Opt in or out

[SueEllen]

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

Boo

Denny sorry Boo what are your legal qualifications?

I'm only asking because I've been advised by more than one legally qualified person that what malvolio says is correct.

[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.

You are wrong. The wording in the regs is precise: "introduction or supply". It has the following meaning : "introduction (into the workforce) or (commencement of) supply (of services)".

Your word-guffery above made no reference to the wording of the regs and made no reference either to the reasoning behind that wording. A court will, if it finds ambiguity in the wording, interpret the law according to rational expectations of the lawmakers intent. You did not provide any rationality in support of your view that Parliament intended a distinction between temps employed by agencies and temps employed by Ltd Co.s contracted through agencies.

In order to make your point in any way convincing, you need to show why a court will come down in favour of the view that Parliament meant for Ltd Co. contractors to agree terms before discussing the work with the client, whereas agency temps need not agree contracts until after that point in time but before starting work. Why do you believe that ?

I know you will not answer my point because there is no reason on Earth why Parliament would have made that distinction.

Boo

[Boo]

I've been advised by more than one legally qualified person that what malvolio says is correct.

You have misunderstood what they said to you.

If you have legally qualified friends then why not point them to this thread and get them to publicly express an opinion as to which of us is right ? Otherwise it is completely futile to say "I've got a friend, right, he's really big on all this stuff, and he says your friend's an * who doesn't know what he's talking about". Which is all your remark actually signifies.

Boo

[malvolio]

You are wrong. The wording in the regs is precise: "introduction or supply". It has the following meaning : "introduction (into the workforce) or (commencement of) supply (of services)".

Your word-guffery above made no reference to the wording of the regs and made no reference either to the reasoning behind that wording. A court will, if it finds ambiguity in the wording, interpret the law according to rational expectations of the lawmakers intent. You did not provide any rationality in support of your view that Parliament intended a distinction between temps employed by agencies and temps employed by Ltd Co.s contracted through agencies.

In order to make your point in any way convincing, you need to show why a court will come down in favour of the view that Parliament meant for Ltd Co. contractors to agree terms before discussing the work with the client, whereas agency temps need not agree contracts until after that point in time but before starting work. Why do you believe that ?

I know you will not answer my point because there is no reason on Earth why Parliament would have made that distinction.

Boo

"Introduction or supply" is exactly as I described: "introduction" as in knowing precisely who you are or "supply" as in sending over one of your employees with roughly the right skill-set. If they were synonymous, the Regulations wouldn't have used the two words, or would have used "and" instead of "or". The only failing in precision is to define fully the word "Introduction", but from talking to the people at DBERR who wrote the damned thing, I'm satisfied my explanation is correct.

[Boo]

"Introduction or supply" is exactly as I described: "introduction" as in knowing precisely who you are or "supply" as in sending over one of your employees with roughly the right skill-set. If they were synonymous, the Regulations wouldn't have used the two words, or would have used "and" instead of "or". The only failing in precision is to define fully the word "Introduction", but from talking to the people at DBERR who wrote the damned thing, I'm satisfied my explanation is correct.

The words "introduction" and "supply" are not synonyms and the reason for them to be conjoined by "or" is because the "introduction" of the worker into the workforce and the "(commencement of the) supply (of services)" are the point in time at which the contract becomes effective for the two different cases. The sole point of that part of the legislation is to ensure that the opted in/out status of the temp is decided before the contract becomes effective, whether the temp is introduced into the workforce or whether the supply of services takes place outside the clients' workplace.

It is fatuous to aver that the regs make the distinction between two different classes of employee, one who needed to be interviewed and another who didn't.
You avoided the question last time so I'll ask you again : Why on earth would Parliament have decided that some people had to have contract terms decided before interview and others not ?

The reason you have no answer is because the proposition is nonsense. If the issue comes up in court then you will need to provide an answer just to contradict the obvious and sensible interpretation I gave. It is irresponsible for you to put forward as fact a POV which has such a shaky foundation, what if someone believed you and came a cropper ?

As for your post about "people at the BERR" who allegedly fed you that poppycock, it has the same made up feel as SueEllens "friends" who are lawyers. Funny, isn't it, how everyone who espouses the standard nonsense on this issue knows someone important who has a superior knowledge to anyone else but that person themselves is never seen themselves to post under their full regalia about what those clauses mean ?

The reason is that the PCG line you so obsequiously follow is devoid of all rational support so you have to resort to "my dad's bigger than your dad" style arguments.

Boo

[malvolio]

Why on earth would Parliament have decided that some people had to have contract terms decided before interview and others not ?

Because some are employees and some are not?

End of discussion, this is getting increasingly pointless.

[craig1]

You have misunderstood what they said to you.

If you have legally qualified friends then why not point them to this thread and get them to publicly express an opinion as to which of us is right ? Otherwise it is completely futile to say "I've got a friend, right, he's really big on all this stuff, and he says your friend's an * who doesn't know what he's talking about". Which is all your remark actually signifies.

Boo

Craig1, LL.B.(Hons) Law, specialising in contract and commercial law. This was in a time when I was naive enough to think law was an ethical career and long before I became an IT contractor. I saw the light and went for a proper job.

Although my law degree is a bit old now, the general principles judges will fall are still the same, when there's a term that has more than one interpretation a judge's first instinct is to fall back on the interpretation that fits most closely with established law in other areas. If you look at the standard contractor's arrangement, it's a contract within a contract, I need to agree a contract (in principle) with the agent before he negotiates on my behalf with the client. The regulations specifically govern the arrangement between the agency and contractor and will need to be in place before the agent goes to the client.

It's pointless the regulations kicking in when you've completed a multi-layered set of contracts then suddenly have to work out whether you're opted in or not with all the massive implications the regulations have for the governance of the contract.

I know I'm right. I know the other posters above are right. For me to think you're anything bar a troll you'll have to be a lot more convincing than simply reaching for the thesaurus to make yourself sound educated.

That all said, I'm not a lawyer and am very proud of that fact

[Wanderer]

End of discussion.

Agreed.

We are all wrong and Boob is right. Simples.

[Boo]

Because some are employees and some are not?

Why would that determine the point in time at which the opt in/out status of the contract must be determined ?

End of discussion, this is getting increasingly pointless.

You've run out of road, Malvolio.

Boo2

[malvolio]

Why would that determine the point in time at which the opt in/out status of the contract must be determined ?



You've run out of road, Malvolio.

Boo2