So I think its finally dawned on IPSE's management

[SussexSeagull]

The choice for them is not about risk. It's about using the right type of resource and right framework contract for the task. So if they want a help desk team, using contingency labour one is right but then it makes it clear that they normally need to retain SDC and that causes them the AWR problems.

That means it's not sensible to put everyone on cl1 there was is also a special framework for strategic stuff (consultancy one)

I am guessing that when the dust settles next year you will see lots of digital outcome framework awards and consultancy one for architecture...

Both Consultancy one and doc leaves the SDC to the person delivering the resulting solution...

Of course the elephant in the room is there are probably quite a few contractors who should be in IR35.

The optimist in my hopes that seat fillers and genuine contractors can be correctly identified and treated seperately but I somehow doubt it.

[eek]

Of course the elephant in the room is there are probably quite a few contractors who should be in IR35.

The optimist in my hopes that seat fillers and genuine contractors can be correctly identified and treated seperately but I somehow doubt it.

IPSE does not want to throw any of their current members under the bus. That requirement by itself, probably makes them utterly ineffective.

As for correctly identifying people it gets complex very quickly.

Look at the contract I turned down earlier this year. Solution Architect for 21 months keeping a system that's currently live going until the replacement is fully rolled out.

Now its clearly a business as usual role but its got a finite life and the resources do not exist within DWP. So is it really business as usual or is it a project because when that system goes they really don't need me for anything...

[Sausage Surprise]

Brewery Tap is very nice and right by the station.

I tried to get the CUK Xmas do in Leeds when the counting house was messing us around. We probably should do that next year....

Scarborough Taps?

[jonnyboy]

Well, until eek posts his response to my previous (4 prong approach question) I think my own personal game plan will be... (bearing in mind my current PS client is offering to cover any change)

1) Drop my accountant an email see if I can get a rate value that I need to adjust my day rate by
2) Let the dust settle till 1st December
3) Keep my local group of contractors in the loop and educated (mostly from places such as this)
4) Book a meeting with my clients top manager, discuss the IR35, the scope that in the future they may be obliged to pay lots of employee perks
5) On 1st December, start hitting the agencies for any private gigs
6) Speak to my current agent for this PS gig, see what their stance is re SCD and out of IR35 (I dont imagine that if I asked now, they would have a clue as to what they are doing)
7) If I can get a private sector gig, jump
8) If not, stay here on an increased rate, whilst still trying for a private gig
9) All whilst working on plan B (more freelance direct work)

10) Removing the auto renewal on my IPSE membership

[eek]

Scarborough Taps?

Nope Brewery Tap is around the corner, opposite Evan Cycles from memory.

[bobspud]

Of course the elephant in the room is there are probably quite a few contractors who should be in IR35.

The optimist in my hopes that seat fillers and genuine contractors can be correctly identified and treated seperately but I somehow doubt it.

Which is why it's important to be able to help them attach the right contract to the role. The department needs to go through a run list for themselves that asks: do I need to care about controlling the person vs accepting an out come?

If I care enough to control it do I understand what the implications are if the role extends past 12 weeks?

They cannot afford to grant me and the others like me £30k+ for holidays and also risk an employment tribunal to get them to pay employers taxes on top. So they will need to get better advice than everyone is caught...

[gables]

Of course the elephant in the room is there are probably quite a few contractors who should be in IR35.

The optimist in my hopes that seat fillers and genuine contractors can be correctly identified and treated seperately but I somehow doubt it.

I'd agree if when put in IR35 the employers NI doesn't come out of the rate and they get employee benefits.

When this first came around in 1999 I really couldn't understand how HMRC\HMG thought it was perfectly ok to say you're a disguised employee so pay tax as such and then say, ah you're also an employer so pay the employer stuff.

Surely it shouldn't have been both ways then, and with the UBER thing now, surely it's crystal clear.

[SussexSeagull]

I'd agree if when put in IR35 the employers NI doesn't come out of the rate and they get employee benefits.

When this first came around in 1999 I really couldn't understand how HMRC\HMG thought it was perfectly ok to say you're a disguised employee so pay tax as such and then say, ah you're also an employer so pay the employer stuff.

Surely it shouldn't have been both ways then, and with the UBER thing now, surely it's crystal clear.

Not that I am expert but up until now we have all lived in a grey area between employee and supplier and been happy to not have it defined.

Now the client (public sector initially) have to come out and say someone is under SDC, a whole new world of legal possibilities opens up.

[RSoles]

I'd agree if when put in IR35 the employers NI doesn't come out of the rate and they get employee benefits.

When this first came around in 1999 I really couldn't understand how HMRC\HMG thought it was perfectly ok to say you're a disguised employee so pay tax as such and then say, ah you're also an employer so pay the employer stuff.

Surely it shouldn't have been both ways then, and with the UBER thing now, surely it's crystal clear.

Exactly. Now if only we had a lobbying body which argued these things in our interests.

[SussexSeagull]

IPSE does not want to throw any of their current members under the bus. That requirement by itself, probably makes them utterly ineffective.

As for correctly identifying people it gets complex very quickly.

Look at the contract I turned down earlier this year. Solution Architect for 21 months keeping a system that's currently live going until the replacement is fully rolled out.

Now its clearly a business as usual role but its got a finite life and the resources do not exist within DWP. So is it really business as usual or is it a project because when that system goes they really don't need me for anything...

To be honest some contractors don't help the cause by keeping their head down, acting like a permanent employee and rack up the renewals.

It drags all of us down.