Reply to: Would you be an IPSE member if it weren't for the insurances offered?

[Lockhouse]

Hi,

I've been a PCG member since 1999. A few years ago I had a dreadful IR35 investigation that my PCG insurance paid for and eventually won.

I'm not a huge fan of the way things are done at PCG Towers but I've no wish to engage and change things either so I can't complain. Looking at the IPSE website I can understand why they changed and it's probably a good thing in general.

I'm not sure that I'll ever be an active forum member again but if the chips were down and I had another investigation, IPSE, PCG or whatever would be the first people I'd call.

A

[Sysman]

Then again they just updated a 400 page website with no service failures, something my current client has failed to do a few times now.

I can do that.

Gizza job.

Spill and grommet checking a speshulty

[wattaj]

And that helps how? Do you suppose IPSE pay any attention to these forums?

PCG should be monitoring all channels for information on the market in which they operate, and they should be paying attention to what is said. Now, it may be the case that some of the contributors aren't really worth listening to (eh, readers ), but that is a different issue. The main point is that any company should be willing to fight its corner in an open, and transparent manner, in order to bring some balance to the party.

#Tuppence.

[eek]

Have you ever been a member of the PCG and aren't now? In all seriousness, it's factual information like this which can help identify why take-up and engagement are low.

Yep when it was first created. I left when I went permie and really cannot see any reason to return. And that was before the name change justification with which I have a fundamental disagreement.

I especially dislike the current name change argument that 1 aim is to target graduate freelancers where it is assumed they are freelance by choice. Yes they may be a fair number of them but all the ones I deal with would love to have a proper job... And as such protecting them from IR35 is both morally wrong (as its not what they want) and likely to result in cases that are very hard to defend.

You may think I'm joking but I am currently aware of a fair few call centre workers claiming that they are freelance while their hours and loo breaks are dictated by the end client...

[JustinTime]

And that helps how? Do you suppose IPSE pay any attention to these forums?

You, and I, both know that they do.

[TheFaQQer]

Here is some free market research for the IPSE. Do you want to know why I don't belong to the IPSE, as it really is very very simple. The clue is in how it's supposed representatives ( including but especially yourself) appear to many of the general public (and based on few drinks a few months back to many of the MPs you supposedly lobby).

Have you ever been a member of the PCG and aren't now? In all seriousness, it's factual information like this which can help identify why take-up and engagement are low.

[TheFaQQer]

The 2% figure quoted in this thread is shocking if true. Please someone post the correct figure if it's not that bad.

If you are still an IPSE member, you can get the exact turnout figure from the forums - I don't know whether I'd be breaking any rules if I disclosed it publicly here and don't want to further incur the wrath of certain posters and senior members.

This year seems to have had a number of problems with the voting system, and reading what has been said, there are tasks in hand to try to address those issues.

I have said on the IPSE forums, and I'll say it here, that if I feel that I can contribute more to the direction of IPSE than the current Council seems to, then I will be standing in the future. I just need to work on getting a 100 word backing statement from someone and two nominees between now and next year.

[eek]

Once again, incomprehensible nonsense. Not point in discussing this any further. You don't like or understand what IPSE is or does, that's fine. We all have our opinions.

You said keeping a website up was difficult when things are updated (it's not. It wasn't difficult in 1995, it's even easier now).

You said updating the text wasn't important (it is).

You then assume my dislike of your utterly amateurish and unprofessional behavior while "representing" IPSE in the outside world means you can discount the points I made above to be incomprehensible.

You are correct in saying something is incomprehensible here. It is incomprehensible that you cannot understand why people who develop and redeploy websites all the time think the website update could have been done better.

Here is some free market research for the IPSE. Do you want to know why I don't belong to the IPSE, as it really is very very simple. The clue is in how it's supposed representatives ( including but especially yourself) appear to many of the general public (and based on few drinks a few months back to many of the MPs you supposedly lobby).

[malvolio]

Updating the HTML text on of 400 page website with no service failure is exactly rocket science....

Personally knowing how many of your members are I would have ensured it was proof read by some or at least updated as issues were pointed out rather than just saying it ain't important..

Once again, incomprehensible nonsense. Not point in discussing this any further. You don't like or understand what IPSE is or does, that's fine. We all have our opinions.

[eek]

Pointed out to whom? PCG Ltd is still alive but now trading as IPSE so they have the same history...

Then again they just updated a 400 page website with no service failures, something my current client has failed to do a few times now. A few semantic hiccups aren't exactly a threat to world peace.

Updating the HTML text on of 400 page website with no service failure is not exactly rocket science....

Personally knowing how many of your members are I would have ensured it was proof read by someone or at least updated as issues were pointed out rather than just saying it ain't important..

[malvolio]

Posts passim.

And that helps how? Do you suppose IPSE pay any attention to these forums?

[Contreras]

Why is the turnout for the elections so poor - is it because people really don't care about how it is run, or is it something more basic like not understanding exactly what they are voting for? Is it because people see it as the same old faces each time? As has been shown in the IPSE fora, I have no real understanding of how the organisation is governed and what the CC do (although I vote in the elections each time) - is that a shortfall on my part, or on the part of the IPSE executive / non-executive bodies, or a bit of both?

I don't know the answer to that, but TF hits the nail squarely on the head there.

I've been in an out of PCG a few times. Originally it was for access to the forums, then because there was a 'cause' to support, and latterly (and reluctantly) purely as IR35 insurance.

When a "management decision" intentionally 'outs' its membership (including former members) by publishing real names on their forum profiles, without so much as a whimper of warning let alone consultation, something is very wrong with that management. However well intentioned, it demonstrates a lack of regard for common sense, foresight, and an inability to listen. One could argue the same qualities that have brought us disasters like the BETs.

I might rejoin PCG/IPSE one day but, for me, simply being not-for-profit is not enough. Participation in the democratic process needs to improve considerably, and by that I mean much better than the ~10% as I remember it.

The 2% figure quoted in this thread is shocking if true. Please someone post the correct figure if it's not that bad.

[malvolio]

The difference between the Family Business Tax and the Arctic win (for example) is that there is absolute evidence of the PCG influence in Arctic, but it isn't quite there in the FBT.

I'm not saying that the PCG didn't do anything towards halting the Family Busines Tax, but if you look at the website of the Federation of Small Businesses (and press articles around that time), they were the ones that were also taking credit for the win, so it's less clear-cut that this was a PCG achievement.

There were several other bodies involved to be fair: the question is who got the ball rolling? Hint- it wasn't FSB.

[TheFaQQer]

This makes interesting reading. Note the one about Family Business Tax; stopping stuff is sometimes as important as doing stuff.

The difference between the Family Business Tax and the Arctic win (for example) is that there is absolute evidence of the PCG influence in Arctic, but it isn't quite there in the FBT.

I'm not saying that the PCG didn't do anything towards halting the Family Busines Tax, but if you look at the website of the Federation of Small Businesses (and press articles around that time), they were the ones that were also taking credit for the win, so it's less clear-cut that this was a PCG achievement.

[TheFaQQer]

Sometimes people are just quite happy to join an organisation they feel is fighting for them without seeing the need to get too involved in the politics of running the organisation.

Just like a football supporter's club, some people join to be with like-minded people but don't care about the running of the club as long as the bus turns up on time to take them to the game.

I think that it's more to do with people now seeing IPSE as a commodity that provides insurances (or whatever word you want to ascribe to the insurance-like products and services they provide) rather than a group that is actively fighting for them and achieving.

A 2% turnout (or whatever the exact figure was) is pretty bad, whatever spin people want to put on it.