2 year rule according to client

[MikeC1408]

Current client also has a 9 month rule, but this only applies to Temps.

The only rule they put on me after 2 years was I couldn't change my Ltd for the rest of my contract.

[BolshieBastard]

Been at my current client, a large American bank (!) for just over 3 years now. I've heard they dont tend to keep contractors for more than 4 years although Im aware of some who have been.

One of those wasnt very good while the other was, so, it is nothing to do with how important or good you are.

Im getting itchy feet though. The travel is a drag so maybe if they offer a renewal in November I'll opt to leave.

Bottom line is, you put up with what your client co says. If you can get someone to bend 'their' rules for you, all well and good. Otherwise its part of a contractors life.

[lukemg]

AZ are keen on an 11-month goodbye, for supposed employment rights reasons (I believe a couple of chumps tried this on), but people who had been there for years before hand could stay on the basis that the co was already exposed to possible claims.
On the good side, it processed a few jobs back into the market for others to take (the pm's used to do 11 months on 3 off for years - sweet) but not so much fun when you get processed back out.
Barclays I think try for a 51-week rule for the same reason.
Sure this has been discredited as a valid reason but I can understand why they want to keep a grip on contractors becoming furniture.

[Fred Bloggs]

GSK tried an 11 months and 2 weeks rule but it fell out of favour after they immediately had to sack several key players who had been there for more than a year and the projects suffered badly. They do have a corporate policy but I am led to understand that it relies heavily on a preferred supplier agreement indemnifying them in some way against contractors claiming employee rights.

[northernladuk]

I am aware in all three of these companies these have been waived on many occasions. I am also aware all of them and others that a wangle has been found to put you through a 'managed service' provider and so take you off the headcount. Stupid thing is the charge to the company goes up as they have to pay the cut to the MS as well as the agent.

Completely different view from the guys on the ground to the HR policy makers.

[Not So Wise]

This isnt the HMRC 2 year rule, its the clients '2 year rule' which is shrouded in mystery. <snip>
is it something official or something someone's pulled out of their hat?

Usually if such a rule exists it is because someone misunderstood the HMRC rules but that said, most companies should implement it (with ability to make exceptions) in my opinion on the basis that if you have a contractor working for you for 2 years in the same role you probably should have permie doing the role

To many companies taking advantage of the contracting market to avoid employment obligations and if rates stay down even more will do it

[northernladuk]

Usually if such a rule exists it is because someone misunderstood the HMRC rules but that said, most companies should implement it (with ability to make exceptions) in my opinion on the basis that if you have a contractor working for you for 2 years in the same role you probably should have permie doing the role

To many companies taking advantage of the contracting market to avoid employment obligations and if rates stay down even more will do it

Which, reading between the lines, also then means then that the contracter fulfilling this role which common sense dictates should be permanent puts them right in the firing line for IR35 however much they have tried to avoid it through worded contracts. This is just a generalisation and not the start of debate of IR35 by the way.