Reply to: State of the Market

[jamesbrown]

Or you could look at the person who wrote the act (Rebecca) and that the end point is going to be a small number of lead agencies accepting the risk but explicitly requiring workers to use one of y number of named approved umbrellas from which they receive paper trails confirming everyone is paid 100% correctly.

I suspect one of us is a lot, lot closer to this world than the other.

There is a lot of "cope" among the people that are close to this world, IMHO. There is a much simpler way to mitigate the risk and that is to dramatically shorten the supply chains, not lengthen them. Either way, that wasn't my point, my point was about the long-term precarity of the umbrella industry, which was always built on sand.

[Snooky]

People in offices have called me inspirational and have gravitated towards my social skills and arranging evenings out for the team.

If this is how you come across in interviews, I think I may see your problem with finding a new role.

[quackhandle]

Jesus wept.

"Who’s this cool customer? Ice white shoes, Ice white socks with navy blue double cadet stripe, a pair of shorts, t-shirt with chevron action flash. ‘L’homme du sport!, (Man of sport) A tossed pink sweater that says I’m in Paris and nothing’s going to stop me."

qh

[eek]

To be pedantic, there isn't an Act, there is a draft Finance Bill. However, I did read the draft when it came out over the summer (and legal commentary surrounding it). I don't think the JSL is as straightforward as you are making out, i.e., a client is only a relevant party for JSL and hence liable in a supply chain without an agency. In particular, there are rules surrounding "connected" parties and how broadly drawn that is in practice under (61Z(2)(b)(i)). I would assume that the JSL is much wider than the basic rules surrounding relevant parties, in practice. For example, a client could expressly forbid the use of umbrella companies in their supply chain and still find that they are liable under 61Z(2)(b)(i) because the liability is strict, i.e., there is no statutory defence.

Details aside, I don't see how this supports your argument about increased use of umbrella companies. Sensible clients will want to de-risk, given the limitations of due diligence and indemnification, especially with complex supply chains. Indemnity clauses don't help when worthless intermediaries become insolvent and due diligence isn't a defence.

Or you could look at the person who wrote the act (Rebecca) and that the end point is going to be a small number of lead agencies accepting the risk but explicitly requiring workers to use one of y number of named approved umbrellas from which they receive paper trails confirming everyone is paid 100% correctly.

I suspect one of us is a lot, lot closer to this world than the other.

[jamesbrown]

Please go and read the act, it’s written in a particular way that accidentally made one of the expected models (agency owning arms length umbrella) pointless.

or you could look at Rebecca’s myths https://www.contractoruk.com/umbrell...ould_know.html

To be pedantic, there isn't an Act, there is a draft Finance Bill. However, I did read the draft when it came out over the summer (and legal commentary surrounding it). I don't think the JSL is as straightforward as you are making out, i.e., a client is only a relevant party for JSL and hence liable in a supply chain without an agency. In particular, there are rules surrounding "connected" parties and how broadly drawn that is in practice under (61Z(2)(b)(i)). I would assume that the JSL is much wider than the basic rules surrounding relevant parties, in practice. For example, a client could expressly forbid the use of umbrella companies in their supply chain and still find that they are liable under 61Z(2)(b)(i) because the liability is strict, i.e., there is no statutory defence.

Details aside, I don't see how this supports your argument about increased use of umbrella companies. Sensible clients will want to de-risk, given the limitations of due diligence and indemnification, especially with complex supply chains. Indemnity clauses don't help when worthless intermediaries become insolvent and due diligence isn't a defence.

[Smartie]

People in offices have called me inspirational and have gravitated towards my social skills and arranging evenings out for the team.


See attached screenshots. I used to run from Charing Cross to Canary Wharf and back. Every, single, day.

Time to go for a portfolio career and be a personal trainer/events planner :-)

[TheDude]

I'll be honest as a person who was born in Canada, references to soccer and soccer leagues mean nothing to me. I follow ice hockey.

If you are implying Dutch banks are operating in a market inferior to UK ones, you aren't taking ito consideration UK banks have lost the ability to service their biggest market - the EU one.

Or, if you are implying people working in Dutch banks are in some way inferior to those working in UK banks, I definitely have not found this to be the case. I have found UK IT guys to be far more capable than German ones but Dutch IT guys are by far the most clever I've worked with anywhere.

I am not implying any of that. I have just never heard the phrase Big 4 Dutch Banks.

[eek]

No, the agency is liable in the first instance (where one exists). The whole point of JSL is to allow for the recovery of tax from any party in the supply chain, regardless of fault, albeit with an order of priority. Sensible clients are (or should be) policing their own supply chains at this point, but that will only increase.

There will obviously be (and we are witnessing) consolidation in the sector as agencies begin to police their own suppliers more carefully, i.e., umbrellas. There are also many cases without agencies in the supply chain. Finally, some end users will take this opportunity to put workers on their own payroll. The shortest supply chains are the least risky.

It is hard to say how this combination of things will pan out in the short term, meaning the next 1-5 years. In the long run, umbrellas were always a stupid "idea" (a logical response to stupid legislation) and they are incredibly sensitive to changes in legislation - as evidenced with the latest changes to JSL - so they remain very precarious. Need to see the big picture here.

Please go and read the act, it’s written in a particular way that accidentally made one of the expected models (agency owning arms length umbrella) pointless.

or you could look at Rebecca’s myths https://www.contractoruk.com/umbrell...ould_know.html

[TheDude]

I have met some brilliant people just at the kitchen or coffee machine. I once met a silver Olympic medalist whilst getting a coffee in the office. Guy was next level brilliant. I got back to my desk and googled him and he was everywhere on the internet, had his own Wikipedia page etc.

I once met Bjarne Stroustrup at the office coffee machine.

[TheDude]

That's funny. I just got renewed for another year. Few of my colleagues ever go to the office the one "onsite day" at the Dutch big four bank I contract to. I've been there exactly twice so far in 4 1/2 years. A third attempt to go into the office turned into just a weed run and I ended up working from the Dutch hotel as there was nobody on the team there that day.

Two of my team members just got promoted this week and new staff will come onboard to replace them. From what I hear my team is not an exception.

I just read the Dutch government plans to expand immigration to make up for a massive labour shortage.

You really don't think the issue might be this little mistake they call brexit? The government seems to think so but can't seem to change enoigh of the public's mind. Instead, they are left with tacing the citizens to death.

Dutch big 4 bank?

Isn't that like saying League 2 football club?

[ensignia]

People in offices have called me inspirational and have gravitated towards my social skills and arranging evenings out for the team.

Jesus wept.

[sadkingbilly]

I don't like people much.
and i can't stand yap 'n' craps <dogs>.
I DO speak English though, unlike most previous posters.

[fatJock]

I have met some brilliant people just at the kitchen or coffee machine. I once met a silver Olympic medalist whilst getting a coffee in the office. Guy was next level brilliant. I got back to my desk and googled him and he was everywhere on the internet, had his own Wikipedia page etc.

Schumi - on the flip side though, I bet you've also met moaning Brenda for whom everything is drama or boring Geoff always banging on about his new bike. Some of us just want to get the work done, not drive hours to socialise with people we can't be arsed getting to know.

With you living in London too, easy to say you're happy to go into the Office where London roles needing the same for me would be a few hours on a train. But that said, having turned down lots of gigs for that very same [London based] reason I'm surprised you've been out of work for so long.

[Dorkeaux]

Very much at this stage too (ten years sooner too!), I have my required number of friends - don't need to make more at work.

I get this, I also have enough mates.

However, I have other catagories of acquaintances that I value greatly.

Family, neighbours, colleagues, bandmates, romantic partners (OK, only one of these. But there was a time..)
Each of these groups are very important to me.
They all have differing attributes.

For example, during a project I spend more time with some professional colleagues than I do with my friends and family.
We dicuss things in detail that no other group is capable of understanding, and build things that would otherwise not exist.
I think that's very important.
Still room for more of those. As I said earlier, I find not seeing my colleagues face to face isn't a barrier.

[Ketto]

I also am 55 so am not interested in making friendships with people.

Very much at this stage too (ten years sooner too!), I have my required number of friends - don't need to make more at work.