So I think its finally dawned on IPSE's management

[malvolio]

As you say, that will take yrs and I don't see how we get that data given HMRC wouldn't tell us how they calculated their 400m. What you are suggesting is working out the entire knock on effect....Gov don't work that way. They will compartmentalise and say they have raised x amount more in income tax. Never mind payments to projects have increased. I'm not saying your idea is bad, I am just saying I don't know how we do that?

The PR game takes time and is just words. Again, let's do that but it has no immediate effect.

Several thousand contractors demanding a rise or starting ETs (or whoever we can) is an immediate headache for Gov. I don't pretend to understand how to do that. Hence why I think ipse with some legal and employment experts could lead the way

And you think they aren't already?

And let's not start another "IPSE are useless" thread please. That is simply counter-productive.

[NigelJK]

As a contractor of some 30+ years I think this (and other anti-freelance measures) is going to hit the wall hard. The one thing that will come out of it is that 'real' contractors, who have been saying it for ages (before IR35) is that they are not 'employees' (and nor do we want to be) for one simple reason, they can afford to find work elsewhere when the current gig does not pay. The public sector is about to get a lesson in capitalism.

I would also say that you forget that IPSE (or anyone else for that matter) are not the only 'lobby' entity in play here. The big players (Crapita et al) can afford to smooze far more effectively to get what they want. I get a distinct whiff of foul play here, as all of the measures were specifically aimed at our way of working, whilst making the big corps more profitable. How many ex-Civil servants are going through the revolving door to the very same big players?

In the early days the Ltd co route was the only way for us to operate, and suited all parties. Most MP's ran their affairs this way also, so I'd be interested to hear what they now advise.

I for one am considering fighting the battles from the other side of the fence. I'm applying for perm posts where I'll have an influence on hiring and recommend fighting the IR35 bodge all of the way. Private companies cannot afford to pay the big boys fees or to have us as 'employees'.

[eek]

IPSE are useless.

We don't need to, a candidate has just stated as much and given the selected quoting I've been treatedby existing board members (albeit hiding behinds forum names here) the trick above is fair game.

The reality is that this is a done deal in the public sector no matter the pain caused. Department heads have no means of ignoring it and those civil servants charged with implementing things will suffer from it but won't be able to fix it due to the directives from department heads.

I will repeat what I've now spent 2 days stating. Man years has been spent within the public sector on this to ensure departments won't be able to get around it. The let's complain to departments approach works until the directives arrive which will say you are implementing it, and to show that you are it's on your annual appraisal.

When IPSE finally comprehends what has been obvious to me since the cl1 guidance note changes in July confirmed (that this is a carefully crafted watertight scheme) then it will be worth Possibly talking to you. Until then our best option is well outside IPSE.

[malvolio]

We don't need to, a candidate has just stated as much and given the selected quoting I've been treatedby existing board members (albeit hiding behinds forum names here) the trick above is fair game.

The reality is that this is a done deal in the public sector no matter the pain caused. Department heads have no means of ignoring it and those civil servants charged with implementing things will suffer from it but won't be able to fix it due to the directives from department heads.

I will repeat what I've now spent 2 days stating. Man years has been spent within the public sector on this to ensure departments won't be able to get around it. The let's complain to departments approach works until the directives arrive which will say you are implementing it, and to show that you are it's on your annual appraisal.

When IPSE finally comprehends what has been obvious to me since the cl1 guidance note changes in July confirmed (that this is a carefully crafted watertight scheme) then it will be worth Possibly talking to you. Until then our best option is well outside IPSE.

You don't half talk some nonsense sometimes. But I await your successful resolution of this whole problem with interest.

BTW - Just as a helpful hint, don't listen to the Candidates, listen to the existing Board. They're the ones making the decisions

[youngguy]

And you think they aren't already?

And let's not start another "IPSE are useless" thread please. That is simply counter-productive.

I don't know.....all I can see is them saying they will take their time....and in the meantime I am saying is like to see action.
If they step up in two weeks after the detailed guidance then great. I just want them to get a sense that just doing what they've done won't be enough.

I've not said they are useless and I can see their approach uo to this point. But it has failed (as Gov didn't listen) so now they must do something else /do things differently

[eek]

You don't half talk some nonsense sometimes. But I await your successful resolution of this whole problem with interest.

BTW - Just as a helpful hint, don't listen to the Candidates, listen to the existing Board. They're the ones making the decisions

My successful resolution is to get as far away from this clusterf**k as possible and ensure that I have staff so I'm well away from it.

I will repeat what I said earlier today and yesterday and to be blunt Wednesday as well.

Unless you find a reason for clients to fight for contractor (Fred) being outside IR35 come April 2019 every contractor by default will be inside IR35.

So you need to work out how to ensure clients really, really don't want Fred and their other contractors inside IR35 (due to the consequences it has on the company).

And then you need to work out how to ensure the other parties involved all definitely don't want Fred inside IR35.

And I know I'm repeating myself like a broken record but I'm hoping at some point it will get into people's heads that the battles to be fought are not where IPSE seems to think they are. Their ideas may work (personally I seriously doubt they will as most Public sector contractors will continue as before or at best leave for a while, find nothing else and accept the new rules) but the battle isn't really April 2017 anymore its April 2019....

[malvolio]

My successful resolution is to get as far away from this clusterf**k as possible and ensure that I have staff so I'm well away from it.

I will repeat what I said earlier today and yesterday and to be blunt Wednesday as well.

Unless you find a reason for clients to fight for contractor (Fred) being outside IR35 come April 2019 every contractor by default will be inside IR35.

So you need to work out how to ensure clients really, really don't want Fred and their other contractors inside IR35 (due to the consequences it has on the company).

And then you need to work out how to ensure the other parties involved all definitely don't want Fred inside IR35.

And I know I'm repeating myself like a broken record but I'm hoping at some point it will get into people's heads that the battles to be fought are not where IPSE seems to think they are. Their ideas may work (personally I seriously doubt they will as most Public sector contractors will continue as before or at best leave for a while, find nothing else and accept the new rules) but the battle isn't really April 2017 anymore its April 2019....

So actually your solution is to run away from the whole problem and set up a different business. Of course that will work and I hope it goes well.

Snag is there are quite a lot of people who can't (or won't) do that. Do we just ignore them? Also if you and your new business take on any contract work under any basis, including you, you're back in the same stupid loop of having taxes deducted from your invoices and all the rest.

So I'll stick with the approach being taken by IPSE and the other trade bodies.

[eek]

I don't know.....all I can see is them saying they will take their time....and in the meantime I am saying is like to see action.
If they step up in two weeks after the detailed guidance then great. I just want them to get a sense that just doing what they've done won't be enough.

I've not said they are useless and I can see their approach uo to this point. But it has failed (as Gov didn't listen) so now they must do something else /do things differently

I think expecting action now is unfair, they are in shock and immediate action won't work nor is it sensible until we see the detail on December 5th.

They also have a big fundamental issue to deal with. For 17 years IPSE has said they won't fight for employee rights when people have asked them to because its the opposite of people being in business on their own account.

Now that battle is probably the only route left open (as I suspect the civil servants have war gamed all the internal routes and arguments people will use and have answers ready) but its one that is going to be very hard for IPSE to take.

I do, however, think that were you a departmental manager and you discovered the project managers on your main worry were not prepared for the most likely outcome, you would have the right to be rather annoyed with those PMs.

[BrilloPad]

REally one should not laugh at IPSE. However they were quite happy to laugh at S58 crowd. So

[eek]

So actually your solution is to run away from the whole problem and set up a different business. Of course that will work and I hope it goes well.

Snag is there are quite a lot of people who can't (or won't) do that. Do we just ignore them? Also if you and your new business take on any contract work under any basis, including you, you're back in the same stupid loop of having taxes deducted from your invoices and all the rest.

So I'll stick with the approach being taken by IPSE and the other trade bodies.

I think you are highlighting the other issue there, my post above covers the 180 degree turn that IPSE may be required to do and why it is a serious problem for them.

IPSE have a lot of members who need to be looked after who really should never have been contractors say in 1st / 2nd line support (I know that sounds awful but being blunt is clearer) who were they outside IT would already be stories for employment tribunals and other things. Now unions learnt centuries ago that you can't have a one size fits all plan as different people require support in different ways and IPSE's membership has reached the same point.

Now granted I sit well away from IPSE so I can say such things but can you really argue that someone doing first line support in HMOS was a contractor not being supervised, directed and controlled. And that the fact he was being paid via a limited company was not abusing the system for tax purposes (albeit possibly at the request of the department who could not pay market rates to bring people onto payroll or may not have been able to add directly to payroll).