So I think its finally dawned on IPSE's management

[MrMarkyMark]

THe options are:-

1. Push for employee rights
2. Challenge the IR35 decision (although your client is stating you are subject to SDC and the test within the public sector is SDC not the 3 tests of SDC, MOO and substitution). I've spent 5 months trying to work out how you challenge an IR35 decision still can't see a reason or means to do so.
3. Move to the private sector - only to see this arrive there in April 2019.

So there really is one option on that list that will do anything. Which is why both bobspud and myself are saying fight for employee rights.

Totally agree with Bob and you on this one, it's the only way to go

[youngguy]

THe options are:-

1. Push for employee rights
   

So there really is one option on that list that will do anything. Which is why both bobspud and myself are saying fight for employee rights.

How do we help/assist/do this as a collective and contracting community?

[eek]

Is the goal, by pushing for employee rights, to make businesses stand up for you as they do not want contractors having employee rights (in fact it makes contractors a lot less useful to a company if they get employee rights?)??

I don't think there is any single goal, everyone will have their own. However, as a whole we need to create an explicit reason for companies to want to avoid people being employees as otherwise we will end up as FTC employees.

The only way to avoid that is to ensure that Supervision, Direction and Control (which is what HMG has determined means inside IR35 from now on) also means that employee rights (which thankfully is what the uber ruling decided).

That would then mean clients would have an explicit reason to decide whether person x is subject to SDC and if outside treat them correctly to ensure they never were subject to SDC.

[youngguy]

[QUOTE=eek;2336648

The only way to avoid that is to ensure that Supervision, Direction and Control (which is what HMG has determined means inside IR35 from now on) also means that employee rights (which thankfully is what the uber ruling decided).[/QUOTE]

I'm astounded Gov haven't been made to explicitly explain their logic of disguised employee should be taxed as an employee but does not get employee rights

[Lockhouse]

I'm astounded Gov haven't been made to explicitly explain their logic of disguised employee should be taxed as an employee but does not get employee rights

We said the same thing back in 1999 and we're still saying it. I don't think it would have worked back then but these are different times.

I think the "nuclear option" as it was known has legs now. IPSE should be leading this charge. I won't hold my breath though.

[original PM]

I don't think there is any single goal, everyone will have their own. However, as a whole we need to create an explicit reason for companies to want to avoid people being employees as otherwise we will end up as FTC employees.

The only way to avoid that is to ensure that Supervision, Direction and Control (which is what HMG has determined means inside IR35 from now on) also means that employee rights (which thankfully is what the uber ruling decided).

That would then mean clients would have an explicit reason to decide whether person x is subject to SDC and if outside treat them correctly to ensure they never were subject to SDC.

Makes sense really that.

I think the main problem over SDC is that even if the exec/boardroom recognise your status - if you end up working in a team there will always be supervision, direction and control.

For example if a developer working in an Agile environment every morning has to stand up and explain what they have done and what task they are going to do next then clearly SDC.

Or not?

(I am watching this with much interest as family is growing up and so going back into contracting is maybe something I am considering/will be forced on me when I go postal at current employer!)

[eek]

Makes sense really that.

I think the main problem over SDC is that even if the exec/boardroom recognise your status - if you end up working in a team there will always be supervision, direction and control.

For example if a developer working in an Agile environment every morning has to stand up and explain what they have done and what task they are going to do next then clearly SDC.

Or not?

(I am watching this with much interest as family is growing up and so going back into contracting is maybe something I am considering/will be forced on me when I go postal at current employer!)

And we are back to the discussion in June 2014 where the best approach ended up being:

1. Role below certain rate - clearly inside
2. Role that is part and parcel of the organization - inside
3. Project based work which company explicitly states that you are outside - outside.

The growth industry is going to be companies who can do the things contractors used to do.

But we need to find a way that ensure companies can do 3.

[Macaco]

Interesting thread. It does seem like the govt, who clearly hate small business, are trying to destroy the contracting sector. Therefore what could the future hold?

1. Most contractors go back perm meaning the contractors left are able to charge far higher rates compensating for the tax attack. I understand contract rates were very similar 15 years ago so there should be plenty of scope for significant raise...assuming the govt will stop importing slave labour...

2. Companies turn to consultancies instead of contractors. Consultancies are also under cost pressure - I know of a few of the very big consultancies are charging out their senior people at under £900 a day with juniors at under £600 on some projects. These rates aren't too far off contractor rates and also mean less admin overhead for the client.

Overall it doesn't look good for the sector, I expect the best quality contractors with a strong network could stay in the game, the more junior roles could vanish completely. Perhaps contractors have to team up and become small consulting businesses to sell services. I agree with eek "The growth industry is going to be companies who can do the things contractors used to do."

Interesting times ahead, for me personally it's already a close run thing financially whether it's worth being a contractor rather than perm, when the next attack on the sector is launched it could be returning to perm is a no brainer.

[malvolio]

Actually Eeks's approach is very simple to put into effect. If you want employee rights, go get a permanent position and stop whining at those who don't want one and have no need of those rights. Or join an umbrella. And stop calling yourself a contractor (or a freelance, take your pick). Meanwhile those who want to remain contractors will be fighting this as best they can.

Have fun, I'll leave you to it.

[bobspud]

Is the goal, by pushing for employee rights, to make businesses stand up for you as they do not want contractors having employee rights (in fact it makes contractors a lot less useful to a company if they get employee rights?)??

The goal has two aims in my mind:

The first is to calmly identify to your client that if they deem you inside their control then there is a real and tangible impact that includes a scenario where contractors can work in their office for 12 weeks gain holiday pay and then go sick for several months based on the depression they are suffering. The government departments already know you can't approach employees when they are deemed medically unwell as the stress could push them over the edge.

The biggest weapon in this will be the guys that could suddenly claim years of back pay as they have been wandering around the same departments for decades.

The second part is to use the UBER ruling which made UBER accountable for the providing rights as they are clearly the employer because they flexed their muscles and control the worker.

There are also other cases like Hermes being fought that will make the client responsible for all the unpaid tax as the relationship was clearly one of them trying to have an employee off the books.

The upshot for this will be a positive position where businesses treat their contractors like the skill they are rather than an employee off their books.

Yes some roles will stop being contractor engagements but they were probably always better suited to temps.