How's this for taking the piss?

[ASB]

Just because they use the employment tests to define IR35-caught, doesn't mean they are saying he is an employee with employee's rights. TUPE won't apply, for one thing. Any attempt to link the two - the so-called nuclear option - would probably fail although it would be iteresting to try.

C & W - but very specific things. In this case the guy was decided to be an actual employee of C & W.

Granted though, everybody else has failed so far.

[malvolio]

Agreed. But HMRC / government can't have it both ways - if he's under IR35 there's an expectation of an employment relationship (or I'm pretty sure it could be argued that way in Court).

Just because they use the employment tests to define IR35-caught, doesn't mean they are saying he is an employee with employee's rights. TUPE won't apply, for one thing. Any attempt to link the two - the so-called nuclear option - would probably fail although it would be iteresting to try.

[DimPrawn]

I seem to remember IR35 can class you as a deemed employee only for matters of tax. It does not mean you are an employee in matters of employment law...

WHS.

You pay the tax as if you were an employee, you don't get the legal rights or protection or any of the benefits.

Only "fair".

[Menelaus]

I seem to remember IR35 can class you as a deemed employee only for matters of tax. It does not mean you are an employee in matters of employment law...

Devious little fcuker IR35, isn't it.

(Yes, yes ... waaaaaaaaaaah).

[ratewhore]

Agreed. But HMRC / government can't have it both ways - if he's under IR35 there's an expectation of an employment relationship (or I'm pretty sure it could be argued that way in Court).

I seem to remember IR35 can class you as a deemed employee only for matters of tax. It does not mean you are an employee in matters of employment law...

[Menelaus]

But he isn't an employee. He's a bought in consultant

tim

Agreed. But HMRC / government can't have it both ways - if he's under IR35 there's an expectation of an employment relationship (or I'm pretty sure it could be argued that way in Court).

[tim123]

Absolutely.

First, TUPE. If there's an expectation of a transfer of employment relationship (IR35-esque) then one of the principles of TUPE is that the employee should not suffer.

But he isn't an employee. He's a bought in consultant

tim

[Menelaus]

Name and Shame:

Client is Euronet Worldwide ( Budapest ) - a Yank company with offices across the continent as well as several UK subsidiaries.

An interesting TUPE case, indeed. Especially given the umpteen different legal entities that they have.

[herman_g]

Name and Shame:

Client is Euronet Worldwide ( Budapest ) - a Yank company with offices across the continent as well as several UK subsidiaries.

[zamzummim]

Agree - he should leave immediately.

[Menelaus]

Was talking with a mate who is still on contract at my previous client on the continent:

- Client cutting out the agent - told him to be a good boy since they were in for a "long term relationship" ( Indian client manager, bringing in Indians by the planeload )

- Agent agrees since he's making less than 50 euros per day anyways

- Contractor mate is now all alone dealing direct for the first time and straight into hard negotiations

- Contractor was provided an apartment for last twelve months ( as was I and several other contractors from out of town )

- Provision of apartment was never in writing ( 500-600 Euro monthly cost ) but nobody ever paid for this ( myself included )

- Contractor offered an extension of 3 months with possibility of lower rate in 1 - 2 months if "business doesn't get better" PLUS apartment to be paid by contractor

- Contractor presented with 7 thousand and something bill for apartment and told he didn't receive this before due to an "accounting error"

Told him my reaction would be to just leave NOW ( always would rather be on the bench than to take such crap ).

Absolutely.

First, TUPE. If there's an expectation of a transfer of employment relationship (IR35-esque) then one of the principles of TUPE is that the employee should not suffer.

Second, the 7K bill can be placed before the agent and if the agent doesn't like it, they can get tae ...

Third, if the Injun's bringing in his people by the planeload does this mean that there might be the opportunity to get on to the management (above the manager) raising the question of "plenty cheapness"?

Finally - get the client tae **** and write to the media explaining these sharp and doubtful legality practices.

Also: Name-and-shame-the-scum-sucking-****.

[herman_g]

Was talking with a mate who is still on contract at my previous client on the continent:

- Client cutting out the agent - told him to be a good boy since they were in for a "long term relationship" ( Indian client manager, bringing in Indians by the planeload )

- Agent agrees since he's making less than 50 euros per day anyways

- Contractor mate is now all alone dealing direct for the first time and straight into hard negotiations

- Contractor was provided an apartment for last twelve months ( as was I and several other contractors from out of town )

- Provision of apartment was never in writing ( 500-600 Euro monthly cost ) but nobody ever paid for this ( myself included )

- Contractor offered an extension of 3 months with possibility of lower rate in 1 - 2 months if "business doesn't get better" PLUS apartment to be paid by contractor

- Contractor presented with 7 thousand and something bill for apartment and told he didn't receive this before due to an "accounting error"

Told him my reaction would be to just leave NOW ( always would rather be on the bench than to take such crap ).