Should we be worried about this meddling?

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Bagpuss replied

10 September 2007, 15:38
Surely it just depends how HR departments (over) react to any legislation for example the Microsoft case (sued for employment rights by temp worker) now means most large US Co' will not employ contractors for more than 1 year.
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn replied

10 September 2007, 14:17
Originally posted by cojak View Post

If you run a limited company and have a proper b-2-b contract, this should not apply to you.

You would hope wouldn't you? That would be the sensible thing wouldn't it? Common sense and all that.

But with the EU and New Labour, backed by Unions, looking into tigher legislation to come, can you be so sure?

No, of course, you are right. We are in safe hands here.
Leave a comment:
cojak replied

10 September 2007, 14:09
If you run a limited company and have a proper b-2-b contract, this should not apply to you.
Leave a comment:
swamp replied

10 September 2007, 13:58
So long as you are opted-out of the agency regulations then this shouldn't affect you, right?
Leave a comment:
NotAllThere replied

10 September 2007, 13:48
Originally posted by wendigo100 View Post

Unfortunately, the CBI said the minimum wage would cost 250,000 jobs as well, and did it?

Yes. There would be precisely 250,000 more jobs if the minimum wage hadn't been implemented.
Leave a comment:
wendigo100 replied

10 September 2007, 13:37
Unfortunately, the CBI said the minimum wage would cost 250,000 jobs as well, and did it?
Leave a comment:
DimPrawn started a topic Should we be worried about this meddling?

10 September 2007, 13:35
Should we be worried about this meddling?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6986953.stm

The CBI has warned that new rights for agency staff, which are being discussed by EU employment ministers this week, would cost up to 250,000 jobs.

The employers' group says it is "very concerned" about the effects of giving agency staff the same rights as full time employees.

I get very worried when our government, Unions, the EU and any other useless bunch of meddling fools start talking about "agency staff", "agency contracts" and "temps" and "employment" and such like.
Tags: None