Irate Public sector client's manager sends e-mail rejecting Substitutions

[bobspud]

But does the manager *want* to learn? I suspect not. Let's face it - the current zeitgeist is "everyone paying their fair share of tax" (whatever that is) and most public sector staff perceive contractors as tax dodging scum. The ridiculous rules on hiring contractors in the public sector could easily be worked around, so where a senior manager is rigidly enforcing the rules or attempting to explicitly push contractors into working under IR35, then I would suggest that that behavior is a deliberate and malicious attempt to get back at the 'tax dodging contractors'.

Does the manager want to hear that my rate has doubled so that I can pay my fair share of tax and build a war chest to cope with months like this one where I have had to wait for my next role to sort itself out? I suspect not. For me the only reason I can contract at my current rate is that I have a tax efficiency that allows me to do so...

[RasputinDude]

Does the manager want to hear that my rate has doubled so that I can pay my fair share of tax and build a war chest to cope with months like this one where I have had to wait for my next role to sort itself out? I suspect not. For me the only reason I can contract at my current rate is that I have a tax efficiency that allows me to do so...

He doesn't care. There will be someone who will be willing to work under the new rules. If there isn't, then it's still not his problem; he can legitimately turn round to his superiors and tell them that he has successfully ensured that all the contractors that he has are now working under the new rules or have walked. Any shortfall will be made up by the big consultancies - the fact that he will be paying more won't matter to him as he is acting within the rules.

These people don't see their work in the same way that we do. We need to be flexible and be ready to adapt to new situations. Public sector managers (especially more senior ones) are more focused on following the procedure - even to the detriment of their projects. If their project fails, nothing will happen - they won't be disciplined or terminated; but if they do not follow procedure, then they will face disciplinary action.

[bobspud]

He doesn't care. There will be someone who will be willing to work under the new rules. If there isn't, then it's still not his problem; he can legitimately turn round to his superiors and tell them that he has successfully ensured that all the contractors that he has are now working under the new rules or have walked. Any shortfall will be made up by the big consultancies - the fact that he will be paying more won't matter to him as he is acting within the rules.

Wrong. The assumption that the big four can mop up the roles fails on the following points:

1) For most of government, Capita won the right to provide interim staff at an OJEU competition. That means they have that contract till the end of the term. Any sniff of the big four staffing government roles will meet with a lawsuit. So procurement won't let themselves near that risk. You will see more and more departments getting on the Cypher framework because its already won and was vanilla enough to reuse.

2) Government Procurement rules state that contracts have to follow different rules based on their value. So up to 100k its a local competition (that process takes about 3 months to run). Over the 100k then its under OJEU rules that take anywhere up to a year and involves allowing anyone within the EU to apply (Procurement HATE OJEU with a passion because they have to read and evaluate everything that gets submitted, and tell each vendor why they failed! (which can be hundreds of them...)

3) If IBM won a contract to supply a system that does X just going to get additional resources for bums on seats that do Y falls outside the contract and the procurement office will have kittens because they will risk being seen to be giving work to parties without following the competition rules. That just won't happen.

4) Asking IBM to provide a contractor that will specifically be there to beat up the same vendor will never work because of the conflict of interest. Also getting Fujitsu to beat up IBM will be an issue as both have vested interests in making the other look like a clown.

5) They could use G-CLOWN to find specialists but again it only lasts 6 months and they can only buy the service that made it onto the G-CLOWN books. (else its OJEU!)

I had this conversation with my last client (she was one off from the CEO position so she knew the ropes) She knows full well the only way she will get her staff back is recruit permies or get contractors. She specifically does not want a situation where anyone that understands the rules will walk off every 6 months...

In the meantime they have had to tell their minister that they over egged their remit and made loads of guys leave and as a result crippled their delivery streams.

It will come back to a stable situation but for a while it will be rocky...

[IR35FanClub]

In the opnion of the forum, does this mail shot constitute a change to my contract which I cannot argue against?

Given that March is looming, this is the public sector and that my contract expires at the end of February I anticipate that I and many other contractors shall be fleeing the public sector.

March is too late - leave now. I left in October and won't be going back. And 3 our of the 4 guys I worked with left too. Good job too - as we heard thru the grapevine at contract renewal everyone contracting was told "Show us evidence of your deemed IR35 payments" or take HRMC's online business entity test to show you have sufficient points to be outside. LOL.

Once enough projects fail due to lack of resource, things might change. And you'll be helping reduce the budget defecate [;-)] in the mean time.

[RasputinDude]

Wrong. The assumption that the big four can mop up the roles fails on the following points:

...snip a very long and good post...

I will concede your point on the public sector procurement process. You evidently know a great deal more about it than any sane person should do.

However, I stand by my point here:

He doesn't care. There will be someone who will be willing to work under the new rules. If there isn't, then it's still not his problem; he can legitimately turn round to his superiors and tell them that he has successfully ensured that all the contractors that he has are now working under the new rules or have walked. Any shortfall will be made up by the big consultancies - the fact that he will be paying more won't matter to him as he is acting within the rules.

These people don't see their work in the same way that we do. We need to be flexible and be ready to adapt to new situations. Public sector managers (especially more senior ones) are more focused on following the procedure - even to the detriment of their projects. If their project fails, nothing will happen - they won't be disciplined or terminated; but if they do not follow procedure, then they will face disciplinary action.

[Rabotnik]

March is too late - leave now. I left in October and won't be going back. And 3 our of the 4 guys I worked with left too. Good job too - as we heard thru the grapevine at contract renewal everyone contracting was told "Show us evidence of your deemed IR35 payments" or take HRMC's online business entity test to show you have sufficient points to be outside. LOL.

Once enough projects fail due to lack of resource, things might change. And you'll be helping reduce the budget defecate [;-)] in the mean time.

I'm leaving next week due to the NHS IR35 nonsense, but they've just found my replacement today. I wonder if he has any idea about this new rule and if they will ask him about it before he signs the contract.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I realise there is a very good chance that I may be flamed for this but am genuinely interested - if you are confident of your IR35 status what's the problem with taking the test and proving it to client co???

[DaveB]

I realise there is a very good chance that I may be flamed for this but am genuinely interested - if you are confident of your IR35 status what's the problem with taking the test and proving it to client co???

None at all, but the HMRC "self assessment" tests and the actual tests for IR35 status are not the same. It is possible to fall foul of the first and still be outside the second.

I am confident of my IR35 status, but I haven't lost money through a non-paying client and I haven't spent £1700 quid on advertising in one go. Both of which are high scoring parts of the self assessment tests and nothing to do with IR35.

[Rabotnik]

I realise there is a very good chance that I may be flamed for this but am genuinely interested - if you are confident of your IR35 status what's the problem with taking the test and proving it to client co???

It's the principal of the matter. I mentioned in another thread, I haven't yet received the email that went round about this, so I am leaving before I do. If they challenged me before then, I am pretty sure my IR35 contract review would be enough to get me on the "good list", but I'd rather not get involved any correspondence with procurement/HR since who knows what they will start asking for.

Besides this, I'm bored here already after nearly 9 months, so it's time to jump ship anyway.

[DaveB]

It's the principal of the matter. I mentioned in another thread, I haven't yet received the email that went round about this, so I am leaving before I do. If they challenged me before then, I am pretty sure my IR35 contract review would be enough to get me on the "good list", but I'd rather not get involved any correspondence with procurement/HR since who knows what they will start asking for.

Besides this, I'm bored here already after nearly 9 months, so it's time to jump ship anyway.

Don't count on it. They can still refuse to accept it and insist you take the test.

I'm still in a PS contract now but I'm taking the line that if they ask me, I will refuse and they can terminate my contract if they want to (since that is the stated sanction).

CV is being dusted off as we speak.