Why big corp and hmrc have a dislike for contractors?

[GigiBronz]

So... the previous night found myself expressing my opinions on a thread near by about the reason contracting is not very popular with big corps and gov. Ended up being not very well perceived and post deleted by an admin and accused of "wanting to hear my own voice" whatever that is.

What do you guys think the reason behind this clampdown on this engagement method?

Some might say financial, hmrc loosing on taxes. Could be part of that but if you go closer into the detail you would find that costs are understandable and there is a risk premia that is factored in.
Looking at the other engagement methods FTC's and umbrella have always been the worst of all words, nobody in their sane mind will consider them unless desperate. Well... unless you are a corp and want a tempie to crave for that security but that is a different discussion.

Some egotistic big time contractors might say: "Because you were all permtractors" bum-on-seat contractor. Seat fillers. But even them if they were honest to themselves, would see most of their engagements were paid by day, bossed around by their pm's, maybe to some extent contractors but then limited by how much effort a company would want to put into differentiating between people on site. Sometimes none.

Atm there is no viable way of engaging on temporary basis. That is what I see as the reality. Inside IR35 roles are too expensive for clients and do not leave too much lee way on our side.

In times of uncertainty, it might be good to have an honest talk to ourselves and try to assess how things are moving around us.
So what do you guys think?

[AtW]

It’s always money

[TheGreenBastard]

- Big corps don't have a problem with contractors - it's the perms that have the issues and this simply bubbles up, try not having contempt for someone who earns more than you after your years of toiling the corporate ladder and all they do is Node.js
- The permietractor thing has become a joke, "contractors" and businesses (clients) only have themselves to blame. Work at any large company in London, swathes of long lived teams filled with contractors (of average standard, doing bum on seat roles), attendance of team building events - 90% of those affected that I've spoken to are banging on about their rights (after blanketed inside), a majority are feeling sorry for themselves now that their "client" of 4 years has deemed them inside... ARE YOU REAL?
- HMRC's motivation is simple: £££

The above doesn't imply "real" contractors don't exist, but the rise of the permietractors has killed it. The IR35 legislation is horrendous, the gov needs to get with the times and create an entire new categorisation of work for the permietractor style engagement, it's gone from too beneficial to become a contract to the other end of the spectrum.

[BrilloPad]

1. They don't understand contractors. You kill what you fear. You fear what you don't understand.
2. Contractors dislike other contractors. They think they are special. In fact, they are just the same. Until we learn we support each other we are stuffed.

I have only seen the light recently. I wish I had the foresight of NAT.....

[BrilloPad]

It’s always money

I suppose that is why the squirrels nibble your nuts. Now why not f**k off and let the grown ups talk.

[GigiBronz]

I don't think hmrc would have acted without a plan in place and consulting the business. And in uncertain times business wouldn't have liked to have people meddling with their flexible workforce. Unless there is a plan in place.

What I believe is that contracting has always presented a threat to their core ideology(permi land) but were forced to find resources somehow:
- it is easier to manage a homogenous mass of people than two different worlds
- you won't loose your best people that turn contractors, less turnover
- when someone is stripped of options he is more likely to accept the reality he is faced with, however miserable it is. They have now to follow performance reviews and aspire at the bonus.
- you can't enforce long notice periods that limit available opportunities, you can always resign and search but how many people have financial comfort to do that?
- false sense of security in a permanent role (you can always be fired before 2y without much explanation) but still always a selling point
- inevitably it creates envy in the team.
- everything nowadays seem to be about "cultural fit", aiming to conquer the mind not just the body for 8h
- if they are planning in future to meddle with the employment rights having contracting model would pose a threat, everyone would want the contractor pay
- FTC's and umbrellas have always been considered the worst of all words, but they leave the person aspiring for the "security" of the permanent role
I believe they are just trying to make their permi package more attractive by stripping out alternatives.
- a contractor is more expensive than a permanent but less than a consultancy. And a consultancy has the legal department and accounts to find opportunities to pay less tax than similar number of contractors.

Question is how would you encourage the economy to be flexible, take opportunities 100mi away, move house without significantly increasing permanent salaries? £500pcm do not justify relocation cost, discomfort etc...

[KinooOrKinog]

Question is how would you encourage the economy to be flexible, take opportunities 100mi away, move house without significantly increasing permanent salaries? £500pcm do not justify relocation cost, discomfort etc...

This is a good point & one I was initially worried about. Quite often I have to take contracts in London as there's not much available in my home town. Given the expense associated with that I wasn't sure if it would be viable unless the client pays.
But during a conversation with an agent he told me that actually it's difficult to find good talent in London. If that's the case in one of the biggest jobs markets in the world then my hope is that clients eventually realise this & either offer outside roles again, or cover the expenses.

[GigiBronz]

clients eventually realise this & either offer outside roles again, or cover the expenses.

It is the same treatment as for permies so for an inside role they won’t be able to cover much.

HR will come with a brand new sales pitch of how equal they are and how great it is to work for them.
We’ll all be gifted a skateboard at signing that we’ll have to strap to out back and talk about it in meetings.
Everything is about climate change now so they’ll probably offer to offset out daily d*** in grams of CO2.
If they’ll find plenty of us than probably the CEO will still afford a Ferrari for his holiday home.
Business as usual.

[KinooOrKinog]

It is the same treatment as for permies so for an inside role they won’t be able to cover much.

HR will come with a brand new sales pitch of how equal they are and how great it is to work for them.
We’ll all be gifted a skateboard at signing that we’ll have to strap to out back and talk about it in meetings.
Everything is about climate change now so they’ll probably offer to offset out daily d*** in grams of CO2.
If they’ll find plenty of us than probably the CEO will still afford a Ferrari for his holiday home.
Business as usual.

Fair enough. But as I've said before - negative thoughts invite negative outcome.

[nico]

I don't think hmrc would have acted without a plan in place and consulting the business. And in uncertain times business wouldn't have liked to have people meddling with their flexible workforce. Unless there is a plan in place.

What I believe is that contracting has always presented a threat to their core ideology(permi land) but were forced to find resources somehow:
- it is easier to manage a homogenous mass of people than two different worlds
- you won't loose your best people that turn contractors, less turnover
- when someone is stripped of options he is more likely to accept the reality he is faced with, however miserable it is. They have now to follow performance reviews and aspire at the bonus.
- you can't enforce long notice periods that limit available opportunities, you can always resign and search but how many people have financial comfort to do that?
- false sense of security in a permanent role (you can always be fired before 2y without much explanation) but still always a selling point
- inevitably it creates envy in the team.
- everything nowadays seem to be about "cultural fit", aiming to conquer the mind not just the body for 8h
- if they are planning in future to meddle with the employment rights having contracting model would pose a threat, everyone would want the contractor pay
- FTC's and umbrellas have always been considered the worst of all words, but they leave the person aspiring for the "security" of the permanent role
I believe they are just trying to make their permi package more attractive by stripping out alternatives.
- a contractor is more expensive than a permanent but less than a consultancy. And a consultancy has the legal department and accounts to find opportunities to pay less tax than similar number of contractors.

Question is how would you encourage the economy to be flexible, take opportunities 100mi away, move house without significantly increasing permanent salaries? £500pcm do not justify relocation cost, discomfort etc...

Very difficult to focus on the question when people don't know the difference between its and it's, your and you're and lose and loose.

Lose = To lose something "I've lost my keys"
Loose = Something is loose "My jeans are loose fitting"