State of the Market

[sreed]

Correct. tjccjt01 is thinking like a permie. It's purely transaction and they need to think more like a business. Client has a need as is willing to pay for that need up to the point it's not needed. If the work finishes, the contractor is good, they get more work. A contractor agrees to do a piece of work up to a point the work is done or they can no longer do the work. That's business. There is no loyalty. Just good work and pay.

That’s interesting NLUK, I thought the exact opposite - that Unix is thinking like a permie and tjccjt01 more on the lines of a contractor.

[simes]

The only difference between an inside gig an outside one is the way its treated for tax. The attitude of the client or contractor should be no different. Exactly the same expectations exist and there is still a contract.

You can't be thinking you are being principled sticking with an outside one but screwing an inside one over. They are the same thing. Blaming the client and just being mercenary because it is inside is still a poor attitude. You don't know why they've put it inside, you are making assumptions based on unfounded hate of inside rather than just doing business as already mentioned.

If the client wants inside then that's the terms you accept and you deliver professionally. It's not free reign to act like an idiot. If you are just treating it as a stop gap until you get something better then that's your call but the more people do it the worse it's going to be for all of us.

All IMO.

Fair points.

Then, can we understand that if we all agree on the (lack of) principle, then this is the point at which contractors should stop consider themselves to be 'in business' (often a point of discussion in the past), and instead to consider for us the term, glorified temp?

To the second line, if more people did it, my thinking was that it might have the same effect as a national protest, and people might pay attention and might react. At present, to be sure, some of the companies might have investigated and considered the risk. To my mind, hardly anyone within the client world has really looked into what IR35 is and how to work with it. This strikes me of laziness, and until there is an incentive to wake up, the glorified temp term could apply to us.

Anyway, not that this is really an option for me right now either. I am just hypothesising...

Again, all IMO.

[Destiny2]

How is the job market in the Middle east for IT roles?
Has anyone been there recently?

[edison]

Because often they are just perm positions "converted" to contract. So they assume you are just a permie, hence more management, you have a "line" manager etc.

I haven't seen a JD for a contract role since 2017 and worked with statements of work on every contract since. A JD is a bit of a red flag for me but sometimes you can't get around it from the HR bods.

[BigDataPro]

How is the job market in the Middle east for IT roles?
Has anyone been there recently?

I was in UAE for 4 weeks during Nov and Dec, working from there as well. Market and Pay is rubbish. It's no longer lucrative. Days of tax free haven is numbered. They already have VAT (2018), and it is also rumoured that new taxes (e.g income tax) coming up.

[northernladuk]

Then, can we understand that if we all agree on the (lack of) principle, then this is the point at which contractors should stop consider themselves to be 'in business' (often a point of discussion in the past), and instead to consider for us the term, glorified temp?

But again, you need an attitude correction. You are trying to focus on the negatives and making it something it really isn't which isn't useful. You are in a client/supplier arrangement. It's not equal. You do what they want and they pay. They treat you fairly by the contract and you do the same and get on with. Don't be looking to make something out of it that it isn't. Clients don't see us as glorified temps. We are resource they need and they pay for. I don't see how making something up adds any value. Enter a contract, act professionally to the terms of the contract and away you go.

To the second line, if more people did it, my thinking was that it might have the same effect as a national protest, and people might pay attention and might react. At present, to be sure, some of the companies might have investigated and considered the risk. To my mind, hardly anyone within the client world has really looked into what IR35 is and how to work with it. This strikes me of laziness, and until there is an incentive to wake up, the glorified temp term could apply to us.

And yet again, more dumb thinking. A national protest requires a need and a message. Whoever it has aimed at hasn't listened up to the point so protest starts. Do our clients know our message, have we engaged with them to try resolve and then we start dicking them around because they haven't changed? Do they bollox. One contractor acting like a dick because he doesn't know how to act professionally will not ever have the same affect as a national protest. Just stupid.

And I didn't mention it before but IR35 is as much a pain in the arse to clients as it is to us. They've been forced to go inside an rely on less than premium contractors. The time and money they've spent trying to step up to this legislation isn't small either. Your beef should be with HMRC who owns IR35, not the client. If you wanted to express your outrage properly you should have joined the fight when all this was proposed, lobbied your MP, joined the IPSE action, signed the petitions yadda yadda, of which I am absolutely sure you didn't. You let it all pass without understanding it and are now flailing around blaming your client for a)your poor attitude to your client and b) for IR35 which has nothing to do with them.

The root of your problem is your attitude. It's not IR35 and it's not your client. The fact you are blaming the wrong party at the wrong time tells me that.

[Unix]

But again, you need an attitude correction. You are trying to focus on the negatives and making it something it really isn't which isn't useful. You are in a client/supplier arrangement. It's not equal. You do what they want and they pay. They treat you fairly by the contract and you do the same and get on with. Don't be looking to make something out of it that it isn't. Clients don't see us as glorified temps. We are resource they need and they pay for. I don't see how making something up adds any value. Enter a contract, act professionally to the terms of the contract and away you go.

And yet again, more dumb thinking. A national protest requires a need and a message. Whoever it has aimed at hasn't listened up to the point so protest starts. Do our clients know our message, have we engaged with them to try resolve and then we start dicking them around because they haven't changed? Do they bollox. One contractor acting like a dick because he doesn't know how to act professionally will not ever have the same affect as a national protest. Just stupid.

And I didn't mention it before but IR35 is as much a pain in the arse to clients as it is to us. They've been forced to go inside an rely on less than premium contractors. The time and money they've spent trying to step up to this legislation isn't small either. Your beef should be with HMRC who owns IR35, not the client. If you wanted to express your outrage properly you should have joined the fight when all this was proposed, lobbied your MP, joined the IPSE action, signed the petitions yadda yadda, of which I am absolutely sure you didn't. You let it all pass without understanding it and are now flailing around blaming your client for a)your poor attitude to your client and b) for IR35 which has nothing to do with them.

The root of your problem is your attitude. It's not IR35 and it's not your client. The fact you are blaming the wrong party at the wrong time tells me that.

I agree on the attitude problem. Also on IR35 it needs to be looked at it from the Governments point of view, there were people avoiding tax by using the low salary dividends route and they had to do something to recoup that difference vs permies. I still think it's a badly designed piece of legislation, I would have thought the tax on dividends and maybe a new corporation tax band for companies with less than a few employees a couple of percent higher than normal would have been much easier to implement and no need for investigations, court cases etc. At the end of the day you need to work within the framework of the current system and make it work for you.

[jamesbrown]

I agree on the attitude problem. Also on IR35 it needs to be looked at it from the Governments point of view, there were people avoiding tax by using the low salary dividends route and they had to do something to recoup that difference vs permies. I still think it's a badly designed piece of legislation, I would have thought the tax on dividends and maybe a new corporation tax band for companies with less than a few employees a couple of percent higher than normal would have been much easier to implement and no need for investigations, court cases etc. At the end of the day you need to work within the framework of the current system and make it work for you.

That is a complete non-starter because it would treat chancers and legitimate contractors the same (it is hard to distinguish between different types of close company) and green light a mass movement from permies to contractors on the low end of the market where the power balance is with their erstwhile employers. On the other hand, taxing clients for their use of contractors to address the ErNI gap has some merits. This is one of the few remaining elephants in the room as dividend taxes have largely negated EeNI avoidance, plus this would be more congruent with self-employment.

[simes]

But again, you need an attitude correction. You are trying to focus on the negatives and making it something it really isn't which isn't useful. You are in a client/supplier arrangement. It's not equal. You do what they want and they pay. They treat you fairly by the contract and you do the same and get on with. Don't be looking to make something out of it that it isn't. Clients don't see us as glorified temps. We are resource they need and they pay for. I don't see how making something up adds any value. Enter a contract, act professionally to the terms of the contract and away you go.

And yet again, more dumb thinking. A national protest requires a need and a message. Whoever it has aimed at hasn't listened up to the point so protest starts. Do our clients know our message, have we engaged with them to try resolve and then we start dicking them around because they haven't changed? Do they bollox. One contractor acting like a dick because he doesn't know how to act professionally will not ever have the same affect as a national protest. Just stupid.

And I didn't mention it before but IR35 is as much a pain in the arse to clients as it is to us. They've been forced to go inside an rely on less than premium contractors. The time and money they've spent trying to step up to this legislation isn't small either. Your beef should be with HMRC who owns IR35, not the client. If you wanted to express your outrage properly you should have joined the fight when all this was proposed, lobbied your MP, joined the IPSE action, signed the petitions yadda yadda, of which I am absolutely sure you didn't. You let it all pass without understanding it and are now flailing around blaming your client for a)your poor attitude to your client and b) for IR35 which has nothing to do with them.

The root of your problem is your attitude. It's not IR35 and it's not your client. The fact you are blaming the wrong party at the wrong time tells me that.

Sir, careful with the Dumb Thinking words. Of recent late, there has been conviviality.

And before you assume and 'confirm in writing for all to see', please just ask the question first. To confirm, I absolutely did lobby and sign and join, and yadda yadda.

The end of my message was to confirm one of hypothesising; I am wondering and considering, with feedback from the forum.

To be sure, I have tried to engage, discuss, negotiate, offer lower OIR35 rates as an incentive to connect with the clients. And I understand our beef should absolutely be with the HMRC, but if the Lords didn't have any success from their elevated and rarefied position, to whom else can we speak with any possible positive outcome? A serious question which requires a realistic answer. The HMRC clearly stated that this move 'would not affect true contractors.' I think it is fair to say, it has.

Anyway, further hypothesising, wondering. Please ask what I have and have not done before the statements are made. Thank you.

[PerfectStorm]

With every year, I grow more cynical. Just seen this job ad.

We are looking for a Business Analyst to support the Data Improvements work within the Operating Model Optimisation workstream of the Advice Transformation Programme.

Imagine being the person who wrote this. Wonder if anything of any tangible value has ever been delivered there?