Reply to: Performance review FFS!!!

[kaiser78]

This happened to me last year where I was expected to complete 1/4ly reviews, performance objectives and 360 feedback. I raised with client lead during the first cycle, explaining the reasons why and was duly freed from having to do any of this.

My performance feedback is generally measured in terms of contract renewal or seeing a door closing behind me...normally the former of course however

[Zigenare]

I can certainly understand why most CUKkers are terrified at the prospect of having their performance reviewed, lest they get found out

Contract extensions or repeat contracts are usually an indication of good performance.

[d000hg]

I can certainly understand why most CUKkers are terrified at the prospect of having their performance reviewed, lest they get found out

[vetran]

Just tell them you do plumbing as well and your back is a bit iffy. Point them to the court case.

[DeludedKitten]

Make sure its title is changed to "Supplier Review" and all's good.

And to ensure that the review is impartial, bring in someone else to go through it with the client on behalf of your company

[unixman]

No.

[Hobosapien]

Find out who will be doing the review and to what end. If it's your contact or someone that understands the relationship as you see it then all should be good to get them to do a 'service review'. If it's the knob that thinks you're an employee or some HR bod that thinks similar, then you have bigger things to worry about in regards any future IR35 investigation.

[jamesbrown]

I read it that client wishes to review OP (or the quality of the services the representative of OP's business provides).

Yeah, you could be right. I read the “I do the review” as OP conducts it. If the OP is being reviewed personally, then it’s also an issue w/r to IR35 and should be resisted. The problem with renaming it to a supplier review is that the reality matters, not what you call it; such a facade won’t last 5 mins under investigation. OP should continue to politely but firmly resist any HR review of personal service.

[LondonManc]

Make sure its title is changed to "Supplier Review" and all's good.

[scooterscot]

As a disguised employee do you think it's wise to publicly broadcast your tax avoiding schemes?!

[Old Greg]

Use the meeting to advise them of your modest increase in rates.

[northernladuk]

I kind of want to get involved as this will most likely result in my rate being revised upwards by a few percent.
I think people and companies do much worse things than provide feedback. If I'm getting paid for it, and to an extent I get to choose, why the heck not?

If your attitude to it is why the heck not why all the drama in the title?

I call another made up story and you're trolling.

[northernladuk]

Ask them to use the term Supplier Review in communication and on the paperwork, have the review and happy days. Nice bit of evidence to show you are a supplier not an employee as well. Sorted.

If your client doesn't understand or appreciate you are in a B2B situation I'd say your relationship is pretty sour already. They are putting you inside IR35. I wouldn't call that a successful situation.

Why would this increase your rate? Because anything over good gets a pay rise in line with inflation... Like the permies get?? Honestly.

[original PM]

I read it that client wishes to review OP (or the quality of the services the representative of OP's business provides).

Yeah this.

Back in the day we would be a 'service review' with suppliers which amounted to measuring the service they have provided against the agreed criteria in the contract.

So I see no reason why you would not do it - but make it clear that it is the business which is being reviewed.

If they want to change anything then thats fine the contract can be renegotiated to reflect the changes.

If they try and give you personally some 'goals' then run a mile.

[mudskipper]

There are surely better ways to get a rate rise. It's not in your contract to do HR (I assume), and HR isn't something that you should want to get involved with. It doesn't sound like informal feedback, anyway, it sounds like a performance review (), which will need to follow ClientCo HR procedures. Right?

Why the heck not? At the very least, it points to you being part and parcel of ClientCo, which could be a problem if you're treating this contract as outside IR35. But I don't think you need IR35 to establish that it isn't a good idea to get personally involved with giving permie staff gold stars or brown stars. Informal feedback, no problem. IMHO.

I read it that client wishes to review OP (or the quality of the services the representative of OP's business provides).