Do you Opt Out?

[Wanderer]

You may limit a handcuff period to 8 weeks (whoo hoo - I can see the client loving that option if they want to take you on) but the client will almost certainly be looking at a big bill from the agency.

No, they won't be looking at a big bill from the agency. You keep repeating this nonsense in the hope that people will start believing it and we grow tired of correcting you.

Go and read the legislation again, pay particular attention to section 10 which is Restriction on charges to hirers.

The limits on the handcuff clause apply to the Agency in it's dealings with both the worker AND the hirer so there are definite commercial benefits to a hirer if they engage contractors through an agency and the contractors DO NOT opt out of the agency regulations. The regulations also limit any "buy out" fee imposed on the hirer. Of course the agencies will try to bulltulip the hirer to such an extent that they get the Agency Conduct regs confused with the Agency Workers Regulations and convince them that they only want opted out contractors.


And stop with this crap about "why don't you just negotiate the clauses away". As you point out elsewhere, the agencies are a "£27bn a year business" so most freelancers are in a pretty weak position when it comes to dictating terms to them. Hell, we have a hard enough job getting them to honour their obligations under the law...

[speling bee]

And stop with this crap about "why don't you just negotiate the clauses away". As you point out elsewhere, the agencies are a "£27bn a year business" so most freelancers are in a pretty weak position when it comes to dictating terms to them. Hell, we have a hard enough job getting them to honour their obligations under the law...

The great thing is that you don't have to negotiate those clauses away because the starting position. is 'opted in'. If you opt out, then you can try, but why bother and why would the agencies agree? They've already got you to opt out, and risk transfer is a key aim for them in this.

[tractor]

...

No, they won't be looking at a big bill from the agency. You keep repeating this nonsense in the hope that people will start believing it and we grow tired of correcting you.

Go and read the legislation again, pay particular attention to section 10 which is Restriction on charges to hirers.

The limits on the handcuff clause apply to the Agency in it's dealings with both the worker AND the hirer so there are definite commercial benefits to a hirer if they engage contractors through an agency and the contractors DO NOT opt out of the agency regulations. The regulations also limit any "buy out" fee imposed on the hirer. Of course the agencies will try to bulltulip the hirer to such an extent that they get the Agency Conduct regs confused with the Agency Workers Regulations and convince them that they only want opted out contractors.


And stop with this crap about "why don't you just negotiate the clauses away". As you point out elsewhere, the agencies are a "£27bn a year business" so most freelancers are in a pretty weak position when it comes to dictating terms to them. Hell, we have a hard enough job getting them to honour their obligations under the law...

The funniest thing about the PCG advice is that they say if you opt out, you can use that to negotiate a better contract

Given that not opting out relieves you of needing to negotiate the no timesheet/no pay and handcuff clauses, you are already in a better position to negotiate anyway. They make it seem like if you opt in, you cannot negotiate. I ALWAYS do if there is a need and invariably, there is

[tractor]

...

So the results are (Bear in mind that two of us admitted clicking always whent they meant never) .... 32 people responded, of those....

35% ALWAYS opt out.
65% NEVER or SOMETIMES opt out.

A far cry from what is claimed by some commentators and most agents!

No, it's not scientific but it's better than nothing, so don't complain you didn't get the party you wanted if you couldn't be bothered to vote. Chances are anyway that many of those who sign opt outs are nothing of the sort because they weren't signed before introduction but we'll never get numbers like that nor will we get an accurate number on those who would have not opted out but caved in to pressure from the agent.

Feel free to use the numbers to discredit your agents' claims

[speling bee]

So the results are (Bear in mind that two of us admitted clicking always whent they meant never) .... 32 people responded, of those....

35% ALWAYS opt out.
65% NEVER or SOMETIMES opt out.

A far cry from what is claimed by some commentators and most agents!

No, it's not scientific but it's better than nothing, so don't complain you didn't get the party you wanted if you couldn't be bothered to vote. Chances are anyway that many of those who sign opt outs are nothing of the sort because they weren't signed before introduction but we'll never get numbers like that nor will we get an accurate number on those who would have not opted out but caved in to pressure from the agent.

Feel free to use the numbers to discredit your agents' claims

I've never worried about what agents say about other contractors. The agency has a position, and MyCo has a position, which is that I am not opting out.

[Wanderer]

So the results are (Bear in mind that two of us admitted clicking always whent they meant never) .... 32 people responded, of those....

35% ALWAYS opt out.
65% NEVER or SOMETIMES opt out.

A far cry from what is claimed by some commentators and most agents!

It's interesting to read what APSCo told the House of Lords Select Committee on Personal Service Companies

It is the same with the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations: personal service company contractors can opt out, and of our members 98.6% of their contractors do opt out of those employment-related protections.

Perhaps those of us on this forum aren't representative of the larger group of contractors? It's still very puzzling indeed.

[Andy Hallett]

It's interesting to read what APSCo told the House of Lords Select Committee on Personal Service Companies

It is the same with the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations: personal service company contractors can opt out, and of our members 98.6% of their contractors do opt out of those employment-related protections.

Perhaps those of us on this forum aren't representative of the larger group of contractors? It's still very puzzling indeed.

We reckon above 95% for our UK business opt-out, so I'd say the APSCo view aligns to ours.

[tractor]

...

We reckon above 95% for our UK business opt-out, so I'd say the APSCo view aligns to ours.

I know who I would believe and who I wouldn't

[tractor]

.....

It's interesting to read what APSCo told the House of Lords Select Committee on Personal Service Companies

It is the same with the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations: personal service company contractors can opt out, and of our members 98.6% of their contractors do opt out of those employment-related protections.

Perhaps those of us on this forum aren't representative of the larger group of contractors? It's still very puzzling indeed.

When you bear in mind the obfuscation, downright lies and failure to attend when requested by HMRC, it is clear that those with a vested interest will not tell the truth. That includes REC, APSCO and HMRC.

You can see the spin in their every sentence - in the highlighted piece above, I think they meant 'work seeker' related

[kal]

We reckon above 95% for our UK business opt-out, so I'd say the APSCo view aligns to ours.

Is that because you give them no choice? No opt out = no contract. I believe 95% voted for President Assad in Syria's recent 'democratic' elections...