Reply to: Does "opting in" to conduct regs turn off clients/agencies?

[Lance]

Bet you didn't....

I guess not. Seeing as the client made me use that agency and I'd been with the client for 18 months at that stage, through a different agency, so the opt out wasn't worth the PDF it was on.

I signed it anyway. I only ever try and refuse out of bloody mindedness.

[malvolio]

Depends how hard the agency push.

I had one agency, who when I said I won’t opt out, said fine and sent me an inside ir35 contract… I opted out.

Bet you didn't....

[Lance]

I opted out for my upcoming role, first contract role for a few years.

Do most people opt out generally?

Depends how hard the agency push.

I had one agency, who when I said I won’t opt out, said fine and sent me an inside ir35 contract… I opted out.

[dl8860]

I opted out for my upcoming role, first contract role for a few years.

Do most people opt out generally?

[Andy Hallett]

Is the reason for opt-outs being done incorrectly almost always due to the opt-out not having been done prior to any introduction between supplier and client?

Nope, that wasn't it. It was notification of said status to client.

[PerfectStorm]

I've had agents that didn't take me forward because I took issue with being made to opt out. Yes the law says one thing, but their regular working precise (and what they're told to do), says another, and it is what it is.

[eek]

Is the reason for opt-outs being done incorrectly almost always due to the opt-out not having been done prior to any introduction between supplier and client?

Truth is there is so little case law we simply don't know anything - all BEIS legislation (opt-out, the value of a KID / Key Information Document) seems to fall into the never been tested category as it requires about 14 things to align before a case is created.

[malvolio]

Is the reason for opt-outs being done incorrectly almost always due to the opt-out not having been done prior to any introduction between supplier and client?

Have to ask Andy that one. HOwever, I talked about this with several agencies many years ago, and they were fairly consistent in claiming that the word "introduced" in the Regs meant "when the worker starts work with the rest of the workforce" and not "when the worker becomes known to the hirer/workforce" That in part is understandable in that (a) the people drafting the regs have no clue what they are doing and (b) they used the Office Angels model where it don't matter who turned up in the typing pool on Monday as long as they could type. Our hiring tends to be a little more nuanced...

Just to be safe, I always included an Opting Out letter when the CV went into the agency. No chance of that going wrong, unless, of course, the agency took no notice of it (again I've heard of that happening - "It's not part of our processes, we only use the CV".

[dl8860]

97%

Although I did fix that when I discovered the lacuna, many firms won't have.

I've been in court where Opt-out was a factor, that said the status was common ground and not challenged.

A company can choose who they deal with, I never used to sweat Opt-in / Out for those contractors truly motivated to maintain the default.

Is the reason for opt-outs being done incorrectly almost always due to the opt-out not having been done prior to any introduction between supplier and client?

[Andy Hallett]

And further to that a survey by a senior ex-recruiter who posts on here once in a while discovered that over 90% of their opt outs weren't done correctly, meaning the worker was in. Since he was with one of the bigger agencies, it's likely that ratio is pretty commonplace.

Also, worth remembering there have been zero court cases where the opt out status was relevant. Hence no precedent over any of its provisions...

And also worth remembering, a company is free to deal with whoever it wants to, under whatever conditions.

From which you might conclude that it makes no difference at all to the engagement.

97%

Although I did fix that when I discovered the lacuna, many firms won't have.

I've been in court where Opt-out was a factor, that said the status was common ground and not challenged.

A company can choose who they deal with, I never used to sweat Opt-in / Out for those contractors truly motivated to maintain the default.

[malvolio]

not really, it's normal practice to have a chat with the contractor and send on the CV to the client. If the contractor isn't up to the job he's sacked and they don't pay up.

You don't say...

Well I don't. Mostly they don't even bother with the chat, just bung in the CV and let the client decide.

[BlasterBates]

You have to say, all of that list is something that a good, honest agency would be doing anyway, regards of the Regs. It certainly describes the service they are selling to their clients...

not really, it's normal practice to have a chat with the contractor and send on the CV to the client. If the contractor isn't up to the job he's sacked and they don't pay up.

[Lance]

You have to say, all of that list is something that a good, honest agency would be doing anyway, regards of the Regs. It certainly describes the service they are selling to their clients...

yes. That's what I thought. Although no client, agency or employer, has ever checked my qualifications.

[northernladuk]

[/URL]

It seems to me that the agency is taking its obligations quite seriously and is simply creating the necessary paperwork.

I don't think so. He specifically mentions personal circumstances. This tied with delays to start sounds more like them worried he's gonna take somehting else before this starts.

[malvolio]

This:

https://www.contractorcalculator.co.uk/conduct_of_employment_regulations_opt_in_opt_out.a spx



It seems to me that the agency is taking its obligations quite seriously and is simply creating the necessary paperwork.

You have to say, all of that list is something that a good, honest agency would be doing anyway, regards of the Regs. It certainly describes the service they are selling to their clients...