IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors

[Lance]

I think I can count the number of times I've seen a contractor have to apply for jobs at the same client. Compare that to the number of people I've seen just extended and extended. Very low percentages so it just doesn't add up for me.

remove the work 'apply' and replace it with 'go looking for and finding' and it's plausible.

If I'm with a client coming to the end of a project I always have a sniff to see if there are any interesting (or difficult) projects that fit my skills. That's not part and parcel, that's business. Just make sure the contract schedule is updated.

[DZ2]

I find this very hard to believe as it's stated above. I've worked in a large pharma that had a habit of keeping people on for a very long time and only in very rare cases did I this happen. The vast majority did the same role for the period, just moved on to different projects/work in the same area. Only very rarely did an contractor on site have to spot a gig and apply for it.

I guess I agree that "apply" is not what most people would think of usual application process, I think those cases were more like "Hey your contract is finishing in a month and we can't extend on current project as we are done, but I know team XYZ are looking for a contractor so if you're interested that's an option for you, go speak to their hiring manager". I don't know if schedule of work would mention this, but it would definitely be agreed verbally. Budget for this "extension" would come from completely different division (and this was actually pretty much the only opportunity to renegotiate the rate too because GSK have a policy of fixed rate for the duration of the project). In my view it's not different to finding the contract for the outside person. I didn't have to apply for my initial contract at GSK or had an interview, just an ex-colleague mentioned my name to the hiring manager and they called to ask when I could start. And plenty of people got in the same way.

Then again, I only personally know small sample of contractors there so this doesn't have to be true for others. I guess my point is, HMRC shouldn't just apply blanket approach based on someone being disguised employee there. But they still try of course.

[Lance]

I guess I agree that "apply" is not what most people would think of usual application process, I think those cases were more like "Hey your contract is finishing in a month and we can't extend on current project as we are done, but I know team XYZ are looking for a contractor so if you're interested that's an option for you, go speak to their hiring manager". I don't know if schedule of work would mention this, but it would definitely be agreed verbally. Budget for this "extension" would come from completely different division (and this was actually pretty much the only opportunity to renegotiate the rate too because GSK have a policy of fixed rate for the duration of the project). In my view it's not different to finding the contract for the outside person. I didn't have to apply for my initial contract at GSK or had an interview, just an ex-colleague mentioned my name to the hiring manager and they called to ask when I could start. And plenty of people got in the same way.

Then again, I only personally know small sample of contractors there so this doesn't have to be true for others. I guess my point is, HMRC shouldn't just apply blanket approach based on someone being disguised employee there. But they still try of course.

the issue here is the CEST tool will likely find you inside unless the contract is updated accordingly.
We know the CEST tool is a reflection of HMRCs opinion rather than the law, but it is used by clients, and will be used even more if the April 2020 changes happen (caveat: if Boris can get a finance bill into legislation which is less likely than this time last week).

[DZ2]

the issue here is the CEST tool will likely find you inside unless the contract is updated accordingly.
We know the CEST tool is a reflection of HMRCs opinion rather than the law, but it is used by clients, and will be used even more if the April 2020 changes happen (caveat: if Boris can get a finance bill into legislation which is less likely than this time last week).

But don't HMRC argue that working practices need to be looked at, not just CEST? Or is it only when it suits them

Anyway luckily above description wasn't of my case, just some other contractors I knew there.

[Lance]

But don't HMRC argue that working practices need to be looked at, not just CEST? Or is it only when it suits them

Anyway luckily above description wasn't of my case, just some other contractors I knew there.

When you input into CEST you're supposed to reflect working practises.
How could updating your contract to show new deliverables not be an actual working practice?

[Liberator]

I guess I agree that "apply" is not what most people would think of usual application process, I think those cases were more like "Hey your contract is finishing in a month and we can't extend on current project as we are done, but I know team XYZ are looking for a contractor so if you're interested that's an option for you, go speak to their hiring manager". I don't know if schedule of work would mention this, but it would definitely be agreed verbally. Budget for this "extension" would come from completely different division (and this was actually pretty much the only opportunity to renegotiate the rate too because GSK have a policy of fixed rate for the duration of the project). In my view it's not different to finding the contract for the outside person. I didn't have to apply for my initial contract at GSK or had an interview, just an ex-colleague mentioned my name to the hiring manager and they called to ask when I could start. And plenty of people got in the same way.

Then again, I only personally know small sample of contractors there so this doesn't have to be true for others. I guess my point is, HMRC shouldn't just apply blanket approach based on someone being disguised employee there. But they still try of course.

I know quite a few Biometrics contractors in pharma but don't know any that would sign a new contract if they moved projects (though not saying this doesn't exist). All the ones I know would not have a specific project defined in their contract but would have the facility to move around projects according to where resource is needed by the client. Though you could argue that the contractor has the right to say no I don't want to work on that project to satisfy MOO?

[northernladuk]

All that is very nice, but another search of GSK contractors on linked in says completely the opposite.

The list that come up all show a single role at GSK covering over 2 years in nearly all the cases. This means they are either not very smart and are quite happy making themselves a target through poor management of their linked in, or the vast majority just get renewed endlessly.

I have a feeling we will find out more in the near future though

[pscont]

All that is very nice, but another search of GSK contractors on linked in says completely the opposite.

The list that come up all show a single role at GSK covering over 2 years in nearly all the cases. This means they are either not very smart and are quite happy making themselves a target through poor management of their linked in, or the vast majority just get renewed endlessly.

I have a feeling we will find out more in the near future though

northernladuk
Posts
40,012

Happy belated 40 000 posts, you old fecker!
Unfortunately I can still see your mouth diarrhea when not logged in.

[DZ2]

I know quite a few Biometrics contractors in pharma but don't know any that would sign a new contract if they moved projects (though not saying this doesn't exist). All the ones I know would not have a specific project defined in their contract but would have the facility to move around projects according to where resource is needed by the client. Though you could argue that the contractor has the right to say no I don't want to work on that project to satisfy MOO?

From my experience actual pharma companies are often hiring contractors for specific project needs, but maybe I was just lucky with my contracts. It's CROs who tend to shift contractors between projects (so I'm trying to avoid those); I imagine despite MOO present in contractual terms it would be very awkward to say no I don't want to work on that project.

[DZ2]

All that is very nice, but another search of GSK contractors on linked in says completely the opposite.

The list that come up all show a single role at GSK covering over 2 years in nearly all the cases. This means they are either not very smart and are quite happy making themselves a target through poor management of their linked in, or the vast majority just get renewed endlessly.

I have a feeling we will find out more in the near future though

Perhaps they get renewed endlessly, or maybe LinkedIn is not always accurate display of reality (mine certainly isn't)?

Either way I'm just happy that QDOS accepted my claim and working on my case. I'll keep you guys updated on how it goes.