Sizewell C, Hinkley Point C, EDF Energy

[fatJock]

If you've been working on one contract/project for multiple years, it's hard to see where the argument is that you've not been inside all along.

Having been on the periphery of HPC working with one of EDF's partners I don't think your conclusion is so cut and dry given the protracted duration of large engineering projects - it's not like it's just writing a new front end for a legacy app now is it? Some of the skills needed are incredibly niche.

[sadkingbilly]

SKB is just trolling, as per usual

no i'm not, he asked if anyone was affected. i'm not.

[NotAllThere]

no i'm not, he asked if anyone was affected. i'm not.

Because you don't work there. Or, to be more accurate, you're not paid to be there!

[sadkingbilly]

Because you don't work there. Or, to be more accurate, you're not paid to be there!

you might say that, - i couldn't possibly comment.

[agentzero]

Switching from Outside to Inside but staying in the same gig is dodgy. Because HMRC could look at it and say in that case, you were obviously inside all along.

Been in that position once, and made the correct move to turn down the new inside contract and move on. (They were also stingy about the new rate, which made it an easy decision!).

It looks like people are heading for the exit with this in mind. So far about 10%-15% are staying, more fool them. The risk is too high.

[Protagoras]

It looks like people are heading for the exit with this in mind. So far about 10%-15% are staying, more fool them. The risk is too high.

If large numbers of people were leaving a large infrastructure project, where is the UK media coverage of this?

Given the size of the client and supply chain consultancies, presumably most - if not all - of those engaged as contractors would have been assessed as 'outside' under the Ch.10 arrangements. For assessments under Ch.10, liability for proven incorrect status determinations rests with the Fee Payer.

What is the actual risk under Ch.10 for such contractors if re-assessed as 'employees' that would drive such people to leave in large numbers?

It's also curious that there are currently a number of 'outside' engineering jobs advertised.

[eek]

If large numbers of people were leaving a large infrastructure project, where is the UK media coverage of this?

Given the size of the client and supply chain consultancies, presumably most - if not all - of those engaged as contractors would have been assessed as 'outside' under the Ch.10 arrangements. For assessments under Ch.10, liability for proven incorrect status determinations rests with the Fee Payer.

What is the actual risk under Ch.10 for such contractors if re-assessed as 'employees' that would drive such people to leave in large numbers?

It's also curious that there are currently a number of 'outside' engineering jobs advertised.

the risk is the clause in the outside contract saying they can chase you to recover the tax HMRC are telling the consultancy / agency to pay.

i suspect a combination of being on a project a long time, fear of a large tax bill, no longer being able to claim expenses (regardless of the legality of those expenses) and a typical FU reaction would encourage people to leave.

i know in my case if i was told i was inside i would be leaving very quickly regardless of rate increase offers

[Protagoras]

the risk is the clause in the outside contract saying they can chase you to recover the tax HMRC are telling the consultancy / agency to pay.

Oh, that one. I'd quite forgotten that some people would actually agree to such contract terms!

[eek]

Oh, that one. I'd quite forgotten that some people would actually agree to such contract terms!

Most people don’t read the terms let alone understand them

[Protagoras]

Most people don’t read the terms let alone understand them

As someone who always read contracts and deleted unacceptable clauses, I find that really scary.

But I expect you're correct!