Opt out of Conduct of employment agencies 2003 act?

[northernladuk]

Found it.. Here you go. Indepth discussion on wether or not agents can work with Opt out only.

https://forums.contractoruk.com/acco...ntractors.html

Note that it was 11 years ago and no one has given a toss about it since then so I think it's a given agents can do it.

[JamesC34]

But if you read the context it talks about different rates of pay i.e there are different conditions for the different choices. Deciding to not deal with opt in's is a business decision and there conditions don't change depending on which one you pick. If you have both they cannot have different conditions, if you you only offer one option then it doesn't apply.

Bit like MOTing a motorbike with indicators. If it has indicators they must all work. If it has no indicators then it's irrelevant

OK. Well, although I still have a slight bitter feeling about it, you have helped me see it in a more reasoned and practical light, so thankyou for sharing your views and thoughts.

[JamesC34]

Found it.. Here you go. Indepth discussion on wether or not agents can work with Opt out only.

https://forums.contractoruk.com/acco...ntractors.html

Note that it was 11 years ago and no one has given a toss about it since then so I think it's a given agents can do it.

Thanks. That is pretty much the clincher then. They have the cards.

[northernladuk]

OK. Well, although I still have a slight bitter feeling about it, you have helped me see it in a more reasoned and practical light, so thankyou for sharing your views and thoughts.

No worries. Was an interesting discussion. Good luck in the gig.

[malvolio]

Just to add one rather important point...

I was one who pressured PCG (as was, now IPSE) into challenging the DTi (as was, now BERR and SIUS... ) over agencies making an opt out a condition of representing you to a client. Their rather less than helpful answer was that while making the opt out a condition is illegal, businesses are free to choose who they want to do business with.

Kafka would be so proud.

But until someone gets this into court, it's a dead issue. The reality is let the agency pretend that they have properly opted you out. In the real world it will make damn all difference for anything but a fairly unlikely set of circumstances.

[JamesC34]

Just to add one rather important point...

I was one who pressured PCG (as was, now IPSE) into challenging the DTi (as was, now BERR and SIUS... ) over agencies making an opt out a condition of representing you to a client. Their rather less than helpful answer was that while making the opt out a condition is illegal, businesses are free to choose who they want to do business with.

Kafka would be so proud.

But until someone gets this into court, it's a dead issue. The reality is let the agency pretend that they have properly opted you out. In the real world it will make damn all difference for anything but a fairly unlikely set of circumstances.

Yes agreed. We were just discussing the same thing - the situation is comically contradictory and ridiculous. Kafkaesque is a good. description.

[JamesC34]

As a bit of an aside, do I detect a distinct change in tone in this thread over the years?

Early bullishness seemed to have evolved into a resigned defeatism that we have no option but to accept our lot, however unjust it may be. It's very 2021. There were no change in regulations in the last 10-15 years as far as I am aware.

I suppose the obvious answer will be why don't you be the one to challenge it in the courts!? Therein lies the difficulty - we need an very well resourced, very determined and idealistic individual. It doesn't look like government regulations resolve anything, at least not in this case.

[eek]

As a bit of an aside, do I detect a distinct change in tone in this thread over the years?

Early bullishness seemed to have evolved into a resigned defeatism that we have no option but to accept our lot, however unjust it may be. It's very 2021. There were no change in regulations in the last 10-15 years as far as I am aware.

I suppose the obvious answer will be why don't you be the one to challenge it in the courts!? Therein lies the difficulty - we need an very well resourced, very determined and idealistic individual. It doesn't look like government regulations resolve anything, at least not in this case.

Nope, the issue is that when push has come to shove the agency will back down - and the amounts being fought over really aren't that significant at the end of the day, it's always max a £x,000 when even starting the court case is going to cost £x0,000 and end up being £x00,000.

It's one reason why the SDS chain in an outside IR35 determination is going to be so important - as the amounts involved start to get significant very, very quickly.

[JamesC34]

Nope, the issue is that when push has come to shove the agency will back down - and the amounts being fought over really aren't that significant at the end of the day, it's always max a £x,000 when even starting the court case is going to cost £x0,000 and end up being £x00,000.

It's one reason why the SDS chain in an outside IR35 determination is going to be so important - as the amounts involved start to get significant very, very quickly.

Sorry you have lost me.
Who will the agency back down from?

[MrC]

Inside PAYE from the agency gig on offer where they have stiplated in the emplyment contract that the worker agrees to opt out of this act. I'm not very clear on details of this act but I do note that the agency has to pay you even if the client doesn't pay them if you're opted in.
Told them I want the contract revised to explictly opt in and am anticipating push back.

It seems the history of this thread has largely been concerned this act wrt implications for your IR35 position, but I presume for a PAYE inside temp role I'd be well advised to opt in?