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!
Anyone working "inside" and tried asking for employee stuff yet?
Why on earth would you do that when you are not employed by them and are not entitled to it? Surely the outcome would be that you look like a bit of a pillock that doesn't have a clue what you are doing shortly followed by an escort to the door?
If you really do want to do that you'd need to go to an Employment Tribunal but that is not advised.
Annual leave, flexi leave, sick pay, pension, share schemes, etc?
If so, how did it go?
How would you do that when your employer is the umbrella firm you are working through.
The actual term is pay parity and that only occurs 12 weeks after you start work (so most people won't be there) and most of us here will be being paid more than the permanent staff so it won't matter.
The client has determined that the role they want you to do is very much of an employee type position so therefore why don't they go the whole hog and treat you like a proper employee? It's the sort of thing I'd raise at interview for a laugh.
"Oh so this is an inside IR35 role because you have assessed that the working relationship is one of employment. Would you tell me why you're not offering a proper contract of employment with all the rights I would then be entitled to?"
It's almost tempting to apply for some inside roles
The client has determined that the role they want you to do is very much of an employee type position so therefore why don't they go the whole hog and treat you like a proper employee? It's the sort of thing I'd raise at interview for a laugh.
"Oh so this is an inside IR35 role because you have assessed that the working relationship is one of employment. Would you tell me why you're not offering a proper contract of employment with all the rights I would then be entitled to?"
It's almost tempting to apply for some inside roles
I completely agree. If only to witness first hand their complete surprise and confusion.
The client has determined that the role they want you to do is very much of an employee type position so therefore why don't they go the whole hog and treat you like a proper employee? It's the sort of thing I'd raise at interview for a laugh.
"Oh so this is an inside IR35 role because you have assessed that the working relationship is one of employment. Would you tell me why you're not offering a proper contract of employment with all the rights I would then be entitled to?"
It's almost tempting to apply for some inside roles
I believe being inside does not equate to an employee type position. I think that's a very broad statement that, in the majority of cases, is simply not true. People will pick up on that, just like the OP has, and because they can't see the wood for the trees they've gone straight down the wanting employee perks. This type of thinking is unhelpful at best.
In some cases the client has gotten it totally wrong and is using an inside person to blatantly fill a perm position and there is a case but I expect this won't be common at all. It certainly won't be the case for the OP. They've just not understood what they are.
EDIT : That said, I do believe this will grow in to a problem in years to come. When we get inside people doing 5+ years on site at clients that haven't bothered managing this properly there are going to be many valid cases I'd imagine. Just like we talk about long outside gigs starting to be a strong indicator of outside to inside (not debating this now but there is case law for it) then the same will happen to a contractor being inside now starts to look like an employee. Time will tell.
Just because it is inside does not equate to an employee type position. I think that's a very broad statement that, in the majority of cases, is simply not true. People will pick up on that, just like the OP has, and because they can't see the wood for the trees they've gone straight down the wanting employee perks. This type of thinking is unhelpful at best.
In some cases the client has gotten it totally wrong and is using an inside person to blatantly fill a perm position and there is a case but I expect this won't be common at all. It certainly won't be the case for the OP. They've just not understood what they are.
Oh I know but I would ask to see what the client actually understood. There is much conflation between employment for tax purposes and employment for rights purposes.
The trouble is, HMRC don't help much in their guidance:
What you need to do as a client
You’ll need to decide the employment status of every worker who operates through their own intermediary, even if they are provided through an agency.
Comment