Unite demands government outlaws umbrella companies

[LondonManc]

Love to see Len and Lucy from ContractorUmbrella in a room dooking it out

You're a proper Yorkshire lad if you want to see a man hit a woman.

I'd prefer to see a considered response from Lucy or another umbrella person to the OP's article.

[northernladuk]

You're a proper Yorkshire lad if you want to see a man hit a woman.

I have a funny feeling that isn't how it's gonna turn out

Unless of course Lucy is the man in that analogy making you are next in line when she's done with Len...

[LondonManc]

I have a funny feeling that isn't how it's gonna turn out

Unless of course Lucy is the man in that analogy making you are next in line when she's done with Len...

I've not met Lucy but I'm now in a strange place between fear and arousal.

[breaktwister]

"The government need to end the misery of umbrella company workers by outlawing this practice and all forms of bogus self-employment.”

“Unite has already succeeded in outlawing umbrella companies for example on Hinkley Point. The Scottish and Welsh governments and several local authorities have introduced measures outlawing umbrella companies on public sector contracts. If the government fails to act we will step up pressure on all public and private sector organisations to ban these sinister organisations.”

If one exams the onerous tests placed upon the relationship between an end-client and a contractor for purposes of IR35 and then apply those same tests to an umbrella company and its "employees" the total sham of these organisations becomes clear. The relationship between the umbrella company and its "employees" is not one of employer-employee, there is no SDC etc. It is a sham arrangement but one which HMRC approve of as they do not want self-employed individuals or small companies taking income as business revenue; they want it all taxed as employment income. If these umbrellas were not a tax maximising vehicle for HMRC you can be sure they would not exist today.

[northernladuk]

If one exams <gave up here>.

(yawn)

[LondonManc]

(yawn)

The second half of the paragraph was actually a decent speculation.

[eek]

The second half of the paragraph was actually a decent speculation.

+1. The second half of the argument is valid.

The issue is I think the one I mentioned earlier, its the figures placed in adverts that is the problem here - except for explicit b2b transactions job adverts should exclude umbrella fees and Employers NI agencies and end clients should not be quoting things that you will never get to see if you looked at a wage slip...

[LondonManc]

+1. The second half of the argument is valid.

The issue is I think the one I mentioned earlier, its the figures placed in adverts that is the problem here - except for explicit b2b transactions job adverts should exclude umbrella fees and Employers NI agencies and end clients should not be quoting things that you will never get to see if you looked at a wage slip...

I think the other problem is the lack of understanding (or indeed differentiation) by HMRC/HMG that there are types of jobs that lend themselves more to contracting and those that are of a more permanent nature. While their intention is potentially to actually push all jobs towards permanent positions with the client paying business NICs as part of a full "normal" permie engagement, the reality is that the client has no appetite to take on a specialist for a project role on a permanent position to only make them redundant a year or so later. Similarly there would be no appetite on behalf of any but the most desperately skint specialist to take such a role unless they needed to refresh their training/skillset.

[lucyclarityumbrella]

Love to see Len and Lucy from ContractorUmbrella in a room dooking it out

Oh believe me I am ready for it! Odd that these "issues" started as CIS workers were pushed towards umbrella's.

[lucyclarityumbrella]

I've not met Lucy but I'm now in a strange place between fear and arousal.

now now you lot!! And I am supposed to be producing a considered response to this!