One rule for contractors another for permanent staff

[LondonManc]

Not uncommon to be honest. Seen it loads of times....

Some client managers (not you're manager) like to have a bit of power it seems and make it look like the contractors aren't getting away with it. Current client is really pushing WFH because of lack of space. BUT team I work in the manager has decided that contractors don't get that "perk". Its annoying especially when I do them favours like do on call for TOIL instead of payment because they didnt have enough people. BUT, I guess some of them see you're rate and it annoys them.

Personally, and I know some will disagree, a lot of us work in teams with permies. Same job, same everything except how we're paid. Treating people differently because they are contractors is silly in this case.

Worse one I had was where client had a "contractor" area. Crap end of the office. Not allowed to sit with permies in same team. Bit childish this was.

IR35 much?

WFH isn't a perk, it's a state of mind. Those that can't handle it ruin it for others, both perm and contract.

In terms of WFH, contractors are arguably better prepared for it because of the way they (should) operate. I wouldn't expect a permie to have the same level of kit at home as a contractor or consultant.

[northernladuk]

IR35 much?

WFH isn't a perk, it's a state of mind. Those that can't handle it ruin it for others, both perm and contract.

In terms of WFH, contractors are arguably better prepared for it because of the way they (should) operate. I wouldn't expect a permie to have the same level of kit at home as a contractor or consultant.

He's talking with his years of being a clueless permitractor behind him, not on behalf of proper contractors.

[BR14]

WFH isn't a perk, it's a state of mind. Those that can't handle it ruin it for others, both perm and contract.
.

this.
i'd happily shoot the feckwits who think WFH is about sitting around watching cricket*

*mind, you, anyone who can watch cricket and stay awake is braindead already.

[psychocandy]

He's talking with his years of being a clueless permitractor behind him, not on behalf of proper contractors.

yawn yawn yawn

[karmabass]

one place I worked, the contractors got to work from home, but the permies got nothing.

This is how things are at my current client: contractors come into the office once a week or less, but the permies have to be there 3+ days. I won't have a client tell me where and when to carry out the work for IR35 reasons.

[northernladuk]

This is how things are at my current client: contractors come into the office once a week or less, but the permies have to be there 3+ days. I won't have a client tell me where and when to carry out the work for IR35 reasons.

Good luck after you leave your current client then.....

[escapeUK]

I've been enjoying a few years off, but back with a new exciting contract. So just getting back up to speed with everything.

Why would anyone accept an inside IR35 job, in other words you are an employee of the company, but with no rights of employment. Why?? And perhaps a bigger question, how is that even slightly legal, and why hasn't it been challenged and laughed out of the court? None of the perks of being a contractor and none of the benefits of being an employee. Wow. Just wow.



NLUK how are you still here all these years later saying the exact same things? Don't you get bored?

[ladymuck]

I've been enjoying a few years off, but back with a new exciting contract. So just getting back up to speed with everything.

Why would anyone accept an inside IR35 job, in other words you are an employee of the company, but with no rights of employment. Why?? And perhaps a bigger question, how is that even slightly legal, and why hasn't it been challenged and laughed out of the court? None of the perks of being a contractor and none of the benefits of being an employee. Wow. Just wow.



NLUK how are you still here all these years later saying the exact same things? Don't you get bored?

Why? Because for many people there isn't a choice

Legal? Yes because employment status for benefits is not the same as employment status for tax

[northernladuk]

I've been enjoying a few years off, but back with a new exciting contract. So just getting back up to speed with everything.

Why would anyone accept an inside IR35 job, in other words you are an employee of the company, but with no rights of employment. Why?? And perhaps a bigger question, how is that even slightly legal, and why hasn't it been challenged and laughed out of the court? None of the perks of being a contractor and none of the benefits of being an employee. Wow. Just wow.

I think above is a bit wow as well. Challenged and laughed out of court? Right..... :

NLUK how are you still here all these years later saying the exact same things? Don't you get bored?

Nope. Not sure which comment you are referring to but time sadly doesn't alter the fact people don't look to their accountants for advice or still post Ill thought out or poorly researched questions. And as they keep coming I will say the same things which happen to be the best advice for them.

[escapeUK]

Why? Because for many people there isn't a choice

Legal? Yes because employment status for benefits is not the same as employment status for tax

HMRC recently said

"The change to the long-standing off-payroll rules ensures the correct tax and National Insurance contributions is paid by shifting responsibility for employment status decisions from workers to the organisations they work for."

Well if the organisations are deciding that the status is inside IR35, in other words, really an actual employee. Then logically actual employees get redundancy, holiday pay, sick pay etc etc As demanded by the law.

I don't see how you can have it both ways. Being both an actual employee but having the entitlements (ie none) of a contractor.

In fact the recent article in TheRegister about he demonstration said

"Contractors found to be within the scope of the legislation – i.e. inside IR35 – will have to pay the same tax and National Insurance contributions as full-time employees, despite not receiving benefits such as holiday or sick pay, pension or parental leave."

Totally and utterly unjust and surely illegal?