Reply to: 45 hour working week?

[Eirikur]

I think the OP might miss the fact that contractors don't get paid lunches?

Neither do most employees, most permies have lunch in their own time

[dx4100]

OK so to cut this short since the OP is asking about 45 hours week the bottom line is the client wants 8 hours worked and the lunch is your problem but due to H&S you should take a minimum of 45 min to 1 hour lunch hence the 9 to 6 and 45 hours. Confirm with the client that this is the case.

Otherwise look for a 40 hour week which means 35 working hours.

Unless the client has a particular Health and Safety issues they want you to respect, there is NOTHING stopping you from doing as many hours as you and the client want. That is my understanding. If anyone disagrees then post the legislation.

[Drei]

OK so to cut this short since the OP is asking about 45 hours week the bottom line is the client wants 8 hours worked and the lunch is your problem but due to H&S you should take a minimum of 45 min to 1 hour lunch hence the 9 to 6 and 45 hours. Confirm with the client that this is the case.

Otherwise look for a 40 hour week which means 35 working hours.

[dx4100]

Sorry mate you are wrong, wrong, wrong. If you don't sign the H&S you won't get onto the site in many industries. HMRC don't care about it. Health & Safety is a separate matter to IR35 and WTD.


Oh, and you say the conversation track is about the WTD - sorry, reading back through it, the only person arguing that is you. H&S was discussed, then you jumped in with WTD. Everyone else talked about H&S, you went back to WTD.

That is my whole point!! You can't say I am wrong when you confirm exactly what I am saying!!!

and you didn't look far enough back.... I will help you...

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...ml#post2258775

Follow it from there...

I think in the end everyone is agreeing while at the same time still saying people are wrong

[MrMarkyMark]

Oh, and you say the conversation track is about the WTD - sorry, reading back through it, the only person arguing that is you. H&S was discussed, then you jumped in with WTD. Everyone else talked about H&S, you went back to WTD.

I think he's on the "wrong" drugs

[WTFH]

Like what ? What are we actually talking about signing... An agreement about health and safety ? Ok, no one takes issue with that but that was not my point. I am talking about the WTD... The whole conversation track came out of talking about WTD and not some random H&S requirement.

A client asking you to sign that with them is clearly going to blur lines. Even asking me to sign it with my own LTD is putting a massive amount of control on me. It could stop me doing work for other people once I hit the limit etc which is another defence against IR35 taken away.

While I am not saying its an outright fail. In the world of grey I would be amazed if HMRC didn't take interest during an investigation.

Sorry mate you are wrong, wrong, wrong. If you don't sign the H&S you won't get onto the site in many industries. HMRC don't care about it. Health & Safety is a separate matter to IR35 and WTD.


Oh, and you say the conversation track is about the WTD - sorry, reading back through it, the only person arguing that is you. H&S was discussed, then you jumped in with WTD. Everyone else talked about H&S, you went back to WTD.

[dx4100]

SE is right. Even someone coming on site to fix the fridge for the day may be subject to signing some sort of agreement like this.

Sorry but playing the IR35 and telling client you're not doing it wont end well.

Like what ? What are we actually talking about signing... An agreement about health and safety ? Ok, no one takes issue with that but that was not my point. I am talking about the WTD... The whole conversation track came out of talking about WTD and not some random H&S requirement.

A client asking you to sign that with them is clearly going to blur lines. Even asking me to sign it with my own LTD is putting a massive amount of control on me. It could stop me doing work for other people once I hit the limit etc which is another defence against IR35 taken away.

While I am not saying its an outright fail. In the world of grey I would be amazed if HMRC didn't take interest during an investigation.

[psychocandy]

Complying with the client's health and safety requirements is not acting like an employee.

The client is jointly responsible if you kill or injure someone, even if that's yourself, and there are sufficient health and safety laws to enforce that.

SE is right. Even someone coming on site to fix the fridge for the day may be subject to signing some sort of agreement like this.

Sorry but playing the IR35 and telling client you're not doing it wont end well.

[dx4100]

WTF are you on about? Are you living in some parallel conversation? If there is an issue w/r to H&S, the client needs to be concerned about that. If the limits on working hours stem from an H&S issue, that is not evidence of control. Simple as that.

The point I am picking up on is in that case you wouldn't be complying with the WTD as suggested previously... You would be complying with a health and safety requirement. The two are totally different.

If a client was making you compile with the WTD, something which doesn't apply to directors of limited companies, I would be concerned about how the client was viewing this relationship...

Asking me to comply with a H&S requirement is different. Sue mixed the two up above.

[jamesbrown]

Working Time Regulations are clearly not universal. They clearly don't apply to LTD owning contractors.

WTF are you on about? Are you living in some parallel conversation? If there is an issue w/r to H&S, the client needs to be concerned about that. If the limits on working hours stem from an H&S issue, that is not evidence of control. Simple as that.

[dx4100]

Read before you post. There's no inconsistency there. It is well-established that H&S requirements are universal and have no bearing on employment status.

Working Time Directive are clearly not universal. They clearly don't apply to LTD owning contractors.

Remember we was talking about being made to comply with the Working Time Directive.

[jamesbrown]

You are mixing up issues...

I will refer you to your own advice from 2011

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...ml#post1382921

Read before you post. There's no inconsistency there. It is well-established that H&S requirements are universal and have no bearing on employment status.

[northernladuk]

What was you saying about contractors not being able to claim for the costs of a rented house ? Glass houses, glass houses

Judging by the last couple days you are leagues above me.

[dx4100]

Complying with the client's health and safety requirements is not acting like an employee.

The client is jointly responsible if you kill or injure someone, even if that's yourself, and there are sufficient health and safety laws to enforce that.

You are mixing up issues...

I will refer you to your own advice from 2011

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...ml#post1382921

[dx4100]

Jeez you talk some bollocks you do.

What was you saying about contractors not being able to claim for the costs of a rented house ? Glass houses, glass houses