Opting out of the AWR

[TestMangler]

TM the avoidance issue refers to agencies as they are liable for a fine of up to £5000 (per contractor) for attempting to 'get round' the legislation. The detriment for the individual is that they are being given the impression that they would not be able to make a claim for unfair treatment, in respect of pay and working conditions, even if they had a genuine case. In fact this isn't the case as their status will be dependent on whether or not a tribunal considers that they are in business in their own account or not (the guidance we've had so far indicates that they will use the same tests that are used for IR35) so they could make a successful claim even though they had signed something which said that they were outside the scope.

Exactly, so in what way is signing a useless declaration, detrimental to the contractor ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get myself covered by the AWR. I spent 2 1/2 years already fighting the opposite Just trying to understand where your 'detrimental' assertion is coming from.

[Shika]

Exactly, so in what way is signing a useless declaration, detrimental to the contractor ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get myself covered by the AWR. I spent 2 1/2 years already fighting the opposite Just trying to understand where your 'detrimental' assertion is coming from.

I believe the OP is saying that by being asked to sign an 'opt-out' (which is totally worthless as everyone else has said), the individual bloke will assume that they can't bring claims against the AWR, because they have signed this bit of paper which erroneously says they can't.

That is what I'm assuming the detrimental effect is, rather than the physical, bone crushing effect you seem to be looking for.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Exactly, so in what way is signing a useless declaration, detrimental to the contractor ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get myself covered by the AWR. I spent 2 1/2 years already fighting the opposite Just trying to understand where your 'detrimental' assertion is coming from.

To a contractor as well informed as your goodself it won't be detrimental - my point is that new contractors or ones who don't read this forum may actually have a genuine grievance which they won't raise because they have been persuaded that the legislation doesn't cover them.

[LottoPlayer]

TM the avoidance issue refers to agencies as they are liable for a fine of up to £5000 (per contractor) for attempting to 'get round' the legislation. The detriment for the individual is that they are being given the impression that they would not be able to make a claim for unfair treatment, in respect of pay and working conditions, even if they had a genuine case. In fact this isn't the case as their status will be dependent on whether or not a tribunal considers that they are in business in their own account or not (the guidance we've had so far indicates that they will use the same tests that are used for IR35) so they could make a successful claim even though they had signed something which said that they were outside the scope.

Also worth noting that the avoidance issue refers to the entire supply chain, not just the agency. This includes the hirer, and any other party deemed a Temporary Work Agency (TWA) under the regulations. This includes Umbrella's. The Agency Worker can include any TWA or other intermediary in a tribunal.

[keninparis]

Any attempt to 'opt-out' would be viewed as avoidance.