Lower paid contractor discussion

[cojak]

P.S. If you've been there three years and think going to meetings makes you an employee, what do you know about IR35? It sounds like you've got another issue going on here. If you have to leave well before the April changes it sounds like it could be a blessing in disguise for you.

NLUK - See eek's and my side conversation first before making more posts in this thread.

I wouldn't make the assumption that limited company means a willing contractor being paid a lot of money - you haven't had the dealings I'm currently having with the lower paid end of the market

and indeed are both understatements

[northernladuk]

NLUK - See eek's and my side conversation first before making more posts in this thread.

I'm not seeing the point here? So we are to assume a newbie female contractor is the lower end of the contracting market? We get tons of new people struggling with what they are and we don't assume they are forced in to contracting? 99.99% of the time they are just permatractors that need to pull their fingers out.

It's fair to make this assumption but not sure why it makes my comment any less relevant. I'm assuming she isn't so why can't I post on that assumption?

I'm not the brightest spark in the bucket so not understanding that comment sorry.

[eek]

I'm not seeing the point here? So we are to assume a newbie female contractor is the lower end of the contracting market? We get tons of new people struggling with what they are and we don't assume they are forced in to contracting? 99.99% of the time they are just permatractors that need to pull their fingers out.

It's fair to make this assumption but not sure why it makes my comment any less relevant. I'm assuming she isn't so why can't I post on that assumption?

I'm not the brightest spark in the bucket so not understanding that comment sorry.

I find it better to assume the worst and get the facts rather than making assumptions and scaring the OP.

Given that the poster doesn't know anything a softly, softly approach is required.

And believe me I've heard stories over the past 2 weeks that would make even your blood boil.

[northernladuk]

I find it better to assume the worst and get the facts rather than making assumptions and scaring the OP.

Given that the poster doesn't know anything a softly, softly approach is required.

I get that and that's a fair assumption. Don't understand why that means I can't post on the thread anymore.. Point taken anyway.

And believe me I've heard stories over the past 2 weeks that would make even your blood boil.

Doesn't seem to take a lot to do that nowadays to be fair but I'll bet it will. FTCs do that and they are a common and accepted method of engagement.

[NowPermOutsideUK]

You should totally see an employment lawyer and ask them for their opinion - Some of the lawyers even work for no win no fee and there are charities that do help with real legal advice

If HMRC can move the goalposts and claim contractors are hidden employees then employees are perfectly entitled to try their luck and see if they were really employees with all the rights attached to it. It will cost the employee nothing if they find a no win no fee and they would lose nothing. The client might well settle to avoid the fight

I have a lot of respect for Eeeks answer which is the same as mine basically

[fullyautomatix]

You should totally see an employment lawyer and ask them for their opinion - Some of the lawyers even work for no win no fee and there are charities that do help with real legal advice

If HMRC can move the goalposts and claim contractors are hidden employees then employees are perfectly entitled to try their luck and see if they were really employees with all the rights attached to it. It will cost the employee nothing if they find a no win no fee and they would lose nothing. The client might well settle to avoid the fight

I have a lot of respect for Eeeks answer which is the same as mine basically

Absolute nonsense. Getting the lawyers in on the company, who at this point have done everything by the book, have no idea of her pregnancy is going to result in only one thing. If it is a medium sized company, they will have the services of some strong lawyers themselves.

The OP claims she cannot do the job after the baby arrives since this is a role that involves travel, what do you want the lawyers to do, argue that the OP sits in the office with the baby all day and get paid ?

[fullyautomatix]

Oh, I think you were posting here with username LondonPM before you got banned, I see that you are back with more nonsense now.

[northernladuk]

You should totally see an employment lawyer and ask them for their opinion - Some of the lawyers even work for no win no fee and there are charities that do help with real legal advice

If HMRC can move the goalposts and claim contractors are hidden employees then employees are perfectly entitled to try their luck and see if they were really employees with all the rights attached to it. It will cost the employee nothing if they find a no win no fee and they would lose nothing. The client might well settle to avoid the fight

I have a lot of respect for Eeeks answer which is the same as mine basically

No win no fee are the bottom scrapers of that world and no way they would take on a large and complex case like this. It's too much risk and even if she does win and can claim maternity pay the 25% they will make on it is likely to not cover the costs.

You bolded comments aren't right or at best very grey. 'Trying their luck' to see is a very expensive process which has further reaching fallout than just winning or losing. Look how much it's costing HMRC and how difficult it is. Those costs and complexity will also affect the contractor. It's only been done once or twice so far and it's been expensive so that speaks volumes. I don't think the've been cases against a client either, only vs HMRC.

If she is outside and manages to argue she's an employee won't she be liable for all the backtax, interest and penalties for the three years. Surely proving she's an employee is possibly the worst move she can make surely?

So not the same as Eeks.

[NowPermOutsideUK]

Absolute nonsense. Getting the lawyers in on the company, who at this point have done everything by the book, have no idea of her pregnancy is going to result in only one thing. If it is a medium sized company, they will have the services of some strong lawyers themselves.

The OP claims she cannot do the job after the baby arrives since this is a role that involves travel, what do you want the lawyers to do, argue that the OP sits in the office with the baby all day and get paid ?

Just so that I am clear - You should only do this IF they decide to terminate you obviously... How you can think anything else is beyond me

If the contract continues and the OP is happy then of course no lawyers but if they do terminate and boot her out what would it cost the OP ...

[cojak]

I get that and that's a fair assumption. Don't understand why that means I can't post on the thread anymore.. Point taken anyway.
Doesn't seem to take a lot to do that nowadays to be fair but I'll bet it will. FTCs do that and they are a common and accepted method of engagement.

No, I didn't say that, did I?

I asked you to read and consider that possibility before your next post and modify accordingly.

I had to write a post explaining why you are rude to newbies, that should tell you something.