Getting client agreements for other "perks" when rate rises are not on the table

[LondonManc]

I know times are tight lads, but every thread someone uses clumsy language they get told that "contracting isn't for you" - is the market that bad that we have to try and have digs at each other?

Give peas a chance.

I'm not talking about the IR35 status of his contract and whatever else NLUK is hauling him over the coals for; he's struggling with the lifestyle - commutes, etc.

As for what NLUK/PC are discussing, I have no problem with someone being a contractor and operating inside IR35; it's when NLUK is pointing obvious things out to PC and he's ignoring it because he doesn't want to be inside IR35 despite it looking very much like he is.

[FrontEnder]

I'm not talking about the IR35 status of his contract and whatever else NLUK is hauling him over the coals for; he's struggling with the lifestyle - commutes, etc.

Permies often have long comutes too.

This is hardly a reason to call into question whether contracting is suitable, just this particular gig.

[psychocandy]

I know times are tight lads, but every thread someone uses clumsy language they get told that "contracting isn't for you" - is the market that bad that we have to try and have digs at each other?

Give peas a chance.

Some people like doing it :-)

[psychocandy]

You aren't asking for sympathy. If you ask for sympathy, you're dead in this negotiation. Sympathy is for people who go on JSA.

It's not sympathy, it's justice. You deserve more, they know it, they don't have more in the budget, they can make it up to you another way that costs them nothing. Whether the client manager does the commute is irrelevant to your business being underpaid for the services it provides, and their need to work with you accordingly.

You can even, if you really, really want to be nice, ask them to trial it for a month, and then if anything isn't working well, you can make adjustments. But I wouldn't start there, I'd just say that if you don't have the budget for an increase, I'd accept WFH once a week in lieu of an increase.

But if you aren't ready to back it up, you aren't negotiating from a position of strength. In which case, you'll probably always be a bad negotiator. Which is not the end of the world -- lots of happy people in the world aren't good negotiators. Some of those people are even relatively successful at what they do.

Like the trial suggestion. Gives them an "out" if it doesnt work out and they're not thinking "jeez if we let him do it he'll expect it forever".

[psychocandy]

I'm not talking about the IR35 status of his contract and whatever else NLUK is hauling him over the coals for; he's struggling with the lifestyle - commutes, etc.

As for what NLUK/PC are discussing, I have no problem with someone being a contractor and operating inside IR35; it's when NLUK is pointing obvious things out to PC and he's ignoring it because he doesn't want to be inside IR35 despite it looking very much like he is.

LM - yes I've been contracting off and on for 20+ years. I know full well that the sort of thing I do is borderline. But I would suggest that there are a LOT of people in the same situation.

But, it doesnt mean its inside IR35. Very grey area as we all know. Theres more too it than that and you know that too.

[psychocandy]

I don't think they are lessor contractors, I just think the method of engagement is questionable in many cases. I think certain roles should be not supplied as an outside IR35 contract. It gets a bit if a bun fight when we start trying to say which is which but 1st line is obviously the most basic example. It's a perm job all be it for a shorter duration and a different engagement method. It also hacks me off that contractors try and fight IR35 when we have a raft of roles that are quite clearly within. Kinda ruins pur whole damn argument... But anyway.. Moving in

[quote ]
To be honest, this role is not as bad as others I've done. There is a separation between what I do and what the permies do..

Bad as in IR35 or bad as in just a crappy gig? I shudder to think what could be worse IR35 wise..[/QUOTE]

Bad for IR35... As you mention, pure helpdesk I would imagine would be harder to argue. What I do is a long way from that though just not 100% contract work.

I think its unwise for those doing 100% project work to look at those who don't do this and take a "holier than thou" attitude. Contracting is populated with all sorts of people or roles and we're all just different darknesses of grey as far as HMRC are concerned.

Also, I don't see IPSE refusing to cover anyone for IR35 cover just because they do an element of BAU work? Nor do QDOS I understand?
Yes both parties will expect due dilligence. All contracts I get are reviewed by QDOS and pass.

I appreciate working practices are more important but I don't see either IPSE/QDOS insisting on proof of this at the moment. Until, these organisations start saying, sorry no cover because you mentioned BAU, then its not a clear cut thing.

People like me just have to do what we can but understand we may be a darker shade of grey.

[fidot]

If your target is one day per week WFH, your opening position needs to be more than that. Give room for negotiation/haggling.

[psychocandy]

If your target is one day per week WFH, your opening position needs to be more than that. Give room for negotiation/haggling.

I'd be OK with one day a fortnight to be honest. Better than nothing. If I go in with two days WFH they'll just fall off the chair and say no.

[northernladuk]

I think its unwise for those doing 100% project work to look at those who don't do this and take a "holier than thou" attitude. Contracting is populated with all sorts of people or roles and we're all just different darknesses of grey as far as HMRC are concerned.

Again, it's not holier than thou, I've just explained that. They are different roles fulfilling different requirements for the customer. Nothing wrong with using these points as decision points. If you don't and we are ALL contractors then we don't have a chance of fighting any IR35 challenge. HMRC see us as all in, we say we are all out. Plainly both arguments fail badly. If agreement can be reached that certain are in HMRC are happy, certain are out, we are happy. How the hell you draw those lines I don't begin to know but it's better than people like IPSE defending the indefensible. You've can't help but admit HMRC are quite correct in certain situation.

Also, I don't see IPSE refusing to cover anyone for IR35 cover just because they do an element of BAU work? Nor do QDOS I understand?
Yes both parties will expect due dilligence. All contracts I get are reviewed by QDOS and pass.

But if HMRC can come to some agreement about what is in and what isn't that will change. The fact that we are arguing everyone is outside is why IPSE and QDOS are doing this. I've long said I'm concerned that they offer insurance that covers everyone carte blanche at the same price. I'm not aware of many other insurance products that don't take a risk based approach. I don't see why I should pay the same amount as someone who is clearly a bum on seat disguised permie or has decided to work at the client for 5 years and become part and parcel. The whole insurance thing is a moot point though so moving on....

I appreciate working practices are more important but I don't see either IPSE/QDOS insisting on proof of this at the moment. Until, these organisations start saying, sorry no cover because you mentioned BAU, then its not a clear cut thing.

Sadly this is true.

People like me just have to do what we can but understand we may be a darker shade of grey.

Yup.. I'd ask you a question though.. What point would you call a gig inside? I bet you wouldn't. You'd just rock on and take the risk wouldn't you? That's not a criticism per se. Plenty do. It's not in my risk profile personally, but if your role sits in this grey area it may just the way it is for you.

[LondonManc]

LM - yes I've been contracting off and on for 20+ years. I know full well that the sort of thing I do is borderline. But I would suggest that there are a LOT of people in the same situation.

But, it doesnt mean its inside IR35. Very grey area as we all know. Theres more too it than that and you know that too.

That doesn't make it right for them either, though, does it?

Nothing wrong with being inside IR35 - it's not got the same stigma as, say, public sector work. I just think you need to consider that you might well be inside IR35 and suck it up.