+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 43 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Posts 21 to 30 of 422
  1. #21

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,827
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    41
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BolshieBastard View Post
    Mal, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. People wont listen and will continue to say 'it wont affect me' until it actually happens to them.
    I don't blame folks for trying to push the boundaries on this - and if they can convince an FD of their argument, then good on them. So I say, go for it.

    But you're right - there is a very blinkered approach on this. If PS ClientCo takes a hard interpretation on this, you're screwed - you either accept the terms and abide by them, or get terminated - simples. Just because it's possible in your own mind to form an argument - doesn't mean that ClientCo will automatically accept such an interpretation over what their paymasters will say.

  2. #22

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,827
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    41
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bracken View Post
    My sense is that there will be very few people who will renew / take new contracts on such terms - I for one will not.
    Very easy to say now, but much harder when you are staring a long stretch on the bench in the face. Much like all those in banking who proudly state that they would never accept a rate cut - until it hits them.

    But if public sector contractors do resign en masse, it will just dramatically increase supply for private sector positions, so if you plan on coming to the private sector, you will probably find rates are lower anyway.

  3. #23

    Banned

    Old Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Tombliboo Bush
    Posts
    15,784
    Thanks (Given)
    417
    Thanks (Received)
    145
    Likes (Given)
    248
    Likes (Received)
    1171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by centurian View Post
    I don't blame folks for trying to push the boundaries on this - and if they can convince an FD of their argument, then good on them. So I say, go for it.

    But you're right - there is a very blinkered approach on this. If PS ClientCo takes a hard interpretation on this, you're screwed - you either accept the terms and abide by them, or get terminated - simples. Just because it's possible in your own mind to form an argument - doesn't mean that ClientCo will automatically accept such an interpretation over what their paymasters will say.
    This is the point. I'm not thinking that it will not apply. Just wondering how it will apply.

  4. #24

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,097
    Thanks (Given)
    159
    Thanks (Received)
    80
    Likes (Given)
    827
    Likes (Received)
    412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BolshieBastard View Post
    I love the way contractors go on about this not affecting them. I think some people are in for a rude awakening.
    Yes. The treasury are going to freak when they figure out what they just caused!

    I know three guys at my new place that have already found new roles based on this. Meanwhile the department are struggling to resource 25 major change projects.

  5. #25

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,827
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    41
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Greg View Post
    This is the point. I'm not thinking that it will not apply. Just wondering how it will apply.
    It will apply however the FD thinks it should apply - and there could be quite a bit of variance in that respect.

    The guidelines are full of holes, but the question is whether the FD is prepared to take the risk to exploit them, knowing that they face being "fined" 5 times the amount if they get the wrong interpretation. They certainly will not be keen to explain to their internal audit committee why they ended up being fined, so many may take a hardline approach.

    Also remember most public sector FD's are accountants, so it's unlikely you can pull the wool over their eyes on tax matters, unless they are turning a blind eye (which many of them were doing up until now)

  6. #26

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,097
    Thanks (Given)
    159
    Thanks (Received)
    80
    Likes (Given)
    827
    Likes (Received)
    412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by centurian View Post
    Very easy to say now, but much harder when you are staring a long stretch on the bench in the face. Much like all those in banking who proudly state that they would never accept a rate cut - until it hits them.

    But if public sector contractors do resign en masse, it will just dramatically increase supply for private sector positions, so if you plan on coming to the private sector, you will probably find rates are lower anyway.
    This isnt a 25% cut its over 40 with an added **** you

  7. #27

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,827
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    41
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobspud View Post
    This isnt a 25% cut its over 40 with an added **** you
    How are you reaching 40%. I thought it equated to around 20% difference, less if you have Section 198 deductions - ah, are you s660-ing as well.

    But even so, 60% of something is still better than 100% of nothing - and if thousands of ex public sector contractors hit the private sector market, rates will plummet - assumning you can even secure a contract.

    Ironically public sector rates might nudge up a bit when they have problems filling roles, but they won't go up 40%.

  8. #28

    Banned

    Old Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Tombliboo Bush
    Posts
    15,784
    Thanks (Given)
    417
    Thanks (Received)
    145
    Likes (Given)
    248
    Likes (Received)
    1171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by centurian View Post
    How are you reaching 40%. I thought it equated to around 20% difference, less if you have Section 198 deductions - ah, are you s660-ing as well.

    But even so, 60% of something is still better than 100% of nothing - and if thousands of ex public sector contractors hit the private sector market, rates will plummet - assumning you can even secure a contract.

    Ironically public sector rates might nudge up a bit when they have problems filling roles, but they won't go up 40%.
    I work in healthcare and there are opportunities outside the public sector - IT companies but it would limit things.

    However, we will see the extent to which this applies across the public sector. I am unsure how Foundation Trusts can be forced down this route unless it is slotted into the procurement rules, which could be complicated. How would they be fined when the treasury does not fund them? Also I sometimes work as an associate via a consultancy and it will be interesting to see if these rules apply through that method of operating.

    Having said all that, my current contract would be a slam duck for the new rules.

  9. #29

    Double Godlike!

    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Walking in the garden, dreaming of Olivia...
    Posts
    10,180
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    191
    Likes (Given)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Greg View Post
    You say 'not on a project' meaning > 6 months? In their eyes of course.
    Who knows? BIS and DOH are applying the same rules differently, with DOH seemingly ignoring the 6 month bit (and the 220 a day bit as well).

    Seriously if anyone gets one of these letters, send a copy to publicsectorreview@pcg.org.uk. They need all the evidence they can get if they are to have any hope of bringing some sanity to the situation.
    Blog? What blog...?

  10. #30

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,827
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    41
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Greg View Post
    However, we will see the extent to which this applies across the public sector. I am unsure how Foundation Trusts can be forced down this route unless it is slotted into the procurement rules, which could be complicated. How would they be fined when the treasury does not fund them?
    I agree that FT's might provide an area of temporary respite. However, 48 hours after the first case of an FT dodging these rules hits the Daily Mail, the Treasury will find a way.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 43 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.