Difficult start to contract

[LondonManc]

Their legal obligations are of no concern to my client co.

Your client or your agency?

The client has undertaken to prove these things as part of their compliance and risk policy. They don't care what risks your limited co might take in engaging you (or a substitute....) - they want more proof than a current PI certificate (although they will want evidence of that) that the person they are letting on site as a contractor of your limited co is who they say they are, qualified as they say they are and eligible to work there. Think of the reputational risk aspect as well - could you imagine last year's Byron "immigrant round-up" happening at a bank and the fall-out that would cause?

[psychocandy]

There's a difference between being a primadonna and asserting that you be treated as the independent contractor that you are.

But I grant you, for some (many?) clients, they don't see the difference . You may be an independent contractor, but to them, you're a temporary staff member and you'll be treated and expected to behave exactly as the permies do. And therefore, you may come across as a primadonna when you insist on being treated differently as they simply cannot comprehend why you should be.

Well yes and you have two choices here....

1. Be RIGHT and prove your point and have no contract any more.
2. Do as they want because its not a lot of hassle really and keep the gig.

[MrMarkyMark]

Never ceases to amaze me how some clients are willing to let contractors sit there without laptop/login or whatever and spend £1000s for them to be there. I've worked at some clients like this.

It does do your chunk in I must admit. However easy the money is its a long day.

Some clients it never really ramps up that much. Current client is so easy going that if you come up with any clever (actually they were pretty obvious) ideas you get a strange look as if to say "oooh we don't like to change things". Lovely bunch of people but very set in their ways..... That can be a bit demoralising too but "you can lead a horse to water...."

Some clients (like this) just want you around to do things like they want things done. Fair enough - they're paying. Probably better than the ones who expect miracles and 12 hour days for same rate.

I never thought you would suffer with such problems

[mattfx]

Their legal obligations are of no concern to my limited.

I am currently contracted to an airport and everything is gated. I have to have a pass to get in and out of every door and through security each day. If I were to invoke my right to substitution, then the resource I provided would have to undergo the same security checks I did when I started, the same onboarding with the security company and go through the HR manual. This is part of my clients processes and procedures for taking on a contractor.

If I sent someone to site with a certificate of insurance and my gate pass, do you really think that "because I said it was okay" would wash with them? Of course if effing wouldn't.

If your limited company has no concern about its clients compliance then i'm afraid it will not find itself with much work.

[billybiro]

Well yes and you have two choices here....

1. Be RIGHT and prove your point and have no contract any more.
2. Do as they want because its not a lot of hassle really and keep the gig and accept the inevitable when HMRC eventually tax us all as employees whilst receiving none of the benefits.

FTFY.

[billybiro]

I am currently contracted to an airport and everything is gated. I have to have a pass to get in and out of every door and through security each day. If I were to invoke my right to substitution, then the resource I provided would have to undergo the same security checks I did when I started, the same onboarding with the security company and go through the HR manual. This is part of my clients processes and procedures for taking on a contractor.

If I sent someone to site with a certificate of insurance and my gate pass, do you really think that "because I said it was okay" would wash with them? Of course if effing wouldn't.

If your limited company has no concern about its clients compliance then i'm afraid it will not find itself with much work.

I'm not talking about transferring your airport security pass or you MOD mandated SC clearance. That clearly won't work. But when you're working in those industries, it's very clear up front what the requirements are.

I'm talking about a client co. insisting you fill in forms for "background checks" that include things like verifying your right to work in the UK when, as a contractor who is contracted through their own Ltd. co, isn't even the client's legal responsibility.

[LondonManc]

I'm not talking about transferring your airport security pass or you MOD mandated SC clearance. That clearly won't work. But when you're working in those industries, it's very clear up front what the requirements are.

I'm talking about a client co. insisting you fill in forms for "background checks" that include things like verifying your right to work in the UK when, as a contractor who is contracted through their own Ltd. co, isn't even the client's legal responsibility.

I'll refer you back to my earlier comments:

Your client or your agency?

The client has undertaken to prove these things as part of their compliance and risk policy. They don't care what risks your limited co might take in engaging you (or a substitute....) - they want more proof than a current PI certificate (although they will want evidence of that) that the person they are letting on site as a contractor of your limited co is who they say they are, qualified as they say they are and eligible to work there. Think of the reputational risk aspect as well - could you imagine last year's Byron "immigrant round-up" happening at a bank and the fall-out that would cause?

[psychocandy]

FTFY.

Got to pick your battles though Billy. Not everything is worth kicking off about.....

[billybiro]

I'll refer you back to my earlier comments:

And I'll refer you to mine.

Does the client co insist on verifying the right to work of Pedro, the photo copier repairman supplied by ABC Photocopier Repairs Ltd., when he arrives on site? Of course they don't.

Let's take the "right to work" specifically. This is nothing to do with difference in insurances or differences in exposure to business risk between photocopier repairmen and IT contractors, both need to have the same equal right to work under the law.

Why does the client insist on verifying the "right to work" of the IT contractor but not of the photocopier repairman?

[LondonManc]

And I'll refer you to mine.

Does the client co insist on verifying the right to work of Pedro, the photo copier repairman supplied by ABC Photocopier Repairs Ltd., when he arrives on site? Of course they don't.

Let's take the "right to work" specifically. This is nothing to do with difference in insurances or differences in exposure to business risk between photocopier repairmen and IT contractors.

Why does the client insist on verifying the "right to work" of the IT contractor but not of the photocopier repairman?

The photocopier repairman has no access to sensitive data, unless some twonk leaves it on the scanner glass. Not only that but Pedro is there as a support mechanism to a product already in place and is probably allowed on site as part of the overarching support contract for the MFDs that have been supplied to the organization.

Large consultancies can get people on site quicker, i.e. without vetting, but have probably got similar things in place to the photocopier company for themselves to do vetting of all their PAYE employees and contractors. I'd imagine that their contract of supply is far more detailed than yours.

Have you done any vetting of yourself? That is, has your company paid any vetting company to prove that you are who you say you are?