They DO NOT need to hold a copy of your passport if you are opted out.

[nomadd]

Probably costs a few million... but that'll come off the contractor rates, so that's ok.

Actually, I mostly see these checks being done by Banks, so it is in fact coming out of your tax bill. And everyone else's. For the next 40 years whilst we bail the Banks out of those silly little mistakes they made.

[PrinceNamor]

[QUOTE=The Agents View;1273401]Post of the day.
You're going straight on my ignore list.
QUOTE]

Oh dear, doesn't little diddums doesn't want to play anymore.

[Wanderer]

But the agency are not the employer, my limited company is. I have a b2b relationship with the agency not a emplore/employee relationship. Seems to me that agencies want it both ways, - to get you to opt out of regs and then treat you like an employer by asking for a copy of your passport. Let's be crystal clear - if you have opted out there is no legal reason why you should have to allow an agency to photo copy your passport.

Absolutely right, it is clear that there is no legal requirement to make these checks if the worker is not an employee and most of us are quite categorically not employees.

However, there is no law against clients and agencies demanding these checks be done as a condition of doing business. Contractors have to either comply with the agency/client's terms of business or walk away from the contract offer.

Of course, the only check that would actually provide any protection is a check of the original document, not a copy. So usually the exercise is entirely pointless.

I don't think it's entirely pointless. If a worker presented a forged document but no copy is taken then they have plausible deniability. If they get challenged at a later date then they just deny ever being asked to show a passport and say it was all just done on a handshake, no questions asked. It's then the client/agent's word against the worker's and the worker may get the benefit of the doubt.

However, if the client/agent retains a copy of the document then it is very difficult for the worker to deny that they presented it and it also means that the authorities can quietly check it's authenticity. If it is found to be forged or misrepresented then the question is, did the client/agent forge the document on the workers behalf (unlikely unless there is systematic abuse of the system) or did the worker forge it? (Much more likely). The suspicion falls heavily on the worker who is looking at a stretch in jail followed by deportation, hopefully that keeps them on the straight and narrow....

As for the client/agent not actually sighting original documents, I agree that anyone can Photoshop/Gimp themselves a British Passport and email it but once again this can be quietly checked in the background and if someone gets caught doing that then they're likely to turn up for work one day to find the Border Agency waiting to take them to jail....

[NotAllThere]

...
I don't think it's entirely pointless. If a worker presented a forged document but no copy is taken then they have plausible deniability. If they get challenged at a later date then they just deny ever being asked to show a passport and say it was all just done on a handshake, no questions asked. It's then the client/agent's word against the worker's and the worker may get the benefit of the doubt.
...

The client's only defence is if they have seen the original document and taken a photocopy. If they've only received a copy, or they rely on the agency, they don't have a defence. So anything other than the client seeing the original and taking a copy themselves, is pointless. Clients, apparently, are asking for this service from agencies, and it doesn't help them in anyway. (except possibly they'll know when they check themselves that the candidate is entitled to work?).

Now, a client will never ask for the passport of, e.g. an Accenture employee. And technically, they don't need to check for a littlecontractor ltd employee. The client lawyers, however, feel there is more a risk with a one man company than with Accenture. This was the case when I was a hiring manager in a UK based multinational. The lawyers advised seeing the originals and taking copies for all contractors, employees and temps. But not largeco consultants.

But it was always "see originals, take copies". And we had to do it. Not pass it on to the agencies.

Banks have their own rules, I'm sure. I've only ever worked in service and manufacturing so my knowledge is based on that.

[The Agents View]

[QUOTE=PrinceNamor;1273440]

Post of the day.
You're going straight on my ignore list.
QUOTE]

Oh dear, doesn't little diddums doesn't want to play anymore.

Not in a public, professional forum, no. I have a level I refuse to stoop to - and within that, I very much count the personal, targeted abuse area.

[The Agents View]

Interesting. Would like to hear the reasoning behind this statement.

The purpose of a TRUE contractor/Interim, is to come in, deliver, and then leave. They are SUPPOSED to be used to bridge a temporary gap, or solve a particular problem. Unfortunately, it has become widespread practice, to use "contractors" to fill jobs permanently, sometimes to keep headcount low (looks good to the city) or because there's a skills shortage (usually driven by either the agency, or candidate world)

There are only a handful of "proper" contractors around - if your job could be done by a permie, then you are NOT a proper contractor - the fact that you work on a day rate does not make you a proper contractor.

The reason we are forced down the route of taking passport copies, is because the client side, can't tell the difference between contractors and permies - So we end up being forced to treat them the same.

[PrinceNamor]

[QUOTE=The Agents View;1273753]
There are only a handful of "proper" contractors around - if your job could be done by a permie, then you are NOT a proper contractor - the fact that you work on a day rate does not make you a proper contractor.
QUOTE]

Words continue to flow from your keyboard like sh_1t from arse.

[rd409]

Unfortunately, it has become widespread practice, to use "contractors" to fill jobs permanently, sometimes to keep headcount low (looks good to the city) or because there's a skills shortage (usually driven by either the agency, or candidate world)

The main and only reason behind this is Agencies, who have found that they can make more through contractors working on the project, rather than commission earned to recommend a permie. It has got nothing to do with the candidate world, or skills shortage.

[singhr]

TAV is just winding you lot up. Ignore him and he'll go away

[SorenLorensen]

TAV is just winding you lot up. Ignore him and he'll go away

You're right of course. Confirmed by his last post. Troll!