Shout99 article basically implying that +1yr = employee!!!

**Ardesco** · 20 September 2006, 09:20

As far as i'm aware you can opt back in at any point so the opt out thing isn't a problem. Just Opt Out, wait for contract to be signed and the day before you start phone them up and opt back in again.

They are unlikly to pull you at the last minute because it will piss the client off big time and I don't for a moment belive that any agencies actually do check references, etc for people that do opt in. The only reasons agencys ever want references is for new leads when they don't have any work to pimp out.

**oraclesmith** · 20 September 2006, 09:29

The article makes sense to me. It basically points the finger of increased employment rights at temps that work through a PAYE relationship with a temp agency for a long period of time - effectively occupying a permie post. It's pretty obvious that they aren't controlling their own business and therefore they must be, in effect, employees. If you run you own limited company then this doesn't really apply, especially if you opt out of the Emp Bus regs.

**Mordac** · 20 September 2006, 09:41

Originally posted by Pondlife

It perpetuates the myth that if you stay on site over a year you have increased 'employment' rights.

It is also encouraging the clients to get agents to insist we 'opt out'

If the agencies/EBs and clients want a way out of this Muscat mess, it really is quite simple - proper B2B contracts, with no ambiguity. I'm more than happy to opt out in exchange for the right clauses, and if they are smart, the EBs should be happy with this arrangement as well. It might take a bit of negotiation, but if you can't manage that you shouldn't be contracting in the first place.

**Pondlife** · 20 September 2006, 09:45

My problem with it is that it scares the client into making stupid decisions like "No contractors on site for more than 12 months" because they think we're all perma-temps who will want to be treated as employees. Which in the majority of the cases is not true.

**Lockhouse** · 20 September 2006, 10:22

To be quite honest the whole article is ******* and I don't know how it got webspace. Length of time = minor factor, opt out = neutral factor.

**Denny** · 24 September 2006, 10:21

Personally, I think it's a good thing that there is this fear of employee status attached to contractors on site for a year or more. It forces client companies to ensure they enter into a proper B2B arrangement with contractors directly though actions not just on paper or through the EBs with back-to-back contracts instead of treating them like de facto employees with no rights. Too many client companies and EBs still want their cake and eat it to by getting the EB to enter into a B2B with the contrator, getting them to sign the opt out that serves no other purpose but to protect the EB whilst, at the same time, agreeing that the client can in fact treat the contractor like a controlled employee without having to divulge the true nature of the EB to client contract to the contractor.

More of it I say. Plus this situation removes some of the risks attached to Gordon coming a knocking and accusing us B2Bs that we were de facto employees all along inside IR35 after reading the client to EB contract.

Shout99 article basically implying that +1yr = employee!!!