Reply to: Client doesn't have to offer you work, say what?

[BolshieBastard]

What a load of bollocks. I understand the principle of MOO (or lack of it, to be precise, as I tend to be). I merely asked for more precision in a particular phrase (not an unusual idea in IT I would have thought). Specifically, I asked if people who use that phrase intend a certain other notion to be implied, always. The answer is of course yes. My thanks to those who gave a straight answer to a straight question.

If you can't believe that someone who "purports to be a contractor" might ask people to clarify what they mean, you should get out more. Preferably not in my town.

In General the answer might be a "you're not a real contractor" pissing contest. Elsewhere, it is you who are behaving disgracefully. And Malvolio, I'm surprised at you jumping on a personal insult bandwagon.

LOL! 'Not in my town.'

Where precisely is 'your' town?

[centurian]

WBBS....

Perhaps they should go away and do some reading. A key IR35 case was won because the judge agreed that being sent home without pay for hte day becuase the servers had failed and so no work could be done, while the permies simply stayed and were paid, was sufficeint to demonstrate the requisite lack of MOO. So it's not a trivial point. nor is it irrelevant. Have a google for Mike Ansell and look up Kate Cotterell's neat summary of why its important.

Seriously, if you CBA to find out the basics of IR35 case law and commercial contracts, stop arguing about it with those that can.

WMS.

The ability for ClientCo to send you home (at short notice) and not pay you - is one of the things that legally sets you apart from employees (as long as permie's remain onsite and/or are paid for the time).

This isn't just some BS armchair lawyers talk (of which you get plenty on here) - this is legal precedent from a High Court judgement. As long as your situation is similar, HMRC can't even argue against it at the High Court - they would need to take it higher.

Having the clause in a contract is advantageous for IR35 - having it executed (as has happened in most IB's lately) is highly advantageous - and if executed at short notice, it's probably as close as you will get to being an IR35 killer.

If you don't want that clause, then try and negotiate to get it removed. Just don't come back whinging if your contract fails an IR35 review.

[bless 'em all]

Without going back through all my old contracts I do seem to recall this type of clause appears in all of them. If there's no work for a day or so then why would a Client Co want you on site? Your contract should state you're available for work for the duration but there is MOO both ways.

My current contract states a MAX number of hours they'll pay for each week without needing additional authorisation, but it states nothing about a MIN number.

[SueEllen]

What a load of bollocks. I understand the principle of MOO (or lack of it, to be precise, as I tend to be). I merely asked for more precision in a particular phrase (not an unusual idea in IT I would have thought).

The reason you are being jumped on is precisely because you are not a newbie.

If you haven't worked out by now that if you have a contract with a clause that states something like "if there is no work to do then you don't get paid" means then you clearly don't understand the contracts you are signing and should have got the meaning explained to you a long time ago.

Not understanding contract clauses can get you into trouble or cost you a lot of money when things go wrong - and I'm not just talking about IR35.

[Ignis Fatuus]

I really cant believe someone who purports to be a contractor can seriously posts what the OP did.

As NLUK has frequently said, these types are watering down what contracting is and making it more and more difficult for us 'proper' contractors to get clients \ agencies to treat us as businesses and not disguised employees.

Truely disgraceful.

What a load of bollocks. I understand the principle of MOO (or lack of it, to be precise, as I tend to be). I merely asked for more precision in a particular phrase (not an unusual idea in IT I would have thought). Specifically, I asked if people who use that phrase intend a certain other notion to be implied, always. The answer is of course yes. My thanks to those who gave a straight answer to a straight question.

If you can't believe that someone who "purports to be a contractor" might ask people to clarify what they mean, you should get out more. Preferably not in my town.

In General the answer might be a "you're not a real contractor" pissing contest. Elsewhere, it is you who are behaving disgracefully. And Malvolio, I'm surprised at you jumping on a personal insult bandwagon.

[nomadd]

WBBS....

Perhaps they should go away and do some reading. A key IR35 case was won because the judge agreed that being sent home without pay for hte day becuase the servers had failed and so no work could be done, while the permies simply stayed and were paid, was sufficeint to demonstrate the requisite lack of MOO. So it's not a trivial point. nor is it irrelevant.

Agree completely.

And I would also add: To stress the point of you being an independent business operating independently, you would make all endeavours to continue supplying service. In other words, working from you own business premises with your own equipment should the client have suffered such things as a server failure, flooding, fire damage. etc., etc. This isn't possible in all situations, but it is in most. I can't think of a single situation as a contractor in the last 24 years where I've not being able to supply billable services (of some form) in the event of a clients premises being unavailable. Remember, you are managing your own workload as well as your own time.

[malvolio]

I really cant believe someone who purports to be a contractor can seriously posts what the OP did.

As NLUK has frequently said, these types are watering down what contracting is and making it more and more difficult for us 'proper' contractors to get clients \ agencies to treat us as businesses and not disguised employees.

Truely disgraceful.

WBBS....

Perhaps they should go away and do some reading. A key IR35 case was won because the judge agreed that being sent home without pay for hte day becuase the servers had failed and so no work could be done, while the permies simply stayed and were paid, was sufficeint to demonstrate the requisite lack of MOO. So it's not a trivial point. nor is it irrelevant. Have a google for Mike Ansell and look up Kate Cotterell's neat summary of why its important.

Seriously, if you CBA to find out the basics of IR35 case law and commercial contracts, stop arguing about it with those that can.

[BolshieBastard]

I really cant believe someone who purports to be a contractor can seriously posts what the OP did.

As NLUK has frequently said, these types are watering down what contracting is and making it more and more difficult for us 'proper' contractors to get clients \ agencies to treat us as businesses and not disguised employees.

Truely disgraceful.

[MrMarkyMark]

This is true. Not sure how valid it would be if you rocked up on site only to be told to go home. I would bill for this....

Maybe it's because I have been self employed in other industries in the past, maybe its because I have been contracting too long, but you expect to be paid for what, exactly?
I'll supply a scenario to illustrate, project worth a lot of money / equity loss, started just 2 weeks ago, with 7 other guys. Realised from the 20 minute "interview" this was gonna be a real toughy. Thought I might get a month out of it. Yesterday, 5 guys gone, who were on 3 month contracts. Me and another guy have the re-design and an up in rate for our new contracts for the next 6 months.
That's real contracting for you......

[malvolio]

This is true. Not sure how valid it would be if you rocked up on site only to be told to go home. I would bill for this....

You really haven't been listening, have you...

[psychocandy]

It does and you have to be realistic here. That doesn't really happen. The only time this seems to come in to play is when the client wants to shut down over a period, say Christmas or change freeze periods and when during notice periods.

This is true. Not sure how valid it would be if you rocked up on site only to be told to go home. I would bill for this....

[northernladuk]

I agree with you completely there.

My original question was about people saying "it is so" when the truth is "if a certain situation pertains, it is so".

Have to pass on that. I don't want it to be so whether the contract says or not. I have enough trouble looking like a business without taking a shotgun to my left foot. Someone else can have a go at that one.

[SueEllen]

Several projects I have worked on have been canned and I have been given notice accordingly. However, I have never had any experience of turning up and being told 'no work' on a specific day but come back tomorrow. Not sure what I would say if that happened.

I've been on a few projects that due to certain events i.e. someone else's f*** up I've pointed out there is little point coming in for a few days to a week.

In theory that could be "there is no work come back tomorrow" but as I tend to manage my own work load it's up to me to point out to the client that if I come in it's a waste of their money. So far that approach has lead me to have extensions with more than one client.

[Ignis Fatuus]

Possibly but I would be quite happy to make sure that clause is in my contract so I can attempt to defend myself in an IR35 investigation. I am quite comfortable shouldering this risk as it seems to happen so infrequently.

What would you expect if the project got canned halfway through? Them to give you some other work to do i.e. D&C? What would you do over xmas shut down periods? Bill them anyway? It can cause as many problems as it may fix IMO

I agree with you completely there.

My original question was about people saying "it is so" when the truth is "if a certain situation pertains, it is so".

[northernladuk]

Several projects I have worked on have been canned and I have been given notice accordingly. However, I have never had any experience of turning up and being told 'no work' on a specific day but come back tomorrow. Not sure what I would say if that happened.

Being given notice in accordance with the contract when there is no work seems a correct example of no MOO (as compared to a permie who would be expected to be reassigned somewhere else). Being tiold if you are getting work on a day to day basis seems to be taking the pee.

It does and you have to be realistic here. That doesn't really happen. The only time this seems to come in to play is when the client wants to shut down over a period, say Christmas or change freeze periods and when during notice periods.