Solving the IR35 and AWR complexities. And a new business model to wit.

[cojak]

Is it true that most clients do not mind being classed as the temp's employer ?

Probably not.

But since I'm not a temp I couldn't really say...

[mudskipper]

Your average Friday to Monday contractor won't need an agency.

[gingerjedi]

Is it true that most clients do not mind being classed as the temp's employer ?

I wouldn't think so, they would be obliged to provide employee benefits wouldn't they?

[vetran]

agencies will just charge a monthly management fee.
pay terms will become 180 days.
customers will abuse contractors even more without the steadying influence of agencies (yes they may be wideboy illegitimate spivs but agents regularly modify customers expectations)

Companies will switch to fixed term contracts.

[cojak]

Fortunately it is just 'proposed'...

[northernladuk]

agencies will just charge a monthly management fee.
pay terms will become 180 days.
customers will abuse contractors even more without the steadying influence of agencies (yes they may be wideboy illegitimate spivs but agents regularly modify customers expectations)

Companies will switch to fixed term contracts.

Indeed. TBH I think that the culture of getting a contractor in as it is easier than scouring the internal resource pool has already done too much damage. The rise of so many new agents looking for roles on crap specs etc is evidence of this. Company models are starting to lean towards a flexible workforce via agencys which is very dangerous for true contractors. I don't think any small re-wording of contracts or odd schemes are going to change anything now, the horse has already bolted IMO.

[bobspud]

If the penalties for IR35 evasion were transfered to the agent or the client. The market would soon change and sharpen up and the contractor would be able to see the true intention of the contract they were signing.

For instance: Certain agencies have been found to use sets of contract terms within the agreements for the contractor, that neither they or the end client ever had any intention of honouring within the end contracts. In those cases the agent is complicit in committing fraud, and one could reasonably state that they deliberately missled the contractor and caused the evasion of taxes in the first place. So in those cases the full costs of the investigation should fall to the agency not the contractor.

However where a contractor and the agency could both show that they meant to behave in a manner leaving the contractor outside IR35, but the end clients negligence in the handling of that contractor had changed the status of the contractor, then the costs should be passed to the client instead.

If both the End Client and the Agent have contracts that state that the provider of service will become a controlled employee and the contractor evades IR35 then its clear who owned the blame...

Pretty soon all the sloppy sham contracts would be pulled and amended to reflect the true working relationship...

The deterrent to stop every one being told they are permitemp bitches is to then assign those in controlled roles full employee benefits from day one...

[BobTheCrate]

agencies will just charge a monthly management fee.

They can call it what they like - they'd be in the financial chain and so employee condition exists.

pay terms will become 180 days.

I've had 30 day payment terms going direct before. Besides, what sort of payment terms do we think other, non-IT self employed get ?

customers will abuse contractors even more without the steadying influence of agencies

Every sphere of industry has its 'aggravation clients'. Ask any architect, marketing consultant etc, etc ... and even recruitment agents.

Companies will switch to fixed term contracts.

I would have thought that also depends upon the type of project the client requires external expertise in. Again, if they prefer to be classed as an employer and prefer to pay recruitment fees - they are free to do so.

[Old Greg]

Probably not.

But since I'm not a temp I couldn't really say...

Oooh, have you got yourself a proper job now? Your gran will be so proud.

[vetran]

They can call it what they like - they'd be in the financial chain and so employee condition exists.

No they would be a supplier separate from the relationship. the contractors wouldn't be paid via agencies but direct. However via a nod & a wink the contractor would be their responsibility. Just like a rental management agent.

I've had 30 day payment terms going direct before. Besides, what sort of payment terms do we think other, non-IT self employed get ?

They get whatever they are given, that is why you see plumbers going bankrupt when they try to expand or have a poorly paying client, its not something we should encourage in yet another industry.

Every sphere of industry has its 'aggravation clients'. Ask any architect, marketing consultant etc, etc ... and even recruitment agents.

yes but again two wrongs don't make a right.

I would have thought that also depends upon the type of project the client requires external expertise in. Again, if they prefer to be classed as an employer and prefer to pay recruitment fees - they are free to do so.

Historically the two have been intermingled, bums on seats & consultants. This as a way of separating is appalling.

If its Christmas you want now is the time to vote Gobble,Gobble.