IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors

[malvolio]

So what?

IR35 isn't aimed at badly managed companies. It's aimed firmly at the agency workers who should rightly be on pay roll.

It isn't all bad, I am on company pay roll and I take home after tax more every month than my highest ever UK contracting role. The UK is the exception in the world rather than the norm.

Time to move on I'm afraid. Repeating the same lame old mantras simply isn't going to help you. One day you may realise it.

Those companies aren't "badly managed". Quite the reverse; they are saving loads on their revenue budgets. However a lot of those "agency workers" are in entertainment, the media, tourism, social care and the NHS, are usually quite low paid and have no reason or need to be contractors - except their "employers" demand that they go off payroll. So whose fault is it the wrong people are paying ErNICs?

And perhaps you should read what I've been saying for the last few years, well before the PS changes came in. Avoiding the IR35 axe is perfectly simple, use B2B contracts. More than a few other expert commentators are also picking up that line now that 202o is looming. My mantra is not old, it's actually quite recent and very apposite.
Come to that I could also earn rather more as a permie with my particular skill set and experience I leave it to you to work out why I stayed in contracting.

HTH.

[Fred Bloggs]

Those companies aren't "badly managed". Quite the reverse; they are saving loads on their revenue budgets. However a lot of those "agency workers" are in entertainment, the media, tourism, social care and the NHS, are usually quite low paid and have no reason or need to be contractors - except their "employers" demand that they go off payroll. So whose fault is it the wrong people are paying ErNICs?

And perhaps you should read what I've been saying for the last few years, well before the PS changes came in. Avoiding the IR35 axe is perfectly simple, use B2B contracts. More than a few other expert commentators are also picking up that line now that 202o is looming. My mantra is not old, it's actually quite recent and very apposite.
Come to that I could also earn rather more as a permie with my particular skill set and experience I leave it to you to work out why I stayed in contracting.

HTH.

Mal, for crying out loud, pay attention. It's all about those who should be paying employment taxes actually paying them. Perpetually droning on about the same old same old doesn't count for anything any more. Wake up for cripes sake. It's just about people who should be paying employment taxes actually paying them. Nothing more. My last word on this conversation. I know you don't listen, I'm afraid.

[jamesbrown]

Those companies aren't "badly managed". Quite the reverse; they are saving loads on their revenue budgets.

And perhaps you should read what I've been saying for the last few years, well before the PS changes came in. Avoiding the IR35 axe is perfectly simple, use B2B contracts. More than a few other expert commentators are also picking up that line now that 202o is looming. My mantra is not old, it's actually quite recent and very apposite.
Come to that I could also earn rather more as a permie with my particular skill set and experience I leave it to you to work out why I stayed in contracting.

HTH.

If you mean fixed price for deliverables, it won't happen, because it doesn't make sense for T&M work.

AFAICT most noises around this are about creating a facade, which is pointless. Where it makes sense, they are already used. The fact is that BoS contracts are arranged as T&M because it reflects reality - the purchase is for T&M, not deliverables, and they cannot be massaged into payments for deliverables. The "cure" would wreak more havoc than the disease.

Also, if many BoS contractors were faced with the reality of negotiating T&Cs, timelines, acceptance criteria, and having fights about every other invoice, they would head back to permie land pretty quickly.

So I think Fredd Bloggs has a point.

[BrilloPad]

Mal, for crying out loud, pay attention. It's all about those who should be paying employment taxes actually paying them.

No. Its about HMRC deciding how much tax one should pay without reference to any rules.

[Fred Bloggs]

No. Its about HMRC deciding how much tax one should pay without reference to any rules.

No it isn't. They obey the law of the land, for all it faults and foibles (yeah I know there's an argument there too, but keep it simple). And it's very clear. You/your employer pay EENIC, ERNIC, PAYE and Apprentice levy on what you earn. It's dead simple, the two decades battle to keep Hector's hand out of your pocket is just about done. Just like in the rest of the world. That small minority who genuinely run a business are perfectly fine to carry on entirely unaffected. We all had it too good for too long and now it's simply the end game.

[Fred Bloggs]

If you mean fixed price for deliverables, it won't happen, because it doesn't make sense for T&M work.

AFAICT most noises around this are about creating a facade, which is pointless. Where it makes sense, they are already used. The fact is that BoS contracts are arranged as T&M because it reflects reality - the purchase is for T&M, not deliverables, and they cannot be massaged into payments for deliverables. The "cure" would wreak more havoc than the disease.

Also, if many BoS contractors were faced with the reality of negotiating T&Cs, timelines, acceptance criteria, and having fights about every other invoice, they would head back to permie land pretty quickly.

So I think Fredd Bloggs has a point.

Thank you. GSK or any other Big Co PLC has no interest in you other than turning up and doing as you're told for an agreed hourly rate for as long as it suits them. To pretend otherwise is just the same old "we're special, we run a bizniz" mindset. It's over.

[BrilloPad]

We all had it too good for too long and now it's simply the end game.

You certainly did. Leave the rest of us out of it.

[webberg]

Does anyone know which advisers are representing the group?

I think you need to backtrack a little.

Is there a "group"?

The claim is that the HMRC letter has gone to 1500 contractors who were at GSK in 2018/19.

I know little about GSK but I'm imagining that they have several locations around the UK and those workers may have been split between them.

I'm thinking also that even contractors in the same location may have been in different departments and not be known to each other.

This group may also have been placed in their GSK roles by different agencies. Again I have no idea who is on the PSL for GSK.

Some contractors may no longer be with GSK.

Some contractors may have been with them but have not had the letter.

I suggest therefore that there is no coherent group.

Rather there are pockets of people with loose connections. (I know of at least one Whatsapp group and at least two other groups).

This diversification of people is inevitable and is not only helpful to HMRC (divide and conquer being the only action in their playbook) but also why (in my view) a "group action" is going to struggle.

We pioneered the group model for contractors in terms of their use of schemes. This works because you have large numbers of people all of whom DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Consequently it's very possible to spend a lot of time understanding a scheme and then applying it to personal circumstances. Each individual gets the advantage.

With IR35, we know the rules and it's a question of understanding how GSK works and we know that the contracts used by the agencies have a lot of similarities. That is common ground.

However applying them is an individual thing and will soak up a lot of time - per individual - which may or may not, help others.

That is going to make group pricing quite difficult.

We have been approached by a number of recipients of the letter. As mentioned here, Mr Chaplin is seeking to build a group. It's certain that the insurers will have groups. It may well be that this is how GSK and all the other contracting groups who are next into the sausage machine will be distributed between the advisory community as one very large (i.e. 2k plus) group seems to bring little in terms of lower fees. Given that many contractors use this measure almost exclusively, I fear that there may a race to the bottom with some advisers taking on too much and individuals suffering.

Just a personal view.

[Fred Bloggs]

You certainly did. Leave the rest of us out of it.

Ah, yes BP. Silly little me. You're one of the special ones running a "real bizniz". How could I have overlooked that?

[Fred Bloggs]

For webberg, it maybe different now but GSK used to use two agencies, SRG and Kelly. They streamlined from many agencies to those two a while ago, so it may have changed since. Like I said before, at GSK, they just put you through the sausage machine, you turned up, did as you were told and left when they'd had enough of you. Simply a temporary resource, nothing more nothing less and certainly nothing special. Hundreds of contractors on all their facilities. From memory when I was there I'd say maybe 50% of people on site for GSK were agency workers. Often I was surprised at who they were and what they did. Anything and everything, just like a GSK staff person did.

Naturally, I was special, I ran a proper business, so I was outside IR35.