If the client is 'not worth it' you're just not charging enough. Just work out what your price is and send them a new quote. Don't ever fire a client, that's just silly. Make the client say no.
"...The customer considers that if I don't want to record the video, it's because I have something to hide and want to lie about the real time spent on his project".
Dealing with a client that tells you from the outset that they believe you are going to lie to them isn't merely an annoyance. It presents a risk to your career. This client will never be satisfied, or trust a word you say. He will inevitably sue or trash your reputation because, in the end, it isn't possible to satisfy delusional clients. That risk isn't worth any amount of money.
The client can agree to a ridiculous rate, but actually collecting is a whole different story. My gut says clients with red flags like this will be exceptionally difficult to collect from.
BS.
Happiness as a function of wealth is not a linear curve. After the first few millions, a hundred millions or a billion isn't that a big deal.
Therefore, if the price to justify some headache or discomfort is above a million or so, just getting rid of the headache is more valuable.
You don't sell time, you sell a product, even if it's part of a 'project'.
I disagree. The more you charge the more you put yourself at risk—nominating some insane figure to scare him off is just as silly as his request (or close to it).
There is nothing wrong with not taking on work or firing a client. It is a risk assessment, and the risks with a client who asks these kind of questions are huge.
PS: I actually find it concerning that someone has to ask how to respond. Some people need to learn to say "no".
We had someone approach us a few years ago we really didn't want to work with as everything they did screamed "moron in a hurry", so, rather than telling them to naff off, we gave them a quote that should have caused cardiac arrest.
They agreed to it.
Two years on. Still working with them. No amount of money makes it worth it. Particularly given that they still haven't paid said insane quote.
We have leverage over them in terms of "whoops, looks like your sole revenue stream just got turned off", they have leverage over us in terms of reputational damage.
Were this some sole trader on the far side of the planet, there'd be nil compunction. But they're not.
With these particular goons, we have our 75%, and a never-ending stream of "we've re-interpreted the specification and believe that X means Y, Z, Q, R, P and M, which we require before we will sign off", much as we'd anticipated.
This is why we charge a minimum of 75% prior to go-live. Means that even if they do decline to pay the remainder, we aren't left out of pocket, and can play silly buggers for as long as it takes for them to get bored and go away.
"Payment upon completion?" Biggest lie ever
You really want to be the "do anything for enough money" guy? ...cause this is how you're labeling yourself by going this route more than one time. Imho, taking some pride and saying "no, fuck of, I don't do this, find someone else" makes you feel 1000x better as you realize you don't do what you do just because the client pays you, but also because you want to do it and you want to just do a good job at it. ...it might bring you less money but boy it's wort it (I may be weird, but I get a real kick when I get to just tell someone "NO", regardless of whether it's client that you're too busy to take his project or someone close asking for a favor: it really underlines your freedom and individuality and makes you feel good).
(And just to make it clear: in my book "plumbing the client's toilet" and "letting the client see a video recording of me working" are in the same league of completely unreasonable requests.)
I probably would walk away from that, but my point is that if you are a contractor, then the requirement is simply that the work be done, not that you do it personally. If they're willing to pay absurd money for something you don't want to do but other people will do, subcontract.
Also note that a client that you don't want to do business with is probably a client that others do not want to do business with, so they are used to being charged exorbitant fees.
Going back and forth to reach a higher price, only to have the client say No, is a waste of time.
Even if they do agree to a higher price, money can only reconcile so much. Based on bad experiences I've had with a couple clients in the past, they couldn't pay me enough to work for them again.
Me: OK no problem, that will cost an extra $X
Client: Ah actually don't worry about the recording
Having been independent for 5+ years, saying "no" is a learned skill.
You only find out how difficult a client is after dealing with them. And in many cases, if you have a feeling that this client is not going to be a very generous one, firing them might be most profitable thing to do.
Some things aren't worth doing, at any price. Compromising my professional standards is one example. Working with a client who doesn't trust me to do my job properly is another. This sounds like an example of both.
Sometimes it's better to just save yourself the headache of having to deal with a person any further than you already have.
If at the end of the day the customer can deal with that, then I'd accept it. I can isolate all my resources specific to that customer, provide them with dedicated kit (presumably with enough storage for them to keep the video footage) and they're (hopefully) happy with what I've done.
That's the better thing to do, but there's a problem, here : they already are in contract. Developer tried to do something that way (mentioned in update), arguing there must be an other contract for the video thing and making it way too expansive. But from what I understand, they've just felt back on first contract.
Maybe in that very specific case it would be a good thing to break the deal early, because as parent mentionned, there certainly will be other problems (and reputation may be hurted more badly than if breaking the deal).
We're not talking about murder or anything with risk to life. We're talking about dealing with assholes. There is a price (theoretically) that makes that OK, so long as it's time-limited. Of course, the client will almost certainly not agree to $50k per hour, but isn't that kind of the point?
In the end I solved it. I wrote in an email that he was just too stressed and really needed some time off, so he started to attack me personally.
I wrote to him then that he should take what he just wrote and show it to his parents or some other persons he had trust in, and ask them how he was doing. He finally realized he had behaved as a complete asshole for a while.
No, it wasn't a permanent solution. But he took a long, long, long vacation half a year later.
I might work for him again, but I'd keep a reserve plan and be out of the door quite directly. Life is too short.
Edit: Too small company to have an HR department. (I might add: I don't know if I succeeded, or he got himself under control when a quarter of the people quit and the rest had the CV out or at least updating it.)
In a large company, HR's job isn't to help you but to keep the company from getting sued. They will almost always side with management. You might make a dent in a manager's reputation and, if 5 or 6 people come forward with the same complaint about him, he might be "promoted away" into a role with less direct people management... but you're fired by that point, so it means nothing to you.
HR is not your friend.
Your best move if you have a bad boss is to work out a transfer behind his back, and leave on good terms. Find someone with more clout who will request sponsor you. Don't "apply for" transfer. Get requested. Never say anything bad about your boss in the process, just that you're looking for work that's more relevant to your skill set.