Reply to: IR35 letters going out to GlaxoSmithKline contractors

[northernladuk]

Expect to see a sharp increase in CUK registrations and newbie mass-panic come April...

I'll probably miss it while on a lengthy ban for getting frustrated at their questions

The one we've got on at the moment is pushing me ever closer as it is.

[cojak]

Expect to see a sharp increase in CUK registrations and newbie mass-panic come April...

[PerfectStorm]

I'm in a contract till the end of the year, with discussions to extend to Feb, but still get fairly regular messages from agencies on LinkedIn asking if i'm open to new roles.

If it crosses over Feb next year, I ask what the IR35 position is, but I rarely get a response (one came back saying it was a FTC). I suspect they're just concentrating on those that want to be put forward without asking what they probably see as awkward questions

I'd imagine they may serve notice on any difficult ones

[Paralytic]

I'm in a contract till the end of the year, with discussions to extend to Feb, but still get fairly regular messages from agencies on LinkedIn asking if i'm open to new roles.

If it crosses over Feb next year, I ask what the IR35 position is, but I rarely get a response (one came back saying it was a FTC). I suspect they're just concentrating on those that want to be put forward without asking what they probably see as awkward questions

[PerfectStorm]

Another agent corker this morning

"Is this role outside of IR35?" (I sometimes ask just to check their knowledge)

"Oh yes, don't worry - it's private sector!"

[Bluenose]

We can’t move forward as an industry until contractor swamps like GSK are sorted out.

[jamesbrown]

I've no idea what this post is about. Am I completely misunderstanding or have you got something fundamentally wrong about Ir35?

The latter.

[jamesbrown]

possibly not relevant or previously discussed and I missed the earlier posts on this -

Has GSK been paying their employer contribution for NI in proportion to contractor rates paid out - implying they always deemed the contractors as extended employees. if not then surely this is an indication they will have a huge backed-dated bill for Employer NI ?
Or oif never paid then they did not enter into contracts with intention of considering contractors as employees.

Interested in the community-view

The community view is that, before April 2020, the contractor's company is responsible for paying the correct tax, including ErNI. If they pay the incorrect amount of tax, then the contractor's company is liable for that failure (notwithstanding a small risk that the liability could be transferred to the individual in exceptional circumstances).

So the question doesn't arise, pre-April 2020, because the responsibility and the liability both lie with the PSC, never the client. The responsibility only lies with the client if the worker is an actual employee, not a deemed employee.

[northernladuk]

possibly not relevant or previously discussed and I missed the earlier posts on this -

Has GSK been paying their employer contribution for NI in proportion to contractor rates paid out - implying they always deemed the contractors as extended employees. if not then surely this is an indication they will have a huge backed-dated bill for Employer NI ?
Or oif never paid then they did not enter into contracts with intention of considering contractors as employees.

Interested in the community-view

I've no idea what this post is about. Am I completely misunderstanding or have you got something fundamentally wrong about Ir35?

[GhostofTarbera]

possibly not relevant or previously discussed and I missed the earlier posts on this -

Has GSK been paying their employer contribution for NI in proportion to contractor rates paid out - implying they always deemed the contractors as extended employees. if not then surely this is an indication they will have a huge backed-dated bill for Employer NI ?
Or oif never paid then they did not enter into contracts with intention of considering contractors as employees.

Interested in the community-view

No GSK paid no ones employer NI


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[DougM]

NI contribution by GSK

possibly not relevant or previously discussed and I missed the earlier posts on this -

Has GSK been paying their employer contribution for NI in proportion to contractor rates paid out - implying they always deemed the contractors as extended employees. if not then surely this is an indication they will have a huge backed-dated bill for Employer NI ?
Or oif never paid then they did not enter into contracts with intention of considering contractors as employees.

Interested in the community-view

[Liberator]

Perhaps they get renewed endlessly, or maybe LinkedIn is not always accurate display of reality (mine certainly isn't)?

Either way I'm just happy that QDOS accepted my claim and working on my case. I'll keep you guys updated on how it goes.

Yes, please do. It will be interesting.

I'm hearing October could be when GSK decide on their actions for Apr2020 onwards.

[DZ2]

All that is very nice, but another search of GSK contractors on linked in says completely the opposite.

The list that come up all show a single role at GSK covering over 2 years in nearly all the cases. This means they are either not very smart and are quite happy making themselves a target through poor management of their linked in, or the vast majority just get renewed endlessly.

I have a feeling we will find out more in the near future though

Perhaps they get renewed endlessly, or maybe LinkedIn is not always accurate display of reality (mine certainly isn't)?

Either way I'm just happy that QDOS accepted my claim and working on my case. I'll keep you guys updated on how it goes.

[DZ2]

I know quite a few Biometrics contractors in pharma but don't know any that would sign a new contract if they moved projects (though not saying this doesn't exist). All the ones I know would not have a specific project defined in their contract but would have the facility to move around projects according to where resource is needed by the client. Though you could argue that the contractor has the right to say no I don't want to work on that project to satisfy MOO?

From my experience actual pharma companies are often hiring contractors for specific project needs, but maybe I was just lucky with my contracts. It's CROs who tend to shift contractors between projects (so I'm trying to avoid those); I imagine despite MOO present in contractual terms it would be very awkward to say no I don't want to work on that project.

[pscont]

All that is very nice, but another search of GSK contractors on linked in says completely the opposite.

The list that come up all show a single role at GSK covering over 2 years in nearly all the cases. This means they are either not very smart and are quite happy making themselves a target through poor management of their linked in, or the vast majority just get renewed endlessly.

I have a feeling we will find out more in the near future though

northernladuk
Posts
40,012

Happy belated 40 000 posts, you old fecker!
Unfortunately I can still see your mouth diarrhea when not logged in.