Opt in or out

[Boo]

2. You cannot have an opt out included in your contract, the opt out must be done separately.

But the contract can contain terms which make its provisions conditional upon the contractor having opted out. And IME agency contracts often do have such terms.

Boo

[SueEllen]

But the contract can contain terms which make its provisions conditional upon the contractor having opted out. And IME agency contracts often do have such terms.

Boo

Then that's a contract written to force contractors to opt-out

My contract with the client (whose office I'm currently sitting in) via an agency is written with additional clauses for those who are opted-out and those who are opted-in.

[SueEllen]

Can you provide proof of that ? Or do you always demand a lower standard from yourself than you do from from others ?

You are welcome to contact one of the companies on here: Legal and IR35 Advisory services :: Contractor UK

Like I have.

[Boo]

You are welcome to contact one of the companies on here: Legal and IR35 Advisory services :: Contractor UK

Like I have.

And your proof that "introduction" means, basically, "interview" ? Missing I note...

...because it's obvious c*ck-a-doodle.

PREDICTION: The first time the issue is raised in a court of law the phrase "introduction or supply" will be determined to mean "introduction into the workforce or (commencement of) supply (of services)".

The won't the PCG look like the stupid ***** they are ? And their hangers on won't look any brighter either.

Boo

[malvolio]

And your proof that "introduction" means, basically, "interview" ? Missing I note...

...because it's obvious c*ck-a-doodle.

PREDICTION: The first time the issue is raised in a court of law the phrase "introduction or supply" will be determined to mean "introduction into the workforce or (commencement of) supply (of services)".

The won't the PCG look like the stupid ***** they are ? And their hangers on won't look any brighter either.

Boo

The distinction between the two cases of introduction is perfectly straightforward.

1. The client wants a filing clerk, calls Office Angels and tells them to send one over. They don't care who turns up or even what their name is as long as they can do the filing. The clerk probably doesn't know where they're going until an hour or so earlier and has no say in whether or not to take the gig; they are, after all, employed by the agency.

2. The client needs someone temporarily to take on a technically or managerially challenging piece of work that affects potentially many areas, or to fill a position that has unexpectedly become vacant. They need to know the abilities of the person they're getting so they ask an agency to go though a selection and interview process. The agency looks for suitable candidates and passes over a selection for the client to examine. The worker has chosen to apply for hte role, they are perfectly at liberty to walk away if they don't like it and they are in no way an employee of anyone, least of all the agency.

Therefore we have the two variations of "introduction"; but they both hinge on the client knowing who you are personally either by a type 1 turning up on Monday morning and introducing themselves or when when a type 2 is offered for consideration by the intermediary agency. Sorry if that's a little complicated but hey, it's a complicated world.
I'm guessing you fall into group 1... but at least you know why there was a dispute about the Agency Regs applying to contractors like me. Also, some of the constraints of the regs mean that people who want to grow their businesses using subbies and/or collaborative ventures are hamstrung because those subbies and/or partners potentially got classified as employees of theirs (sound familiar?) leading to all sorts of confusions with taxation, employee rights and related benefits. Therefore they wanted the option to stay outside the scope in its entirety.

The PCG, by the way, is 20,000 people, not some secret society of monks in black hoods, and they don't have hangers on. They do have quite a few badly informed critics though. Heigh ho.

[Pondlife]

Denny?

[malvolio]

Denny?

Nope. I understand what I'm talking about.

/EDIT - Sorry - just twiggged what you meant. In which case:

Possibly. I couldn't possibly comment...

[Wanderer]

But the contract can contain terms which make its provisions conditional upon the contractor having opted out. And IME agency contracts often do have such terms

I too have seen contracts with terms dependent on the opt in/out status. They say things like:

"The contractor can't work for the client through any other agency for a period of 1 year after they finish the contract"

"The contractor won't be paid unless they can produce signed timesheets"

"The contractor won't be paid if the client doesn't pay the agency"

All three of these have a subtext which notes that they only apply to opted out contractors. For me to opt out, I'm going to get some really nasty restrictions in my contract which wouldn't otherwise exist!

What terms have you come across, Boo? Were they genuinely beneficial to the contractor (eg, IR35 friendly terms like substitution, MOO and control) or were they nasties like the ones I've been presented with?

If there are terms that would genuinely benefit your IR35 status if you opted out then all you have to do is tell the agency that you are NOT opting out, but you want these terms included anyway. They will have a bit of a about it but they aren't going to let you go over a minor detail like that.

Failing that, you could just opt out after you start the job since most agencies are too stupid to know it's not valid.

[Boo]

The distinction between the two cases of introduction is perfectly straightforward.

Those are both the same case ? In both the cases you mention the temp is introduced into the workforce, and supply of services commenced,simultaneously. The supplier in both instances is the agency, and it is irrelevant whether the temp is a Ltd Co or an individual. It is similarly irrelevant to the point at issue what skill level the temp possesses.

The case where there is a distinction between "introduction into the workforce" and "supply of services" is the case where the agency supplies temps but they do not work alongside the clients' workers as part of their workforce. A case would be a local council who contracts an agency to supply a gang to dig up a ditch or something similar. In this case the reason the legislation makes the distinction between "supply" and "introduction" is simply to avoid the loophole where the agency argues that the temp was never "introduced" into the workforce.

So you are quite wrong and you should be more careful about misleading people by giving out duff information in public forums.

Boo

[malvolio]

Those are both the same case ? In both the cases you mention the temp is introduced into the workforce, and supply of services commenced,simultaneously. The supplier in both instances is the agency, and it is irrelevant whether the temp is a Ltd Co or an individual. It is similarly irrelevant to the point at issue what skill level the temp possesses.

The case where there is a distinction between "introduction into the workforce" and "supply of services" is the case where the agency supplies temps but they do not work alongside the clients' workers as part of their workforce. A case would be a local council who contracts an agency to supply a gang to dig up a ditch or something similar. In this case the reason the legislation makes the distinction between "supply" and "introduction" is simply to avoid the loophole where the agency argues that the temp was never "introduced" into the workforce.

So you are quite wrong and you should be more careful about misleading people by giving out duff information in public forums.

Boo

Sorry but if you can't understand plain English, there's no point arguing. The wording in the Regs is imprecise - perhaps deliberately, knowing who drafted it - but the intention is precisely as I've said.