Reply to: Are agencies....

[tim123]

You do know that you can't restrict your services to only those that opt out don't you?

Though it's the easiest thing in the world not to present opportunities to people who haven't.

tim

Dodgy agenciess

yeah, speaking of dodgy agencies, what out for that agency that has 'Europe' in their title. I think there's a B in there too....oh and an & ... and possibly another letter..

Very dodgy contracts indeed. Lots of illegal terms that breach the Unfair Contract Terms act or something.

[oracleslave]

I have to be completely blunt here ADA....

I really don't think you have a ******* clue what the regs say.

Or, on the other hand, you DO but that's the yarn you spin to contractors who ask.

I think this has swayed my vote to 'a bit of both'

[Beefy198]

however I cannot see many agencies being keen to take a contractor on an "opt in" basis

You do know that you can't restrict your services to only those that opt out don't you?

[Beefy198]

I have to be completely blunt here ADA....

I really don't think you have a ******* clue what the regs say.

Or, on the other hand, you DO but that's the yarn you spin to contractors who ask.

[thunderlizard]

Likewise if you were to go direct to a client they equally would not be keen on an opt in contractor for the very same risk of exposure.

That wouldn't happen. The "The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations" don't apply to normal clients, just agencies. Hence the name.

[Ardesco]

My understanding of the act was that it was originally put in place to allow "temps" (and by temps I mean secretarial, production line, clerical/admin workers for example) to be able to receive maternity/paternity leave, annual leave, sick leave etc. as previously temps did not have these rights (I know, as I used to be one many years ago) and were only paid for the hours they worked and had to take unpaid holiday etc.

So, to opt in provides the indivdual with the same rights as an employee in terms of paid hols, sick and so on, however and this is where I think perception gets twisted - as the average contractor is employed by his/her Ltd Co, they should already be receiving those benefits through the indivdiual's Ltd Co.

By opting out of the EAA the indivdidual is effectively stating that they are a bonafide Ltd Co contractor rather than a disguised employee. Very IR35 friendly as you can imagine which is where we all often here "you need to opt out if you are a contractor".

To be honest a contractor can do either, however I cannot see many agencies being keen to take a contractor on an "opt in" basis as potentially you could claim your holiday, sick leave etc. through the agency. Likewise if you were to go direct to a client they equally would not be keen on an opt in contractor for the very same risk of exposure.

Now I know you may not want to claim holiday entitlement from your agent/direct client but if an investigation was carried out, the agency/client may have no choice but to pay said opt in contractor regardless of a claim or not. So really opt in and opt out is an area where it is generally felt someone could be exposed to liability for paid holiday, sick leave and so on.

Probably rambled a bit there...

Another clueless agent.

Opt In/Out has absolutely no bearing on IR35, if you opt out it does make it a hell of a lot easier for an agency though.

They don't have to check your work history is legit, they don't have to contact references for a reference (rather than to try and get work out of them) and they don't have to pay you in a set period of time. They can also put a handcuff clause in your contract in an attempt to prevent you from going direct.

If you opt in however......

Now I wonder why most agents are so keep for you to opt out...... Do you think it has anything to do with "Holiday" or "Sick Pay" (which they are blatantly not liable for anyway, if somebody tried to take them to court for that they would be laughed out of the place!!!)

[tim123]

My understanding of the act was that it was originally put in place to allow "temps" (and by temps I mean secretarial, production line, clerical/admin workers for example) to be able to receive maternity/paternity leave, annual leave, sick leave etc. as previously temps did not have these rights (I know, as I used to be one many years ago) and were only paid for the hours they worked and had to take unpaid holiday etc.

So, to opt in provides the indivdual with the same rights as an employee in terms of paid hols, sick and so on, however and this is where I think perception gets twisted - as the average contractor is employed by his/her Ltd Co, they should already be receiving those benefits through the indivdiual's Ltd Co.

By opting out of the EAA the indivdidual is effectively stating that they are a bonafide Ltd Co contractor rather than a disguised employee. Very IR35 friendly as you can imagine which is where we all often here "you need to opt out if you are a contractor".

To be honest a contractor can do either, however I cannot see many agencies being keen to take a contractor on an "opt in" basis as potentially you could claim your holiday, sick leave etc. through the agency. Likewise if you were to go direct to a client they equally would not be keen on an opt in contractor for the very same risk of exposure.

Now I know you may not want to claim holiday entitlement from your agent/direct client but if an investigation was carried out, the agency/client may have no choice but to pay said opt in contractor regardless of a claim or not. So really opt in and opt out is an area where it is generally felt someone could be exposed to liability for paid holiday, sick leave and so on.

Probably rambled a bit there...

This is wrong. The conduct of agency bla bla bla act has absolutely nothing to do with holiday pay, sick pay or maternity pay for temps. These issues were addressed by other legislation (or case law).

The act was originally designed to stop agencies restricting the rights of individuals to find work by the use of "temp to perm" fees, insidious "exclusivity" clauses and the like. Though other things did get bolted on because the act presented an opportunity of parliamentary time for them (such as the anti strike breaking clause).

tim

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

The act was put in place to try and stop dodgy dealings by employment agencies primarily e.g. charging for putting together a c.v. or aptitude testing and was targeted at temporary workers rather than contractors. The act states that employment agencies are obliged to make payment to those who work through them according to the terms of their contracts, even if they haven't received payment from the end client. Agencies were also restricted from witholding payment just because they had not received a signed timesheet. These points, it was argued by the PCG, indicate towards employment and therefore the opt-out was negotiated. As far as I am aware (and I am not a lawyer) there was nothing other than this in the act that would give contractors employment rights and whether an opt-in would automatically give an IR35 fail is a matter for debate.

[Another Dodgy Agent]

OOh - just the way I like them.

My word!

[Another Dodgy Agent]

All sorted. Let's just say that the agent has bent over.

Good work!

[Another Dodgy Agent]

Out of interest what's your understanding of the act? And do you prefer people to opt in or out?

My understanding of the act was that it was originally put in place to allow "temps" (and by temps I mean secretarial, production line, clerical/admin workers for example) to be able to receive maternity/paternity leave, annual leave, sick leave etc. as previously temps did not have these rights (I know, as I used to be one many years ago) and were only paid for the hours they worked and had to take unpaid holiday etc.

So, to opt in provides the indivdual with the same rights as an employee in terms of paid hols, sick and so on, however and this is where I think perception gets twisted - as the average contractor is employed by his/her Ltd Co, they should already be receiving those benefits through the indivdiual's Ltd Co.

By opting out of the EAA the indivdidual is effectively stating that they are a bonafide Ltd Co contractor rather than a disguised employee. Very IR35 friendly as you can imagine which is where we all often here "you need to opt out if you are a contractor".

To be honest a contractor can do either, however I cannot see many agencies being keen to take a contractor on an "opt in" basis as potentially you could claim your holiday, sick leave etc. through the agency. Likewise if you were to go direct to a client they equally would not be keen on an opt in contractor for the very same risk of exposure.

Now I know you may not want to claim holiday entitlement from your agent/direct client but if an investigation was carried out, the agency/client may have no choice but to pay said opt in contractor regardless of a claim or not. So really opt in and opt out is an area where it is generally felt someone could be exposed to liability for paid holiday, sick leave and so on.

Probably rambled a bit there...

[zara_backdog]

All sorted. Let's just say that the agent has bent over.

OOh - just the way I like them.

[Beefy198]

Will the agent bend over

All sorted. Let's just say that the agent has bent over.

[Beefy198]

Please do keep us posted, I am on the edge of my seat with suspense!

Will the agent bend over, will the OP refuse the contract, oohh!

Out of interest what's your understanding of the act? And do you prefer people to opt in or out?