Woodrow Mercer - IR35 Webinar

[vwdan]

So what word would you use instead?

Client, customer etc

Or is it the reason you dislike the word employer because you don't like the reality that that's how most end clients see you as a temporary (and expensive) employee?

Speak for yourself, eek. None of my clients have ever confused me with an employee. In the context of IR35 it's clearly an important distinction given, y'know, the phrase "Disguised employment". If you're not a disguised employee, you can not have an employer.

[Eirikur]

Had the same email and deleted when I saw that employer sentence

[eek]

Client, customer etc



Speak for yourself, eek. None of my clients have ever confused me with an employee. In the context of IR35 it's clearly an important distinction given, y'know, the phrase "Disguised employment". If you're not a disguised employee, you can not have an employer.

I'm speaking after 4 weeks of speaking to senior people at agencies refining a solution to some of the April 21 issues..

If your client actually regards you as a external consultant you really are an extreme exception and definitely not the rule... Companies use Agencies because they want an employee (light) like relationship rather than an external consultancy one.

[malvolio]

I'm speaking after 4 weeks of speaking to senior people at agencies refining a solution to some of the April 21 issues..

If your client actually regards you as a external consultant you really are an extreme exception and definitely not the rule... Companies use Agencies because they want an employee (light) like relationship rather than an external consultancy one.

Agencies talk about employers because they are in the business of selling warm bodies to corporate entities.

We, on the other hand, are trying to sell skills and knowledge on a commercial basis to someone willing to pay for it (and who thinks we are worth having).

The whole 20-odd year anti-IR35 campaign has been predicated us being suppliers, and not as temporary employees.

I will agree that the majority of "contractors" fail to make that distinction. However that is their problem and is actually nothing to do with the validity or otherwise of HMG's position on IR35 and, indeed, the whole knowledge and gig economies, nor the arguments being put forward to defend our position.

So yes, the use of the word "employer" by an agency is to be expected, but it does not mean that they understand or even recognise the differences. Which is why we have a real problem, because HMG takes advice from agencies - directly and via REC and friends - and so sticks with its employer/employee mindset.

Like it or not, the difference is important.

And FWIW, I've been talking to agencies and clients for around 15 years on the subject. Some have even listened...

[vwdan]

I'm speaking after 4 weeks of speaking to senior people at agencies refining a solution to some of the April 21 issues..

If your client actually regards you as a external consultant you really are an extreme exception and definitely not the rule... Companies use Agencies because they want an employee (light) like relationship rather than an external consultancy one.

Agencies say a lot of things. I wouldn't believe most of them if they told me the sky was blue, and I sincerely fail to see how it's material. If they're referring to us as employees then they are wrong and need correcting.

Maybe I am this extreme exception in a sea of permietractors, but I can hand on heart say all of my clients knew precisely what I was all about and never confused me for, or treated me as an employee. If they came close, I spoke to them and clarified the position.

[eek]

Agencies talk about employers because they are in the business of selling warm bodies to corporate entities.

We, on the other hand, are trying to sell skills and knowledge on a commercial basis to someone willing to pay for it (and who thinks we are worth having).

The whole 20-odd year anti-IR35 campaign has been predicated us being suppliers, and not as temporary employees.

I will agree that the majority of "contractors" fail to make that distinction. However that is their problem and is actually nothing to do with the validity or otherwise of HMG's position on IR35 and, indeed, the whole knowledge and gig economies, nor the arguments being put forward to defend our position.

So yes, the use of the word "employer" by an agency is to be expected, but it does not mean that they understand or even recognise the differences. Which is why we have a real problem, because HMG takes advice from agencies - directly and via REC and friends - and so sticks with its employer/employee mindset.

Like it or not, the difference is important.

And FWIW, I've been talking to agencies and clients for around 15 years on the subject. Some have even listened...

And end clients want an easy risk free life without HMRC knocking on the door.

Which is why contracting as we know it dies in April.

[malvolio]

And end clients want an easy risk free life without HMRC knocking on the door.

Which is why contracting as we know it dies in April.

Well yes, it will.

Unless, of course, you know how to circumvent the rules properly and avoid being inside IR35. Which is probably beyond a lot of people.

[jamesbrown]

Well yes, it will.

Unless, of course, you know how to circumvent the rules properly and avoid being inside IR35. Which is probably beyond a lot of people.

It isn't about "you" anymore, unless you deal with overseas clients or work for designated small companies.

[malvolio]

It isn't about "you" anymore, unless you deal with overseas clients or work for designated small companies.

Disagree - but let's leave it there for a year or so...

[jamesbrown]

Disagree - but let's leave it there for a year or so...

What part of the client issuing an SDS (or avoiding contractors altogether) didn't you understand?

You can speculate all you like about what might emerge in N years, but the legislation from 6 April is what it is.