Reply to: Agency Forgot to Give Me Notice - Do I Exploit Situation?

[kingcook]

My cat has employed me as her feeder, groomer, provider, entertainment giver.

You're a funny guy. You should try a few posts in the General forum

[Guest22]

OP - MyUserName is right isn't he? :-)

The agency pay you not the client so I think your argument falls down a little here.

On a similar note, if a plumber comes around your house and, for whatever reason, the job takes 3 months does he then say your his employer? Probably not.

This is becoming an academic and wasteful discussion on semantics. But, to be clear, yes, I would say that I have employed a plumber to fix a leak. He is now employed by me to do something. From a legal and government point of view, I am not his employer in the legal definition, nor is he my employee. But, from the dictionary definition, I have certainly employed him to do something. My cat has employed me as her feeder, groomer, provider, entertainment giver. But, she doesn't pay me, there is no contract in place, no limited company, no PAYE, no tax is paid, and I can choose when I fulfill my requirements and if I wish to delegate them to someone else such as my girlfriend. And I can even sack my boss (the cat) by sending her to a cat's home!

So, for the sake of deliberating over the meaning of the word 'employ[er|ee|ment]' without specifying context, let's move on to more important things in life...

So, fraymond, your questions...

1. What is blocking/holding you back from accepting the full notice period?

I don't want them to feel like I'm taking the complete p*ss over a clerical error and I let them suggest the compromise rather than suggest it myself. All I have to do is accept it. Going for the full notice period feels like I'm forcing something more beneficial to me rather than just accepting something offered by them. And I don't want to upset the management 1) because I would like to maintain a good reference; 2) it feels a little morally wrong to totally exploit a genuine clerical mistake.

2. If you decided to walk away and accept no money after your last day, how would you feel and why?

I'd feel like I may have lost out on a lot of cash because the reasons 1) and 2) in the answer to 1. above may not have been so relevant. And this is the problem. I don't know how relevant they are because I cannot predict the future, hence why I'm trying to appeal to the crowd for advice to draw on others' experience and opinions.

As for everyone else, why do you hack away at your keyboards splurging hatred and anger and arrogance at each other when all people want is a little advice? I know why. You all have egos to stroke and belittling others with your bigoted opinions is a way to make your human selves feel good about the drabness of your lives. I accept it's a part of human nature to be like this, and Internet forums are littered with discussions like this, but just thought I'd point it out. So much arrogance on here, it's cringeworthy, because the same people are probably humble quiet do-as-they're-tolds in real life.

Innit!

[psychocandy]

Your client does not pay you, the agency does. Hence by your own definition the client is not the employer.



Let me get this straight .. I take time out of my day to try to help you by explaining the definitions of contracting terms to you and how they apply in your situation and also why this is different to an employer/employee situations - and I am the one who is clearly not an IT contractor?

OP - MyUserName is right isn't he? :-)

The agency pay you not the client so I think your argument falls down a little here.

On a similar note, if a plumber comes around your house and, for whatever reason, the job takes 3 months does he then say your his employer? Probably not.

[d000hg]

Garening leave for contractors does exist. Snag is, it blows a massive hole in any defence you may care to put up regarding IR35. If your client wants to keep you on on full pay with no work to do, you are clearly working under a contract of service and should therefore be paying full PAYE and NICs on 95% of your gross for the duration of the contract.

So less of the arrogance, all you're proving is you don't know the laws governing your trade. Which is not a good place to start fom when criticising those of us who do.

And if you don't want advice, don't ask questions.

It doesn't definitely mean you are caught by IR35. It's entirely possible to have a B2B relationship where this kind of thing happens. Of course he may well be caught but suggesting it is a done deal is disingenuous. It's arrogant of you to make such a statement.

[MyUserName]

kingcook, yes I will indeed call the IB my employer because, from the dictionary definition...

em·ploy/emˈploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.

Legally, or technically, my limited company employs me and it provides a service to the client. But if I ever have to fill in a form for a medical prescription and it has an 'Employer' box, I will frikkin put ClientCo, not my limited company! If I ever get investigated by HMRC, I will damn right never use any word that starts with 'Em' and ends in 'ploy[er|ment]'. Happy?

Your client does not pay you, the agency does. Hence by your own definition the client is not the employer.

Geez, you clearly aren't in IT contracting otherwise you'd have a grasp of the real world rather than deliberating over semantics. I reckon you're a supply teacher but the teacher forums aren't very active these days...?

Let me get this straight .. I take time out of my day to try to help you by explaining the definitions of contracting terms to you and how they apply in your situation and also why this is different to an employer/employee situations - and I am the one who is clearly not an IT contractor?

[psychocandy]

kingcook, yes I will indeed call the IB my employer because, from the dictionary definition...

em·ploy/emˈploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.

Legally, or technically, my limited company employs me and it provides a service to the client. But if I ever have to fill in a form for a medical prescription and it has an 'Employer' box, I will frikkin put ClientCo, not my limited company! If I ever get investigated by HMRC, I will damn right never use any word that starts with 'Em' and ends in 'ploy[er|ment]'. Happy?

Geez, you clearly aren't in IT contracting otherwise you'd have a grasp of the real world rather than deliberating over semantics. I reckon you're a supply teacher but the teacher forums aren't very active these days...?

malvolio, thanks for your post. Yes, I understand all that. However, the reality of my situation is, if I ever got investigated for IR35, they would see this: I got given notice. There was a cock-up in the dates. Reference my contract - we reached a compromise. I worked for 7 days (let's say). I got paid. I did work. I was in the office. Job done. What's the problem with that? MOO is irrelevant here. I'll be working my notice. End of.

seriously?

[malvolio]

Hey, you got it. The termination requirements are in there as one of the ways of distinguishing between the two.

Maybe quick summaries aren't best used when discussing the finer points if moo.

Nope. Read that twice. Still makes no sense....

[GB9]

Stop wasting everyone's time. There is no connection between my quick summary of Mutuality and this comment. Or can't you distinguish between a temporary shortage of work and termination of contract?

Hey, you got it. The termination requirements are in there as one of the ways of distinguishing between the two.

Maybe quick summaries aren't best used when discussing the finer points if moo.

[malvolio]

So if a system goes down and someone goes home unpaid for a few hours are you expecting them to come back the next day or is that the contract over without notice and following the purest form of moo. If the contractor doesnt turn in the next day will the agent be on to them to find out where they are or will they appreciate that there is no moo and the contractor isnt obliged to undertake any work?

Stop wasting everyone's time. There is no connection between my quick summary of Mutuality and this comment. Or can't you distinguish between a temporary shortage of work and termination of contract?

[GB9]

Mututality?
However the point about a notice period being honoured when work has dried up can be construed as you being paid when there is no work to be done, and therefore there is more than an irreducible degree of mutuality and there went your IR35 defence unless you can argue that it was a commercial decision based on how much the client wanted to give you money for doing nothing.

But if people aren't going to keep up with the case law decisions that control their whole contractual construct, then confusion will continue to reign.

End of sermon, I'm off for a drink or three.

So if a system goes down and someone goes home unpaid for a few hours are you expecting them to come back the next day or is that the contract over without notice and following the purest form of moo. If the contractor doesnt turn in the next day will the agent be on to them to find out where they are or will they appreciate that there is no moo and the contractor isnt obliged to undertake any work?

[malvolio]

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Maybe. Do you think I should have pointed out the concept of the notional contract the judge will construct to assess the case, disregarding the various written ones...?

[fraymond]

Hi Neo, whilst I must congratulate you for seeking help when you need it, I can't help but feel perhaps a different line of questioning might have got you further along the path.

Consider these:

1. What is blocking/holding you back from accepting the full notice period?

2. If you decided to walk away and accept no money after your last day, how would you feel and why?

I'm sincerely interested in what your detailed/honest answers would be.

[kingcook]

kingcook, yes I will indeed call the IB my employer because, from the dictionary definition...

em·ploy/emˈploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.

Legally, or technically, my limited company employs me and it provides a service to the client. But if I ever have to fill in a form for a medical prescription and it has an 'Employer' box, I will frikkin put ClientCo, not my limited company! If I ever get investigated by HMRC, I will damn right never use any word that starts with 'Em' and ends in 'ploy[er|ment]'. Happy?

Geez, you clearly aren't in IT contracting otherwise you'd have a grasp of the real world rather than deliberating over semantics. I reckon you're a supply teacher but the teacher forums aren't very active these days...?

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[malvolio]

kingcook, yes I will indeed call the IB my employer because, from the dictionary definition...

em·ploy/emˈploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.

Legally, or technically, my limited company employs me and it provides a service to the client. But if I ever have to fill in a form for a medical prescription and it has an 'Employer' box, I will frikkin put ClientCo, not my limited company! If I ever get investigated by HMRC, I will damn right never use any word that starts with 'Em' and ends in 'ploy[er|ment]'. Happy?

Geez, you clearly aren't in IT contracting otherwise you'd have a grasp of the real world rather than deliberating over semantics. I reckon you're a supply teacher but the teacher forums aren't very active these days...?

malvolio, thanks for your post. Yes, I understand all that. However, the reality of my situation is, if I ever got investigated for IR35, they would see this: I got given notice. There was a cock-up in the dates. Reference my contract - we reached a compromise. I worked for 7 days (let's say). I got paid. I did work. I was in the office. Job done. What's the problem with that? MOO is irrelevant here. I'll be working my notice. End of.

Well no, but clearly there's no point arguing any further. Except for one small detail: an employee is someone who works under a contract of service. You may do, in which case you are caught for IR35. I don't, and I'm not. Ergo, I for one am not an employee. Tricky things, semantics...

HTH

[Guest22]

kingcook, yes I will indeed call the IB my employer because, from the dictionary definition...

em·ploy/emˈploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.

Legally, or technically, my limited company employs me and it provides a service to the client. But if I ever have to fill in a form for a medical prescription and it has an 'Employer' box, I will frikkin put ClientCo, not my limited company! If I ever get investigated by HMRC, I will damn right never use any word that starts with 'Em' and ends in 'ploy[er|ment]'. Happy?

Geez, you clearly aren't in IT contracting otherwise you'd have a grasp of the real world rather than deliberating over semantics. I reckon you're a supply teacher but the teacher forums aren't very active these days...?

malvolio, thanks for your post. Yes, I understand all that. However, the reality of my situation is, if I ever got investigated for IR35, they would see this: I got given notice. There was a cock-up in the dates. Reference my contract - we reached a compromise. I worked for 7 days (let's say). I got paid. I did work. I was in the office. Job done. What's the problem with that? MOO is irrelevant here. I'll be working my notice. End of.