Key gig economy case reaches Supreme Court (Pimlico Plumbers)

[TheFaQQer]

The courts to date have declared that the plumber is a worker, not an employee - and there are different rights between the two. AIUI since the start of the case, Pimlico have changed the contracts that they use to engage the plumbers to provide services to clarify the position of self-employed partner rather than worker or employee, so whilst it might help this one person it would not necessarily be something that every self-employed person could rely on.

There is no link between taxation and employee / worker rights, but I would not be surprised to see people who are forced to declare themselves inside IR35 because of the client decision seeking the rights that they might be entitled to - sick pay, holiday pay, minimum wage etc. It needs a brave person to put their head above the parapet and say that they are willing to take the fight on (plus the right people to support the case, obviously), but it will happen sooner rather than later - and there may be many people in the chain that could be targeted, whether that's a payroll provider, agency, client, HMRC, HMG...

[Manic]

And another just popped up

https://forums.contractoruk.com/busi...fect-ir35.html

[MrButton]

My guess is that they'll be woefully underpaid for their work and the tax won't be a headache nor an incentive for them. A bit like Deliveroo drivers being self employed so Deliveroo don't have to pay them minimum wage.

Im sure ~£150k was quoted as revenue for self employed Pimlico workers.

Similar numbers to what was talked about when they did a tv programme about Pimlico plumbers. Basically they take it in. Apparently.

[markomagic1]

The courts to date have declared that the plumber is a worker, not an employee - and there are different rights between the two. AIUI since the start of the case, Pimlico have changed the contracts that they use to engage the plumbers to provide services to clarify the position of self-employed partner rather than worker or employee, so whilst it might help this one person it would not necessarily be something that every self-employed person could rely on.

There is no link between taxation and employee / worker rights, but I would not be surprised to see people who are forced to declare themselves inside IR35 because of the client decision seeking the rights that they might be entitled to - sick pay, holiday pay, minimum wage etc. It needs a brave person to put their head above the parapet and say that they are willing to take the fight on (plus the right people to support the case, obviously), but it will happen sooner rather than later - and there may be many people in the chain that could be targeted, whether that's a payroll provider, agency, client, HMRC, HMG...

I agree with most (not all) of what you said. From what I understand the difference between a 'worker' and an 'employee' is that a Contract of employment contains a mutuality of obligation and also control, whereas an MOO in particular doesn't exist in a worker contract. This is the interesting thing, if being inside IR35 hangs on the argument there is a MOO and control, then by definition anyone inside IR35 is deemed to be operating under a contract of employment and therefore entitled to the rights forthwith.

If of course the Supreme Court finds that even if an MOO doesn't exist in this case (as he's a Worker, not Employee) and yet he's still able to exercise an entitlement to employment rights, then the situation becomes even more complex for HR departments and the HMRC. They either want people inside IR35 but accept they'll open themselves up to employment rights claims, Contractors taking sick days that are paid for etc. Or they prefer people to be outside IR35 as self employed and accept there may be tax that goes unclaimed.

Bit of a fascinating conundrum for them !

[DaveB]

Im sure ~£150k was quoted as revenue for self employed Pimlico workers.

Similar numbers to what was talked about when they did a tv programme about Pimlico plumbers. Basically they take it in. Apparently.

The source of that quote is the boss of Pimlico Plumbers who is defending the case. I'd take it with a (large) pinch of salt.

[DaveB]

I agree with most (not all) of what you said. From what I understand the difference between a 'worker' and an 'employee' is that a Contract of employment contains a mutuality of obligation and also control, whereas an MOO in particular doesn't exist in a worker contract. This is the interesting thing, if being inside IR35 hangs on the argument there is a MOO and control, then by definition anyone inside IR35 is deemed to be operating under a contract of employment and therefore entitled to the rights forthwith.

If of course the Supreme Court finds that even if an MOO doesn't exist in this case (as he's a Worker, not Employee) and yet he's still able to exercise an entitlement to employment rights, then the situation becomes even more complex for HR departments and the HMRC. They either want people inside IR35 but accept they'll open themselves up to employment rights claims, Contractors taking sick days that are paid for etc. Or they prefer people to be outside IR35 as self employed and accept there may be tax that goes unclaimed.

Bit of a fascinating conundrum for them !

Not for HMRC. They want everyone inside paying full PAYE. They don't care about the costs to the employer or the rights of the workers, whatever they turn out to be.

[WTFH]

I've just merged the 3 Pimlico Plumbers threads.

You may need a passport to work out what goes where.

[TheFaQQer]

If of course the Supreme Court finds that even if an MOO doesn't exist in this case (as he's a Worker, not Employee) and yet he's still able to exercise an entitlement to employment rights

He isn't asking for employment rights. He is asking for rights to be recognised as a worker, which provides a very limited set of rights.

[TheFaQQer]

Bit of a fascinating conundrum for them !

One that is easily solvable through three different approaches:

1) You're inside IR35 so we'll engage you through an umbrella company - talk to your employer for your rights
2) You're likely to be inside IR35 so here's an FTC with very limited rights
3) You're an independent professional, outside IR35, and therefore there is no risk so we'll engage you as we should deal with all suppliers

Those at one end of the spectrum will be fine outside IR35, those that are at the other will be limited to working near (or from) home.

But just because you're inside IR35 does not make you an employee - I have an inside IR35 contract but I am absolutely not an employee of the company, and my contract and working practices make it clear that I am not an employee. And yet, I have to be inside IR35 because of the nature of the role.

[MrButton]

The source of that quote is the boss of Pimlico Plumbers who is defending the case. I'd take it with a (large) pinch of salt.

But it seemed in line with what the plumbers were saying on the tv show a few years ago.

But agree a large pinch of salt even so