Reply to: Invoking the substitution clause

[northernladuk]

I said the client was flexible but I haven't actually proposed my choice of candidate yet. They may well baulk at it. In which case, there's not a whole lot else I'm willling to do to help them out - they can find their own sub.

The problem is you could open a can of worms here. If your client refuses your sub against the terms of your contract you have proved the working practice does not match you contract and you have an IR 35 issue.

[maui50]

I wondered that point exactly - why would you want to show the client that they could be saving considerably by keeping the girl in your place and you on the street?

Fair point. Well, they can have her! It's a day a week for me so wouldn't be the end of the world.

Otherwise, thanks all. Opinions sought and received. And I'm glad I've done my bit for society by winding northernladuk up

I said the client was flexible but I haven't actually proposed my choice of candidate yet. They may well baulk at it. In which case, there's not a whole lot else I'm willling to do to help them out - they can find their own sub.

[TheFaQQer]

I think you have found a square peg and are desperately trying to stuff it in to a round hole.

Nice analogy

[TheFaQQer]

<whisper> Have you thought what might happen when you come back after 3.5 weeks and the client has realised a more junior (cheaper) person can do your role?? </whisper>

I wondered that point exactly - why would you want to show the client that they could be saving considerably by keeping the girl in your place and you on the street?

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Did I over do it again?? Bugger. Damn these slow gigs

To the OP. Ignore me.. If it works for you, go for it...

Ahh bless you - no you're a pussycat really As it happens I agree with you but there's just no telling some people

[northernladuk]

<whisper> Have you thought what might happen when you come back after 3.5 weeks and the client has realised a more junior (cheaper) person can do your role?? </whisper>

[northernladuk]

Now don't beat about the bush NLUK you just say what you think

Did I over do it again?? Bugger. Damn these slow gigs

To the OP. Ignore me.. If it works for you, go for it...

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Now don't beat about the bush NLUK you just say what you think

[northernladuk]

The alternative, of bringing someone in from outside, is not very efficient for the client is it? I would have to spend ages training the sub up in even the most basic processes and even after all that, the client would still have to deal with a complete newbie for such a short time.

Welcome to the sham that is 99% of sub clauses, particularly when you are talking 4 weeks. Sub clauses are not designed to provide holiday cover really.

It's not about making friends (or getting a shag ) but getting someone suitable to take my place. And this would be a suitable candidate in the client's eyes - a known quantity. And furthermore, one that's not a complete moron.

By your own admission .. 'She's in a more junior position and is paid less; her own contract with the client reflects the quite different duties to my own contract '

You are putting someone who is incompetant at the role (The Peter Principle) in to the role which is even worse than someone new who is skilled at your role. You are a contractor not a training organisation.

-----------------------------------

Let me say how I see this...

You Have....

Someone in mind you want to help first and foremost. A situation has come up where you can help her and make a bit yourself. You are stuck in the mindset you want to do this despite everyone telling you it is not the right thing to do. You have lost sight of exactly what you are trying to achieve due to this distraction..

You Should Be...

Looking for a sub who is and independant, skilled and experienced person that matches your own and the role who can deliver as you did. Period. No helping underskilled totty, no training, no picking from clients resources yadda yadda..

I think you have found a square peg and are desperately trying to stuff it in to a round hole.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

The alternative, of bringing someone in from outside, is not very efficient for the client is it? I would have to spend ages training the sub up in even the most basic processes and even after all that, the client would still have to deal with a complete newbie for such a short time. It's not about making friends (or getting a shag ) but getting someone suitable to take my place. And this would be a suitable candidate in the client's eyes - a known quantity. And furthermore, one that's not a complete moron.

I'll read up elsewhere on the forum as to how other people have got on with hiring subs who are unknown quantities.

Oh and I've checked her contract - no handcuff clause.

The whole point of a substitution clause is that you are able to provide someone to work in your place who would be capable of doing the work that you are doing (in the head of HMR&C if you are in business you will have staff). In the scenario you are suggesting you are getting cover from an existing member of the clientco workforce, which is ideal for the client as you say but is exactly what would happen in a perm job which is not a good IR35 indicator for you. If the rest of your contract is water-tight it's not really an issue and this is only an opinion.

[maui50]

I am not sure that it would; if the OP was bringing in someone from the outside it would be different but in this case, as NLUK said, it's like asking a colleague to cover your work whilst you're on hols which is what happens in permie situations

The alternative, of bringing someone in from outside, is not very efficient for the client is it? I would have to spend ages training the sub up in even the most basic processes and even after all that, the client would still have to deal with a complete newbie for such a short time. It's not about making friends (or getting a shag ) but getting someone suitable to take my place. And this would be a suitable candidate in the client's eyes - a known quantity. And furthermore, one that's not a complete moron.

I'll read up elsewhere on the forum as to how other people have got on with hiring subs who are unknown quantities.

Oh and I've checked her contract - no handcuff clause.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

If, in the face of an IR35 investigation, it demonstrates that the substitution clause is genuine, I would say that it's well worth it. This would be the main reason why I'd want to use a substitute, if only for a very limited period.

I am not sure that it would; if the OP was bringing in someone from the outside it would be different but in this case, as NLUK said, it's like asking a colleague to cover your work whilst you're on hols which is what happens in permie situations

[Wary]

For 3.5 days, it's not really worth it, is it?

If, in the face of an IR35 investigation, it demonstrates that the substitution clause is genuine, I would say that it's well worth it. This would be the main reason why I'd want to use a substitute, if only for a very limited period.

[northernladuk]

Well, for her it's 3.5 days of being paid better and getting a flavour of project management and added responsiblities. Most juniors would/should welcome the experience.

It's only 3.5 days but the client still needs someone to be a main point of contact, organise the workload for a small team, troubleshoot, do a bit of reporting etc. I wouldn't want to leave them in the lurch.

If I were a permie, I'd be asking a colleague exactly like this girl to do it without any extra pay and would call it 'teamwork'.

You are bringing a sub in to fill your boots and keep continuity for your client, not providing a training environment for friends.

Keep the two apart. You will get nothing for doing this and lose alot when it goes wrong. Permies do teamwork, you are a consultant providing a service for a client. You are not a permie.

You shagging her by the way?? Just asking like.

[northernladuk]

Does she have a restrictive clause in her existing contract regarding performing services for the same end client without use of her agency? Might be a potential problem...

KUATB

Also... check her handcuff clause. Might say she can't work for anyone else in to that client which kills your option stone dead.