether it would stand up in court is another question, and one you might want to discuss with a lawyer. But definitely don't go running to Fred until you know what the legal situation is.
@JoelEtherton Then why would "Stan" explicitly say not to include training on the invoice to Fred, and say that Fred has no idea of the exact business relationship between Stan and I? To me, that screams that Fred has no idea how things are actually working, and Stan wants Fred to have the impression that I am merely helping Stan.
@StuartF We have no signed contract, no.
@StuartF Stan's niche seems to be a particular industry (let's call it trucking, even though it isn't, but it is analogous) that he used to be a part of when he was a much younger man. My guess is that he used to make websites for this industry back in the 90s, but technology has outpaced him.
@JoeSmentz Fred doesn't need to understand your business relationship with Stan. He has a business relationship with Stan. Fred doesn't need to know how things are "actually working". There is still nothing wrong with this arrangement legally or ethically (as everyone else on this thread seems to grasp). You are disgruntled because Stan is benefiting more from your work than you are. Welcome to business. I understand you want there to be something wrong with this, and there just isn't.
Discussion on question by Joe Smentz:…
Discussion on question by Joe Smentz:…