Difficult start to contract

[billybiro]

What a ridiculous argument this is...

Anyway, interesting article on exactly this inconsistency..

Why Right to Work checks aren't consistent :: Contractor UK

Bottom line is..



So the law might be wrong, the application of it inconsistent but best practice is do it and be covered. All we need is some pillock to come along and tell them he won't do it now and see what happens.

To be honest, I'm growing weary of this now also.

My point is this. From the linked article:

The clue is in the word “employer”. The obligation does not apply to anyone who is not an “employer”, so hirers are not employers if they engage workers who are not employees. There are no rules for these hirers at all. Recruitment businesses which engage temporary agency workers are also not employers if the engagement contracts they use are not employment contracts. Since the latter model is typical in the UK recruitment industry, it would seem that the right to work checks do not apply to those recruitment agencies.

and also:

Best practice for recruiters is to carry out the checks in any event.

Ok. So some clients will think,"Well, I may not actually be legally responsible for these kind of checks, but I'm going to do it anyway as a CYA tactic, just in case". Fine.

But. The more "employment" related things we as independent contractors submit to, the easier it becomes for HMRC to ultimately point the finger and say, "Look! Of course they're employees. Just look at all the "employee" related activities they submit to".

As contractors, who would like to be treated by HMRC and HMG as the independent businesses we all are, are we all happy with this?

To me, it seems we've given up and are meekly walking towards the inevitability of being classified as employees.

[psychocandy]

Are you happy to be classified as an employee and pay tax like one?

No and there are some things its worth having a quiet word about. If, however, you whinge about every little thing then clients can get peed off really quickly.

You're right in principle but in practice, you've got to be careful.

[billybiro]

What does it say in the contract?
So you're guessing what it says in the Client to ABC contract now? Excellent.

Nice strawman. Contracts don't, and can't, alter right to work laws.

[LondonManc]

Nice strawman. Contracts don't, and can't, alter right to work laws.

I'm not talking about that but good effort. I'm talking about how much vetting has to be done.
If the photocopier guy doesn't have access to sensitive data, there's far less risk.

Until you can get past the difference between right to work laws and the concepts of compliance, operational risk and reputational risk, I'll leave you to burble on to yourself about being employed, especially when you're a director of one and an employee of neither.

[billybiro]

I'm not talking about that but good effort. I'm talking about how much vetting has to be done.
If the photocopier guy doesn't have access to sensitive data, there's far less risk.

But the photocopier guy does have access to potentially very sensitive data.

[LondonManc]

But the photocopier guy does have access to potentially very sensitive data.

Let's keep it simple.

Have. You. Been. Vetted. By. YOUR. Ltd. Company?

[stek]

But the photocopier guy does have access to potentially very sensitive data.

Anyone remember Fry and Laurie's 'Photocopying My Genitals With...'?

[LondonManc]

Anyone remember Fry and Laurie's 'Photocopying My Genitals With...'?

WALOB

[billybiro]

Let's keep it simple.

Have. You. Been. Vetted. By. YOUR. Ltd. Company?

And here we come full circle. My original message in this thread contained this:

Write a nice letter, on your finest Ltd. letterhead indicating that YourCo Ltd. has taken all necessary steps to ensure that YourConsultant is authorised to work in the UK and has a "clean bill of health". Give that letter to the client explaining that YourCo has done all the necessary legwork to ensure that YourConsultant is fit for the role.

There you go. MY Limited company declaring to client co that the necessary checks and balances have been performed by MY limited co. Nothing further should be necessary.

[compedomp]

So I don't log on for a few days and find that this post is up to 68 replies (plus this one) That is far more action than I've seen at work.....

Interesting replies and discussion. Regarding original post, the company is a financial one so a level of compliance must be observed. Point is though, I'm not their employee, I'm employed by the Ltd Company I own. They should have asked my company to carry out the background check on me and I would have been much happier about that.

Regarding the agent also asking for carte blanche background check on top of the clients own check... well I've told them to go whistle. There has to be a line somewhere, I just hope I get paid.

I've resigned myself to the fact that nothing much is going to change technically where I am and it feels like it's going to be a long few months of doing very little. I will satisfy myself that there are some very junior perm staff there who are benefiting from learning that procedural C# code is not a good long term plan.

It's a shame as I didn't go into contracting for the money, I went into contracting to provide an excellent service to clients and to get to work with as many different people and organisations as I can.

On the major plus side, I'm not treated like a merc and the people I work with are a very friendly bunch - could be lot worse.