"We must opt you out of the Conduct of Employment Agencies Regs 2003...

[Gentile]

How do you record them BTW?

Using this free app on my Android phone. There are tons of others for Android, as well as for iPhone too.

[AnnaO]

...because otherwise you'd be an employee of the client, and they'd need to pay you sick pay."

Why do agencies still try this bullshit on with experienced contractors?

I sent the agent a link to the full text of the Act, and invited her to find the word "sick" anywhere in it. I also highlighted the phrase "the scope of the Regulations will be extended to cover work-seekers who contract their services through their own limited company" within the text of the act.

Sigh. They're talking to their legal dept now. My guess is our next conversation will include the phrase "Do you want to contact the client to explain why I won't be starting, or shall I? The Business Employment Agency Inspectorate will be in touch to determine why you're imparting advice that isn't legally accurate, and to determine why you are preventing me from working owing to my free choice not to opt out.", followed by them trying to qualify for the Olympic Back-Pedalling Team.

This is the part of the Contracting game I hate.

Oh I am confused now! I am reading subject to their opting out the scope of the Regulations will be extended to cover work-seekers who contract their services through their own limited company.

Which sound to me like the regulations apply only if we do opt out

[Gentile]

Oh I am confused now! I am reading subject to their opting out the scope of the Regulations will be extended to cover work-seekers who contract their services through their own limited company.

Which sound to me like the regulations apply only if we do opt out

What the highlighted sentence means is that provided you don't opt out, the Regulations will apply to you whether you operate through a Ltd company or not. Clause 32 goes on to clarify that you may choose to opt out if and only if you are operating through a Ltd company. (So, opt outs can never apply to directly-engaged individuals whether agencies get them to sign a piece of paper saying they're opting out or not), but you don't have to opt out whatever your status.

I can see where your confusion comes from, because the sentence highlighted is appalling legalese. You're reading the phrase "subject to their opting out" as "provided they do opt out". But if that were really the intention, then the sentence would effectively be saying that the Regs only cover you if you opt out of the Regs, which would be a contradiction in terms and isn't what is intended.

[AnnaO]

Oh I seeeee! I'll get me coat.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Gentile]

Oh I seeeee! I'll get me coat.

Thanks for the clarification.

No problem, you're welcome.

[v8gaz]

Strangely I got exactly the same chat from Hydrogen. They noticed I hadn't signed the opt out just before the first payday, so they insisted I signed it. They changed their mind when I said, Ok, bye then.

[captainham]

Strangely I got exactly the same chat from Hydrogen. They noticed I hadn't signed the opt out just before the first payday, so they insisted I signed it. They changed their mind when I said, Ok, bye then.

What's even more amusing is that they need you to opt out (if you are going to do so) before you have even been introduced to the client, so if you get past that stage, then they can't do anything about it at all.

[Gentile]

What's even more amusing is that they need you to opt out (if you are going to do so) before you have even been introduced to the client, so if you get past that stage, then they can't do anything about it at all.

Yup. I think some of them hold onto the faint hope that the word "or" in the phrase "provided that such notice is given before the introduction or supply of the work-seeker or the person who would be supplied by the work-seeker to do the work, to the hirer" might conveivably mean "and"*.






(* It doesn't, by the way.)

[mudskipper]

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ntractors.html

This was cojak's thread.

[Gentile]

http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ntractors.html

This was cojak's thread.

Yes, I saw that thread before creating this one. I don't think the advice given in it is right (though I'm quite sure it accurately reflects the advice that EAS gave cojak). I therefore contacted the EAS myself earlier this week to ask the question suggested by Wanderer at what is currently the last post in that thread. Namely, I asked EAS:

1. Under the Freedom of Information Act, to provide copies of any advice given to Arrow Group on this matter.
   
   
2. Why, if the advice Arrow Group claims to have received from BIS is accurate, does it appear to be in direct contravention to Clause 32, paragraphs 9 & 13 of the Regulations 2003?

I reminded them that the Regulations make no provision for Employment Businesses or Agencies deciding that the Regulations will not apply to themselves on commercial grounds.

Not to generalise, you understand, but the thing you need to remember about the Public Sector (of which the BIS and EAS is of course part) is that they're a bunch of lazy, incompetent, wages-stealing, stonewalling bureaucrats that try to find any reason for an easy life and to not do the job they are paid by the public to do. The advice they give out and the service they provide is rarely driven by a desire to serve the public or to do what is right, fair, or even legal. Generally, I've found that public sector employees will only do their job if you make it more of a pain in the arse for them to do it than to not do it.

Think of the MPs expenses scandal. The very people who write legislation in this country insisted for years they were complying with the laws they had created, but that they couldn't prove they were compliant for all sorts of spurious reasons such as that old catch-all chestnut "security". It was only when some journalists made it less of a pain in the arse for them to fire The Speaker and finally send a few low-ranking corrupt MPs to jail that the illegal and unethical activities MPs were indulging in finally stopped.

I'll report back what EAS they tells me in response to my FOI enquiry above. In the meantime, I'd encourage any contractor with an interest in making Employment Businesses stick to the letter of the law that protects workers of all kinds to write to the EAS with the exact same FOI enquiry. It won't even cost you a stamp. Their e-mail address is:

eas@berr.gsi.gov.uk