Being forced to become a contractor

[teclo]

The purpose of your original post was?

Well I was just curious and I have a couple of friends that still work there and were forced to do this a month before I was.

[pmeswani]

Well I was just curious and I have a couple of friends that still work there and were forced to do this a month before I was.

Are they still there?

[TykeMerc]

I'm amazed that none of your colleagues took advice and pulled their employer up on redundancy rights or at the least breach of employment rights and constructive dismissals via employment tribunals.

It's entirely possible that you all could get significant payouts if you took them to the tribunals.

[SueEllen]

I'm amazed that none of your colleagues took advice and pulled their employer up on redundancy rights or at the least breach of employment rights and constructive dismissals via employment tribunals.

It's entirely possible that you all could get significant payouts if you took them to the tribunals.

And thrown in a discrimination claim for good measure to guarantee they get a decent payout.

[PM-Junkie]

I'm amazed that none of your colleagues took advice and pulled their employer up on redundancy rights or at the least breach of employment rights and constructive dismissals via employment tribunals.

It's entirely possible that you all could get significant payouts if you took them to the tribunals.

WHS. It is so illegal that it probably wouldn't even get to court. Your lawyer would contact their lawyer. Their lawyer would then go to them and say words to the effect of "you did WHAT???????????".

Sue the buggers.

[centurian]

WHS. It is so illegal that it probably wouldn't even get to court. Your lawyer would contact their lawyer. Their lawyer would then go to them and say words to the effect of "you did WHAT???????????".

Sue the buggers.

I'm pretty sure that if you make someone redundant, then you cannot recruit into that post/role for at least 6 months, otherwise the role is not, by definition, "redundant".

Now making a permie redundant and taking on a contractor isn't quite so cut and dry. They could argue that they are "outsourcing" it to an external company, therefore the internal resource becomes redundant. But I don't think that would cut it with a judge... so as Junkie says, it wouldn't even get to court.

It might be worth trying to understand why they are doing this - and it could be as simple as wanting to juggle (fiddle) the finances. Permie "salary" is often considered a revenue expense which must be accounted in full for that financial year, whereas contractor "costs" can be considered capital expenditure and written off over a number of years. So that manager can show how much money he has "saved" the company.




In the end though, you have to consider what is being offered and weigh that up. If it is a true contractor rate, you may want to go for it. If they basically want to pay you the same amount - just as a contractor, I'd sue them.

Do the sums carefully. The headline contractor amount may seem like more, but once you factor in holiday/training and especially employers NI (you will almost certainly fall inside IR35 due to doing the same work for a previous salaried employer). You may find out if is about the same amount.



Hope that helps