• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Work in Banking? Don't worry about the blanket ban you were probably inside all along

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    It just goes to show what a lottery it can be if it goes to the commissioners.
    ...my quagmire of greed....my cesspit of laziness and unfairness....all I am doing is sticking two fingers up at nurses, doctors and other hard working employed professionals...

    Comment


      164. During the course of a contract Nationwide had the right, albeit not exercised, to direct
      where Mr Lee worked and to require him to work a professional day. Mr Lee had in practice
      a considerable degree of operational and personal autonomy but was subject to overarching
      controls primarily concerned with Nationwide’s need as a highly regulated business to
      monitor the progress of the relevant project consistent with Mr Lee being a highly skilled
      employee. However, Mr Lee could not be moved to a different project without his consent.
      I think that's a big one. If you are 9-5er to be always on site for years then you are an employee. He was clearly under control.

      Comment


        Originally posted by cannon999 View Post
        I think that's a big one. If you are 9-5er to be always on site for years then you are an employee. He was clearly under control.
        Only the last sentence of that comes close to proving he's an employee, and it's still arguable in this case.
        'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

        Comment


          Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
          Only the last sentence of that comes close to proving he's an employee, and it's still arguable in this case.
          The Professional working day one is a nice catch though - gives me an excuse to shift to hourly rates (as used to be the case years ago).
          merely at clientco for the entertainment

          Comment


            Originally posted by eek View Post
            The Professional working day one is a nice catch though - gives me an excuse to shift to hourly rates (as used to be the case years ago).
            Yeah.. but IMO, in isolation they are bordering on insignificant in a case. Easy to argue professional courtesy to be in when your client/stakeholders are around.

            In a three sentence post like his with a conclusion he's an employee because of it, it's virtually wrong.
            'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

            Comment


              What the hell is a professional day?

              Also, I personally love the fact that if you say that you work remotely then this isn't a big deal as permies are allowed to do this as well. If you don't work remotely, then you are a permie.

              Comment


                Originally posted by dsc View Post
                What the hell is a professional day?
                Professionals will know.. Don't you worry about it.
                Also, I personally love the fact that if you say that you work remotely then this isn't a big deal as permies are allowed to do this as well. If you don't work remotely, then you are a permie.
                What?

                Want another beer?
                'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                Comment


                  Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                  What?
                  Just trying to highlight the fact that whatever actions you try to take to prove lack of SDC they will ignore it, but if you don't bother with those actions they will use that against you.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                    Indeed. But looking at the facts here you couldn't blame them for not taking this on under their reasonable chance of win clause.

                    It also means other PMs at Nationwide and maybe other banks may find the insurance they have thinking it's keeping then safe suddenly isn't worth the paper it's not written on.

                    There could be a lot of fall out from this beyond the guy losing.
                    Similarly, it also probably means that any insurance that Joe contractor has (including the IPSE offering and QDOS) is not worth the paper is written on as well.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by gnarledcontractor View Post
                      Similarly, it also probably means that any insurance that Joe contractor has (including the IPSE offering and QDOS) is not worth the paper is written on as well.
                      Gnarly!!
                      'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X