Being forced onsite.

[northernladuk]

As a PM, I am not IT Support. I understand the need for IT support to be onsite to keep things going however as mentioned I am not customer or patient facing so there is no need for me to be onsite,

I know this but in emergency situations it's all hands to the pumps. The delivery of projects is also in enchanced support. It's arguable but better to be safe than sorry and get everyone on site. It's it a reasonable request? It's arguable but it's certainly not unreasonable to get everyone on site just in case. Even if the only reason is to not piss off the other guys that are really needed on site then it's worth it.

I'd be annoyed as well to be fair but it is what it is. You are a supplier. There are times you have to kowtow to a client however stupid the request is. Call it professional courtesy.

Agreed, if the work itself irequires me to be onsite, which it doesnt. I have asked for a task list/justification of why I need to be onsite for the next month and the director has not provided anything. He prefers his entire department to be onsite. Its an old school mentality of if you I cant see you in the office, I dont know if you are working or not. This, for me then comes under the Control aspect of SDC

It really isn't.
It's about how the work is done, not where. Even if it is arguable it's a minor point at best, particularly given the current situation. Again, you are so hell bent on trying to make something fit the answer you want you are forgetting to understand whatever defense you keep bringing up.
So it's old school, he pays your money, you are gonna have to deal with it. Same point as above. To earn your crust sometimes you have to put up with idiots.

We have been in an emergency situation since May, and I have been able to wfh since May effectively as and when needed (usually do 2/3 days onsite and the remainder wfh). This is only a change to say I will be wfh 5 days.

We are in a period, the likes of which, the modern world has never seen. Stuff changes, bad decisions are made, some are reversed. It's just where we are.

Points taken above, I say breach because of the clause mentioned outlining I wont be under the control of the Hirer, and this sounds very much like control

Breach has to be something fundamental to the contract. Minor quibbles over arguable points isn't breach. And again, one request to be on site that affects everyone, not just you, is not control.

I have a call booked in today. Will see how it goes.

For the love of god don't start talking about clauses, breach and control.....

If I were a betting man I'll bet on the outcome being, you get your way for now but you will have moved to to the top of the tree of issues to deal with when there is some time......

[LondonManc]

Confirm that it's essential travel. Go in, if it's not COVID-secure, raise it.

Is it simply that you don't want to be in the office because of the money and routine?

[WTFH]

Are you in the middle of a single project, working on multiple ones, or about to kick off a new one?

[ComplianceLady]

MSP doesn't shift IR35 determination responsibility - MSP generally is where the Agency takes more responsibility in the contract i.e. manages other parties in the supply chain but it's not consultancy / statement of work where the agency takes responsibility for delivery.

In the run up to IR35 there was a lot of confusion around this but MSP in Agency language is the former, SOW is the latter.

The contractual argument to my mind is never the one to use, it's the safety net to deal with legal action. The argument should always be 'I can deliver the services effectively this way' - if you win the argument you win, if not it doesn't matter what the contract says.

[Paralytic]

I am a PM, not it support. Not customer facing or patient facing.

Is the team you are PM for onsite?

If so, then there is an obvious benefit of you being there too (I know some might argue otherwise) and I can see the clients point.

If not, and you don't want to be there, I'd say this would be your best bet for pushing back - what benefit does it bring? You almost want to ask the client "don't you trust me?" without using those words, or unless you think he does not trusts you.

[TheDogsNads]

[northernladuk]

Now is he too busy to respond because he's on site and people can see what he's doing or is he too busy to respond because he's working on his CV?

[fidot]

... in emergency situations it's all hands to the pumps. The delivery of projects is also in enchanced support. It's arguable but better to be safe than sorry and get everyone on site..

I'd argue that the fewer non-essential people you have on site, the safer it is to deliver projects. A significant number of one team all catching covid is a big risk to project delivery. Indeed, it only needs one member to catch it and everyone has to isolate anyway, so the whole teams ends up working from home anyway.

[northernladuk]

I'd argue that the fewer non-essential people you have on site, the safer it is to deliver projects. A significant number of one team all catching covid is a big risk to project delivery. Indeed, it only needs one member to catch it and everyone has to isolate anyway, so the whole teams ends up working from home anyway.

Actually that's a pretty good point to be fair.

[WTFH]

I'd argue that the fewer non-essential people you have on site, the safer it is to deliver projects. A significant number of one team all catching covid is a big risk to project delivery. Indeed, it only needs one member to catch it and everyone has to isolate anyway, so the whole teams ends up working from home anyway.

In those cases, if anyone it should be the project manager on site, calling in team members as required