Oh no.. not 'Opt Out' again!

**TheFaQQer** · 8 January 2009, 18:29

If you are going direct (as Accenture do) then there is no EB in the mix, so there are no regulations to opt out of.

If you are going through an EB, then there are regulations that are intended to control some of the sharper practices, which were designed to protect temporary agency workers. The fact that the PCG negotiated an opt out is, for some people, a good thing.

**mailric** · 8 January 2009, 19:10

mm. good point.

But the Agent is acting as agent between two businesses, not employee and client.

so you still shouldnt have to opt out???

**Beefy198** · 8 January 2009, 19:27

You are dealing with an agency with the intent to supply temporary workers which is why I believe the regs apply.... unless I misunderstood what you just said.

**Solidec** · 8 January 2009, 20:50

Agencies use the Opt out to try and peddle terribly written contracts in my experience. They try to bully you into opting out and then stick a ridiculously IR35 unfriendly contract in your face.

I generally get my contract reviewed and altered to suit, and then tell them where to shove their opt out if they wont budge on some clauses.

**mailric** · 8 January 2009, 20:58

Originally posted by Beefy198 View Post

You are dealing with an agency with the intent to supply temporary workers which is why I believe the regs apply.... unless I misunderstood what you just said.

Yea, just read through the regs (no, i have nothing better to do) and its pretty clear that a company should be treated as a 'work seeker'.

But that doesnt make sense to me. Everyone in a company doing business 2 business services is effectivley 'seeking work'.

Its only because the Agencies are employment businesses. If they were simply subcontracting the work as say Accenture would perhaps to me, then the regs wouldnt apply. So that said, why can'ty agencies simply change their contracts to be more 'sub-contract like' and not 'employee like'?

I think I might be over thinking about this, but its plssing me off as I don't see any point in it for b2b contracts.

**Solidec** · 8 January 2009, 20:59

They are too lazy to draft separate contracts for temporary workers and ltd companies respectively. They just peddle the same tulipty template contract to everyone!

**mailric** · 8 January 2009, 21:01

And as for IR35, regardless of how much weight this has, the very fact that you are having to opt-out of these 'employee' regulations is surely a negative reflection of your working practices?

**TheFaQQer** · 9 January 2009, 10:19

Originally posted by mailric View Post

So that said, why can'ty agencies simply change their contracts to be more 'sub-contract like' and not 'employee like'?

Because if they did that, then they are shifting the responsibility of delivery onto themselves.

As an agency / EB, their responsibility for getting the job done ends when they find someone who is available - it's up to the client to ensure that they can do the work, and have the right skills, etc. (which they do at interview, theoretically, or in the early stages of a contract).

If they moved to a sub-contract model, then they would be taking responsibility for ensuring that the body they find can actually do they job, has the skills, would fit with the team etc. etc. which then takes on a whole different sphere of liability for delivery.

**TheFaQQer** · 9 January 2009, 10:21

Originally posted by mailric View Post

And as for IR35, regardless of how much weight this has, the very fact that you are having to opt-out of these 'employee' regulations is surely a negative reflection of your working practices?

No, because opting out has nothing to do with IR35 - never has, and never will.

The "link" between IR35 and opting out is yet another lie pedalled by ill-informed (or dishonest) agents to get ill-informed contractors to bend to their will. There is nothing in the regulations that impacts IR35 at all, despite what the agencies will tell you.

Oh no.. not 'Opt Out' again!