Originally posted by TheFaQQer
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Opt out of Conduct of employment agencies 2003 act?
Collapse
X
Collapse
-
I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really! -
Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostYes and I doubt the argument that 'I considered what I was signing had no legal standing but, I signed it all the same and am now arguing I can ignore it because of what I first thought' would get very far in convincing a judge to side with you.Comment
-
Originally posted by meridian View PostPerhaps, but there may be a case for the signing of an Opt Out ("either sign it or lose the contract") to be seen as undue pressure, duress, or coercive conduct, from which a judge can set aside whether or not the Opt Out is signed and to look at the case on the facts, particularly if the pressure to sign is unlawful and is designed to cause economic distress to one party if they do not sign.
Any court should look at the facts surrounding the reason anyone would sign (even if it could be proved that they knew it was not within the conditions of the Act).
We all know what pressure and outright lies every single agent applies when coercing contractors to opt out so for everyone, it is important to insist on everying in writing (even emails) and keeping the audit trail.
If it ever goes to court, they would see through the agent lies and I would hope, decide accordingly.
And as always, statute trumps everything.Comment
-
Originally posted by meridian View PostPerhaps, but there may be a case for the signing of an Opt Out ("either sign it or lose the contract") to be seen as undue pressure, duress, or coercive conduct, from which a judge can set aside whether or not the Opt Out is signed and to look at the case on the facts, particularly if the pressure to sign is unlawful and is designed to cause economic distress to one party if they do not sign.Originally posted by tractor View Post+1
Any court should look at the facts surrounding the reason anyone would sign (even if it could be proved that they knew it was not within the conditions of the Act).
We all know what pressure and outright lies every single agent applies when coercing contractors to opt out so for everyone, it is important to insist on everying in writing (even emails) and keeping the audit trail.
If it ever goes to court, they would see through the agent lies and I would hope, decide accordingly.
And as always, statute trumps everything.pcgipse decides its a big enough issue to make it an action (and goodness knows why they havent \ wont make it so) the position is rather mute.
I still dont see any judge looking kindly on anyone signing the opt out then try and argue it doesnt apply to them having so signed.
We can debate the pressure of signing or no job but that is tenuous because any 'pressure' is exerted normally before interview when there is no job offer. I know from experience, rullion manchester would not submit my cv to client without signing. I told them where to go but I didnt lose a job over it because there wasnt one on the table.I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!Comment
-
...
Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostBut there isnt any class action to get this to court is there? That's the point. Untilpcgipse decides its a big enough issue to make it an action (and goodness knows why they havent \ wont make it so) the position is rather mute.
I still dont see any judge looking kindly on anyone signing the opt out then try and argue it doesnt apply to them having so signed.
We can debate the pressure of signing or no job but that is tenuous because any 'pressure' is exerted normally before interview when there is no job offer. I know from experience, rullion manchester would not submit my cv to client without signing. I told them where to go but I didnt lose a job over it because there wasnt one on the table.
I am (trying) to have the same discussion with IPSE over the matter (for eight months now).Comment
-
IPSe can't do anything without both acknowledgement from BIS that companies are using the opt out to corrupt the market (they are, as we all know, but that's not the same thing) and are hiding behind the "anyone can decide who to work with" mantra, and someone willing to prosecute their agency for losses incurred as a result of inappropriate application of the AER provisions and mis-stating their status wrt the opt out (and remember that any such court case has to be started by an affected individual)
I don't know how many more times I have to say it but to date, neither of those two conditions have been met.Blog? What blog...?Comment
-
Originally posted by tractor View PostRullion's stance is unique in my experience. Most others simply follow the script card and don't even bother to mention it until there is an offer on the table or sometimes even after the contract is under negotiation and even as an afterthought once one has started the contract.
I am (trying) to have the same discussion with IPSE over the matter (for eight months now).
After all, lots of people here say the contractor is in the boss seat once an offer is made and can negotiate a higher rate (where they've been put in at one lower than they really wanted).
Im not one bit surprised you are still trying after 8 months to get anywhere withpcgipse over this issue.I couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!Comment
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostIPSe can't do anything without both acknowledgement from BIS that companies are using the opt out to corrupt the market (they are, as we all know, but that's not the same thing) and are hiding behind the "anyone can decide who to work with" mantra, and someone willing to prosecute their agency for losses incurred as a result of inappropriate application of the AER provisions and mis-stating their status wrt the opt out (and remember that any such court case has to be started by an affected individual)
I don't know how many more times I have to say it but to date, neither of those two conditions have been met.
This idea that you 'cannot do anything' without acknowledgement from others is frankly ludicrous but not a surprising one from you.
Kind of makes you wonder how lots of other campaigns every get off the ground if both sides have to be in agreement that there's a problem first.Last edited by NotAllThere; 26 February 2015, 12:44. Reason: No vulgarity in the professional forums pleaseI couldn't give two fornicators! Yes, really!Comment
-
Originally posted by BolshieBastard View PostTBH, I think if an offer is on the table after interview, Id be very surprised if the agent refused to progress if the contractor said they wanted to stay opted in.
Their main reason (or what they told me, anyway) was that being opted in meant that I could invoice at any stage and get paid, whereas the upper contract said that they had to invoice the client within six weeks or they wouldn't pay it.Comment
-
.....
Originally posted by malvolio View PostIPSe can't do anything without both acknowledgement from BIS that companies are using the opt out to corrupt the market (they are, as we all know, but that's not the same thing) and are hiding behind the "anyone can decide who to work with" mantra, and someone willing to prosecute their agency for losses incurred as a result of inappropriate application of the AER provisions and mis-stating their status wrt the opt out (and remember that any such court case has to be started by an affected individual)
I don't know how many more times I have to say it but to date, neither of those two conditions have been met.
The last I heard was a CC member asking 'what abuse?'Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment