Single Parent Not Compatible To Business Needs

[Lanny]

In 20 years on contracting I’ve never discussed my personal life at a clients site - can I ask why you felt it necessary to share this info with your client ?

I just needed to adjust my hours and was being honest about the situation. I work in a small department and did not think for one moment that they would terminate my contract due to personal reasons.

[ladymuck]

I'm really sorry you've had that experience. I don't think there's much you can do about it, unfortunately, other than chalk it up to experience.

It sounds to me like the client/hiring company (if they are not one and the same) is pulling a fast one by wanting an employee relationship on contractor terms. It saves them a fortune in Employers NI and employee benefits.

Sadly this scenario will continue until either HMG pushes some ill thought out legislation through or someone whistle-blows.

Best course of action moving forward is to do your research into the legislation/rights etc around contracting - there's guides on this site and elsewhere. Knowledge is power!

[northernladuk]

This is a major global automotive company. Predominantly male staff. I feel I have been used as an employee and disposed of as a contractor. I guess I should put this down to naivety and move on.

I don't wish to sound rude but just looking at the facts we have I don't think they are totally to blame. You've used terms such as 'supervisor' and 'one to ones' so you look like an employee to me. If you want to be a contractor you have to act like one. Did you get your contract checked by a specialist? Did you make as much effort as you could that your contract and working practices were outside IR35? I'm sure you've enjoyed the benefits of tax efficient (arguably incorrectly though) so you have to take the rough with the smooth. That said I can't see any thing that tells me your gig was anything but inside and contracting through a LTD was the wrong way to go.

This does not sound to me like standard contracting. More like a company that provides resources to clients, treats those resources like employees in every way except actually employing them.

One approach might be to start legal action on the grounds that you are actually their employee. Of course it all depends on the actual details of how it's set up

I think this nails it though. Sounds more like you are agency staff rather than a contractor. I'd advise next time you understand the differences between contracting and agency work and push for the right set up for your situation. Don't let them roll you over with the LTD option because it's easier for them when it's not the right option for you.

If you work in a small department wouldn't that have been an indication they would be less flexible with hours?

I think you are right to feel a bit used in this situation, it certainly appears you have caught the rough end but it happens in contracting.

[ladymuck]

I don't wish to sound rude but just looking at the facts we have I don't think they are totally to blame. You've used terms such as 'supervisor' and 'one to ones' so you look like an employee to me. If you want to be a contractor you have to act like one. Did you get your contract checked by a specialist? Did you make as much effort as you could that your contract and working practices were outside IR35? I'm sure you've enjoyed the benefits of tax efficient (arguably incorrectly though) so you have to take the rough with the smooth. That said I can't see any thing that tells me your gig was anything but inside and contracting through a LTD was the wrong way to go.



I think this nails it though. Sounds more like you are agency staff rather than a contractor. I'd advise next time you understand the differences between contracting and agency work and push for the right set up for your situation. Don't let them roll you over with the LTD option because it's easier for them when it's not the right option for you.

If you work in a small department wouldn't that have been an indication they would be less flexible with hours?

I think you are right to feel a bit used in this situation, it certainly appears you have caught the rough end but it happens in contracting.

Chill a bit! See posts above where the OP acknowledges being naive and believing the hiring company.

[Lanny]

HOP, you really need proper advice. I would start with Gingerbread.

Having said that, my non expert hunch is that if you are outside IR35 you are stuck. If you are inside IR35 you may be in with a chance. If you have been deemed inside IR35 by a public sector client you may have more of a chance.

1. Are you under contract to deliver service personally. Seehttps://www.crunch.co.uk/knowledge/employment/limited-company-contactors-protected-equality-act-2010/ . if the answer is yes then you need to demonstrate discrimination. Do the treat single dads in the same way.

2. If you have been in contract for 12 weeks or more you may have some protection under the AWR. Get some advice!

I have been niave. Admittedly I am from a healthcare background and a trusting individual. Its been a hard lesson to learn.

[northernladuk]

Chill a bit! See posts above where the OP acknowledges being naive and believing the hiring company.

And so I've added some detail as to what area she's been naïve about. Not trying to cause a ruckus, just dealing with the facts. I didn't put a warm cuddle on the end because it's not really what I do. It's a bit straight but hopefully pointing out the facts will help her next time. Sorry.

[psychocandy]

In 20 years on contracting I’ve never discussed my personal life at a clients site - can I ask why you felt it necessary to share this info with your client ?

Yes but if OP needed some sort of allowance then they'd have no choice.

If you're single, or got a wife/partner that always sorts the kids, no elderly parents then maybe. The rest of us sometimes have responsibilities we have to fit which sometimes leaves us no choice but to discuss with client and sort out.

[psychocandy]

OP - problem is there are bellends in this world and whole lot in IT. You're probably best out of it at that client to be honest.

Must admit I can imagine the grief being a single mum. I've worked places where I've said "nope no can do I've got to pick kids up" and been looked at as if I'm mad.

I even had one guy once when they wanted something doing out of hours at short notice saying to me "can't your wife do that".

(Shes a nurse out in the community, and hate to say it, but if I expect her to bail it will have an affect on some poor buggers health - whereas for me its unlikely).

Thats trouble with the IT industry. We forget that MOST of the time anything we do or don't do is unlikely to affect the wellbeing of another person. Its unlikely that someone will die if we don't upgrade before the end of July etc. Of course, it might cost the company money which is more likely the true issues here.

[northernladuk]

OP - problem is there are bellends in this world and whole lot in IT. You're probably best out of it at that client to be honest.

Must admit I can imagine the grief being a single mum. I've worked places where I've said "nope no can do I've got to pick kids up" and been looked at as if I'm mad.

I even had one guy once when they wanted something doing out of hours at short notice saying to me "can't your wife do that".

(Shes a nurse out in the community, and hate to say it, but if I expect her to bail it will have an affect on some poor buggers health - whereas for me its unlikely).

Thats trouble with the IT industry. We forget that MOST of the time anything we do or don't do is unlikely to affect the wellbeing of another person. Its unlikely that someone will die if we don't upgrade before the end of July etc. Of course, it might cost the company money which is more likely the true issues here.

But she doesn't work in IT?

And I doubt it's costing the company money. It's the incompatibility between times expected and times offered which is pretty clearly explained.

[psychocandy]

But she doesn't work in IT?

And I doubt it's costing the company money. It's the incompatibility between times expected and times offered which is pretty clearly explained.

Good point.

Still stand by my point though. Giving someone the boot because they're live circumstances have changed is a bit off..... (assuming OP wasnt taking the piss of course)