• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • FREE workshop: Preparing contractors for Autumn : Weds 29th Sep at 7.15pm. More details here.

chancellor-will-create-crisis-self-employed

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by Lance View Post
    What about franchises?
    The set up is different as you find the customers/clients.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by BoredBloke View Post
    It's that more than one customer per year. So what happens when the project is longer than a year?
    There are 7 days in the week and 24 hours in a day. This means you can have a mixture of full time and part time clients.
    Last edited by SueEllen; 23 November 2017, 13:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lance
    replied
    chancellor-will-create-crisis-self-employed

    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    As far as I'm concerned anyone who wears or drives around in another company's logoed kit is not self-employed.
    What about franchises?

    Leave a comment:


  • BoredBloke
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Are you in Scotland? There is a company called Scottish CityLink. Any other company calling themselves CityLink what be careful to ensure they aren't associated with the nationwide firm that went bust.

    In regards to the couriers the Taylor report gives recommendations that makes it clear they aren't self-employed due to driving logoed vans and/or only working for them. A lot of other European countries have similar laws to what the report recommends.

    Contractors can escape either due to have skills that are in short supply or having to have more than one customer per year.
    It's that more than one customer per year. So what happens when the project is longer than a year?

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by contractorinatractor View Post
    That seems bizarre, as I seen a CityLink van two days ago. Perhaps they sold their fleet vehicles.

    Exactly, those companies benefit, but the individual really does not see to benefit at all from the arrangement. If all similar companies enforce the same structure there is no choice for the individual if they wish to pursue working as a delivery driver.
    Are you in Scotland? There is a company called Scottish CityLink. Any other company calling themselves CityLink what be careful to ensure they aren't associated with the nationwide firm that went bust.

    In regards to the couriers the Taylor report gives recommendations that makes it clear they aren't self-employed due to driving logoed vans and/or only working for them. A lot of other European countries have similar laws to what the report recommends.

    Contractors can escape either due to have skills that are in short supply or having to have more than one customer per year.

    Leave a comment:


  • contractorinatractor
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    CityLink went bust. You are now talking about Hermes, DPD and other couriers plus companies like Pimilico Plumbers. As far as I'm concerned anyone who wears or drives around in another company's logoed kit is not self-employed.
    That seems bizarre, as I seen a CityLink van two days ago. Perhaps they sold their fleet vehicles.

    Exactly, those companies benefit, but the individual really does not see to benefit at all from the arrangement. If all similar companies enforce the same structure there is no choice for the individual if they wish to pursue working as a delivery driver.

    Leave a comment:


  • bobspud
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    CityLink went bust. You are now talking about Hermes, DPD and other couriers plus companies like Pimilico Plumbers. As far as I'm concerned anyone who wears or drives around in another company's logoed kit is not self-employed.
    Problem is if the driver buys their own vehicle and sells it back to the company as a service, chances are they are not an employee. According to the case that started this mess...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ready_...onal_Insurance

    but to bring this forward to this century...

    Imagine this scenario:

    Sort out a preferential rate for van hire
    Make daily van rentals available to potential drivers that sign up to work with your brand.
    Create an Application that each night publishes your delivery routes

    The driver choses the only the ones they are interested in and they are assigned based on whoever is closest to that route that day. rates for the route go up or down depending on demand.

    The driver accepts the days routes turns up at the depot collects the packages and is free to reconfigure the route to suit themselves.

    Now the driver has no Mutuality of obligation because they are free to hire the vans as they need them
    They are free to swap packages between them if they think it better suits a route.
    They don't personally have to drive the route themselves and if their partner wishes to share the work thats their choice....

    all that is required is proof of the packages being delivered within the timeframe of the delivery.

    I think that van driver is in a better state than anyone working in a bank thought the strategic supplier....

    Leave a comment:


  • BoredBloke
    replied
    We need some way of showing them how many votes this will cost them. The total number of Tory voters who will not be voting tory due to this. They don't have a majority so it wouldn't take a lot of Tory MP's to not support it. It would need the help of Labour to get it through. So that would be a Tory Chancellor attacking the core Tory vote and only extending a Labour introduced bit of legislation with the support of Labour MP's. A bit of legislation that our turncoat chancellor is on record attacking IR35 when it was tory policy to oppose it.

    We also need to attack the myth where a contractor earning 100k should pay the same taxes as an employee earning 100k. He conveniently misses out that the employer will stump up the Employers NI and pension contributions for the employee, over and above their 100k salary while the contractor pays it out of theirs. The comparison should be how much tax dos a contractor pay compared to an employee when both have the same costs to employ of 100k. I'd say that the amounts of tax paid are broadly the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by contractorinatractor View Post
    The issue is people using the PSCompany model has extended to places it never really should. Are we exploited via our PSCs? Most here would surely say a resounding 'no' to that question.

    Is a CitiLink delivery driver exploited*? I would say: absolutely yes. Bad pay and conditions together, work until you drop, no sickness benefits. We can work from home or hotel if seriously unwell and be productive. The graph of the last 15 years displaying the increase in 'freelancing' when, in reality, it is actually a very small increase in the majority field (IT Consulting/Contractoring in tractors) and a very large increase in companies using cartel tactics to force, for example, delivery drivers to ensure they have no alternative form of employment within their industry.

    *Some drivers are forced down the true self-employed route, some through PSCs - there are mixed reports on the true end jobs of the individuals that are causing the 'freelancing' graph to swell so rapidly since 2009
    CityLink went bust. You are now talking about Hermes, DPD and other couriers plus companies like Pimilico Plumbers. As far as I'm concerned anyone who wears or drives around in another company's logoed kit is not self-employed.

    Leave a comment:


  • contractorinatractor
    replied
    Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
    Next stage - ensure that the consultation shows what a risk it poses to the UK economy (i.e. his tax revenues) and the damage it has done to the ability to execute in the public sector.
    The issue is people using the PSCompany model has extended to places it never really should. Are we exploited via our PSCs? Most here would surely say a resounding 'no' to that question.

    Is a CitiLink delivery driver exploited*? I would say: absolutely yes. Bad pay and conditions together, work until you drop, no sickness benefits. We can work from home or hotel if seriously unwell and be productive. The graph of the last 15 years displaying the increase in 'freelancing' when, in reality, it is actually a very small increase in the majority field (IT Consulting/Contractoring in tractors) and a very large increase in companies using cartel tactics to force, for example, delivery drivers to ensure they have no alternative form of employment within their industry.

    *Some drivers are forced down the true self-employed route, some through PSCs - there are mixed reports on the true end jobs of the individuals that are causing the 'freelancing' graph to swell so rapidly since 2009
    Last edited by contractorinatractor; 23 November 2017, 10:24.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X