Reply to: FAQ for opting In/Out

[SueEllen]

I just Opt out of IR35 before engagement with the client. No problem!

I never thought of trying that tactic.

[malvolio]

IR35 as such is not long for this world anyway,

Yes it is. The investigating team is being reinforced and they are opening more inquiries than ever

it is not a law

Yes it is. It's enshrined in the Finance Act and specifically ITEPA 2003 et seq.

and there is considerably complexity therein, also it is a moving target. I don't clam to understand it fully and would look sceptically any anyone who said they did.

Clearly you don't. I do. I suspect our friends at Accountax, Abbey, QDOS, B&C and elsewhere - many of whom are ex-taxmen - understand it very well indeed.

HTH...

[DirtyDog]

I just Opt out of IR35 before engagement with the client. No problem!

I tried that, but I hadn't opted into IR35 properly in the first place.

[northernladuk]

I just Opt out of IR35 before engagement with the client. No problem!

[Dominic Connor]

Specifically, I'd genuinely like to understand:

1. Do pimps genuinely not understand the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations even though they have been law for over 10 years?
2. Do pimps deliberately confuse the Agency Conduct Regulations with the Working Time Directive, IR35 and other regulations or is this just them trying to baffle people into opting out?
3. Why are agencies so hell bent on getting people to opt out of the Agency Conduct Regulations that they would even act illegally by refusing to engage non-opt out workers?
4. Why do agents insist that they have never had a contractor who wouldn't opt out?
5. What burden does the Agency Conduct Regulations put on the agency that they fear so much (don't tell me it's the suitability/ID checks, they are cursory at best)?

I don't speak for pimps in general, but you're welcome to my thoughts.

1. No, not entirely, the law has several fiddly bits, I've had it explained to me by a lawyer which is more than most. Understanding law can be quite hard, I sometimes fail.

2 & 3 We need to distinguish between agents and agencies. Most people in most jobs will tend to believe their employers if they say "X is the law", unless it involves knives or bags with swag written on them. Only the largest firms have inhouse lawyers, the process for complying with any given law is typically a cheap lawyer talking to the firm's accountant who interprets it in a way that suits them and then passes that on as "policy"

IR35 as such is not long for this world anyway, it is not a law and there is considerably complexity therein, also it is a moving target. I don't clam to understand it fully and would look sceptically any anyone who said they did.


4. I've never said "no contractor has ever wanted to opt in/out, it is a stupid thing to say, being a crap and irritating negotiation gambit. They say this because they are poor negotiators or because their bosses have told them to say this.

5. Compliance with anything is time consuming and costs money, pimps are sales people on commission, I am not aware that any agent has even got a bonus or been promoted for excellence in compliance. Success as a sales person in any field is selling, and following whatever rules are enforced to the extent that you don't get shouted at by your boss.

The problem with IR35 and the agency rules is that they are being applied to situations that they weren't designed for.

IR35 started off life to deal with fat cat executives who did dodgy deals with the firms they ran, but dd not work for n order to dodge tax and hide what they were really paid. It was hijacked by Labour and in particular Dawn Primarollo n order to placate unions and to help their "close personal relationships" with large outsourcing firms. I would emphasise that Ms. Primarollo is in no way a corrupt person.

The agency regs were again well intentioned, being an attempt to gives some protection to people at the bottom of the freelance pile such as cleaners, yes t was a sop to the unions as well but these people get shafted far too often.

So what we have is laws that aim at the top and bottom and are applied to groups like IT contractors about whom no real thought was made at all.

[malvolio]

So you have a link to the sticky which is as close as we get to giving a FAQ around here, now can you give us the pimp's side of the story.

Specifically, I'd genuinely like to understand:

Do pimps genuinely not understand the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations even though they have been law for over 10 years?

The agencies do. Individual agents possibly not; quite a lot of them haven't been in business 10 months, let alone ten years. They are sales people after all, minutiae of the law are not their concern. The agencies aren't that interested in spending time teaching their staff stuff they don't need to know

Do pimps deliberately confuse the Agency Conduct Regulations with the Working Time Directive, IR35 and other regulations or is this just them trying to baffle people into opting out?

Not deliberately, no. See the previous answer...

Why are agencies so hell bent on getting people to opt out of the Agency Conduct Regulations that they would even act illegally by refusing to engage non-opt out workers?

It reduces their financial risk considerably: the stuff about pay if not paid and minimal handcuff is expensive. The objective is to make money, nothing else matters.

Why do agents insist that they have never had a contractor who wouldn't opt out?

Sales patter 101...? Or possibly nobody ever told them of the ones who have.

What burden does the Agency Conduct Regulations put on the agency that they fear so much (don't tell me it's the suitability/ID checks, they are cursory at best)?

As above - it is primarily the additional risk (aka the possibility of losing money) they are exposed to, and there actually is a measurable operational overhead that is avoided by having the contractor opt out.

HTH

[eek]

So you have a link to the sticky which is as close as we get to giving a FAQ around here, now can you give us the pimp's side of the story.

Specifically, I'd genuinely like to understand:

1. Do pimps genuinely not understand the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations even though they have been law for over 10 years?
2. Do pimps deliberately confuse the Agency Conduct Regulations with the Working Time Directive, IR35 and other regulations or is this just them trying to baffle people into opting out?
3. Why are agencies so hell bent on getting people to opt out of the Agency Conduct Regulations that they would even act illegally by refusing to engage non-opt out workers?
4. Why do agents insist that they have never had a contractor who wouldn't opt out?
5. What burden does the Agency Conduct Regulations put on the agency that they fear so much (don't tell me it's the suitability/ID checks, they are cursory at best)?

Regarding the middle point. I don't believe its actually illegal but the legalise isn't clear cut.
On the final point surely the reason for not wanting opted in people is due to having to pay for hours worked when the client doesn't or doesn't want to pay. Its a minor issue if you have 40 people on minimum wage and they bin someone after a day or so, its another matter if its a single expensive contract and you suddenly discover the end client isn't going to pay you for the 2 months of work the contractor did but the agency remains liable.....

[Wanderer]

In an attempt to disguise how evil I am as a pimp I want to show a newbie contractor that I'm dealing with at the issues around opting in and out, rather than give him my entirely unbiased and authoritative view.

So you have a link to the sticky which is as close as we get to giving a FAQ around here, now can you give us the pimp's side of the story.

Specifically, I'd genuinely like to understand:

1. Do pimps genuinely not understand the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations even though they have been law for over 10 years?
2. Do pimps deliberately confuse the Agency Conduct Regulations with the Working Time Directive, IR35 and other regulations or is this just them trying to baffle people into opting out?
3. Why are agencies so hell bent on getting people to opt out of the Agency Conduct Regulations that they would even act illegally by refusing to engage non-opt out workers?
4. Why do agents insist that they have never had a contractor who wouldn't opt out?
5. What burden does the Agency Conduct Regulations put on the agency that they fear so much (don't tell me it's the suitability/ID checks, they are cursory at best)?

[mudskipper]

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...-2003-act.html

Are you sure you are cut out for this kind of thing?

NorthernladUK Comment generator

[SimonMac]

Even to agents?

Allegedly they are human so have the same rights

[SimonMac]

This is a professional part of the forums you are suppose to keep it polite.

That is polite for NLUK, he didn't once call him a moron!

[aoxomoxoa]

This is a professional part of the forums you are suppose to keep it polite.

By NLUK's standards that was phenomenonally polite
A

[northernladuk]

This is a professional part of the forums you are suppose to keep it polite.

Even to agents?

[SueEllen]

I thought only newbies asked daft questions....

This is a professional part of the forums you are suppose to keep it polite.

[northernladuk]

I thought only newbies asked daft questions....