Staying in the same public sector contract after April 2017

[SussexSeagull]

Are you making an assumption here?

I'd guess that Sussex Seagull is closer to the truth but this leaves a third way - actually put working practices in place that only true specialists can work to. Ones that embrace no SDC and so on. The PS could then be used to properly identify specialists versus permietractors.

Simple test - can anyone on site carry out the work asked of the contractor or be in a position to tell them how to do it?

Long term it is possible the public sector will split into genuine consultants and, essentially, people working on projects on fixed term contracts but I doubt it will happen between here and next April.

We all know that the Daily Mail will pick up on Change Managers being deemed essential and outside of IR35 on £1,000 a day and be outraged while overlooking the fact the new rules mean they can't find developers willing to work for £200 a day in Central London without any permanent benefits.

[northernladuk]

Long term it is possible the public sector will split into genuine consultants and, essentially, people working on projects on fixed term contracts but I doubt it will happen between here and next April.

But then we come back around to the same discussion about the different engagement methods such as GCloud etc....

[OrangeSquash]

Simple test - can anyone on site carry out the work asked of the contractor or be in a position to tell them how to do it?

Even if the answer is yes, what's the option for a department to scale up for a true temporary requirement/project then? Additional permanent staff headcount? What about when the project is completed? Round of redundancies? Complete chaos.

[LondonManc]

Even if the answer is yes, what's the option for a department to scale up for a true temporary requirement/project then? Additional permanent staff headcount? What about when the project is completed? Round of redundancies? Complete chaos.

I don't think anything that we're discussing provides for the assumption that this legislation and its consequences were thought through any further than bottom line and designed by some little pillock jealous of contractor day rates without understanding the whole of contracting life.

[SussexSeagull]

I don't think anything that we're discussing provides for the assumption that this legislation and its consequences were thought through any further than bottom line and designed by some little pillock jealous of contractor day rates without understanding the whole of contracting life.

In short it hasn't been thought through. One government department has pushed through the change without any consultation to any other department.

They will now get last choice of any contractors for the foreseeable future and they don't pay well enough to hire and retain the right calibre of permanent staff to fill the void.

[LondonManc]

In short it hasn't been thought through. One government department has pushed through the change without any consultation to any other department.

They will now get last choice of any contractors for the foreseeable future and they don't pay well enough to hire and retain the right calibre of permanent staff to fill the void.

Even simpler. GB Ltd is skint. Current tax-payers are easier targets than finding actual tax evaders.

[BoredBloke]

In short it hasn't been thought through. One government department has pushed through the change without any consultation to any other department.

They will now get last choice of any contractors for the foreseeable future and they don't pay well enough to hire and retain the right calibre of permanent staff to fill the void.

Can't agree with the first line. They did consult. They consulted widely and everybody told them it was unworkable and a bad idea. The point is the consultation was a sham. They decided to ignore the results of the consultation and implement what they wanted. The consultation was just a tick in the box to cover themselves when all of the sh1t hits the fan.

I agree with you on the second point - the NHS has a salary cap in place which is already very low and well below the market rate. Then factor in this 20% tax hike on this already below market rate and then consider, as a contractor you'll get no benefits and could be out of work for periods of time.

[LondonManc]

Can't agree with the first line. They did consult. They consulted widely and everybody told them it was unworkable and a bad idea. The point is the consultation was a sham. They decided to ignore the results of the consultation and implement what they wanted. The consultation was just a tick in the box to cover themselves when all of the sh1t hits the fan.

I agree with you on the second point - the NHS has a salary cap in place which is already very low and well below the market rate. Then factor in this 20% tax hike on this already below market rate and then consider, as a contractor you'll get no benefits and could be out of work for periods of time.

I don't follow. Everyone told them it would be terrible - how does that involve covering themselves in anything but excrement?

[SueEllen]

I don't follow. Everyone told them it would be terrible - how does that involve covering themselves in anything but excrement?

What they do is get the consultation answers interested parties submitted, edit them to suit their agenda and publish them.

This is why it is not advisable for individuals unless they are a lawyer or their answer has been reviewed by a lawyer, to submit answers to such consultations.

That way the trick of editing them is far harder.

[seeourbee]

Not all of the NHS