Reply to: Client wants weekly progress reports

[Cheshire Cat]

I provide daily updates on my part of the project to the PM. This is copied and pasted into a company-wide email daily (including a dozen other similar updates) to give the full picture of status.
Absolutely no idea what the IR consequences of this are, nor if there is a format that would be a stronger or weaker indicator of employment.

[Dow Jones]

Going back to Mr Robin's question, it must be a piss-poor PM who asks for weekly reports. Shows a complete lack of grip on the project if you rely on others for updates. An ad-hoc morning/afternoon informal session (over tea/coffee) is what you need once/twice a week with the team leads. Tell any PM that asks you next time, what methodology are following? Prince2 is dead against this, so is Agile/Scrum/etc. If they are lost for words, you know why.

[Spacecadet]

One solution is to provide your own progress reports with your own company template (just make sure it includes more than what they asked for originally)
If contracting direct then progress reports can be attached to the invoice as a "detail" section.

[Chugnut]

It was ever thus.

Where have you been for the last 4 (or more) years. There is nothing new in this aspect of this case.

tim

Probably just trying to get on with their life.

A few years back I went permie for a few months, and the relief of not having to think of all the legal and financial implications of every bloody working decision was very pleasant.

These days it's more like: "Can I use the office coffee machine? Can I use the company toilet? Cripes, it might come up in an enquiry! I know, MyCo will provide my own coffee machine and toilet and I'll occasionally invoke a substitute to make coffee or use the bog for me. Any attempt by the client to invoke any control over me or ask for any sort of status update will be met with "la la la not listening to you" with my fingers in my ears. This OCD-like hair-splitting will not infuriate the client at all and I'll be guaranteed lots of repeat business. Hurrah!"

[TheFaQQer]

So then, it's good business idea to have a contracted business to work on a long project without providing updates on progress? Sounds absurd.

Seems to work for EDS on any government project.

[tim123]

Well what they say above that the contract we have with the EB is worthless, because the contract between EB and client says something else and limits the contractor's options provided within contractor/EB contracts... WTF? how am I supposed to know what's in the contract drawn between the EB and the client?

It was ever thus.

Where have you been for the last 4 (or more) years. There is nothing new in this aspect of this case.

tim

[tim123]

He may lose still, but at least that thing would be invalidated - I am sure IR wanted to sneak this into in order to pressure others on that bogus reason pointing to the court case.

The revenue don't sneak anything in. They have no idea what points the judge will emphasis in his summing up.

I agree with you, the suggestion that "having to report progress" is a pointer to being an employee is utterly ridiculous. But I doubt that taking it out of the summing up, would change the result.

tim

[tim123]

Can you do that? Challenge part of the ruling?

Well, sort of.

In the absense of one of the killer punches (like an absolute RoS or having absolutely zero MOO) whether the judge rules that you are employeelike or not, is based upon 'totting up' all the employeelike things against the none employeelike things.

So, this list of employeelike things included "having to give progress reports".

But as has been said already, this was one of a long list of employeelike things that Ellwood had. Whilst in theory you can go to court and argue "having to give progress reports" is not employeerlike (which IMHO it most certainly isn't - I am sure that subbies give such reports all the time) I doubt that this would change the overall ruling.

tim

[oracleslave]

how am I supposed to know what's in the contract drawn between the EB and the client?

stupid innit?

[SandyDown]

Well what they say above that the contract we have with the EB is worthless, because the contract between EB and client says something else and limits the contractor's options provided within contractor/EB contracts... WTF? how am I supposed to know what's in the contract drawn between the EB and the client?

[AtW]

Can you do that? Challenge part of the ruling?

Well, you should be able to challenge everything point by point, and in appeal they might agree with some points and disagree with others. IMO that bolded point above is totally ridiculous. Maybe all contractors working for the Govt should refuse to give progress updates or tell what they do until the end of their contract, on the basis of this court ruling, how would Govt like that?

[Moscow Mule]

He may lose still, but at least that thing would be invalidated - I am sure IR wanted to sneak this into in order to pressure others on that bogus reason pointing to the court case.

Frankly, while before I thought IR35 was fair, it seems to be that it is applied wrongly and the whole idea is probably wrong.

Can you do that? Challenge part of the ruling?

[AtW]

If he were to appeal on that reason alone he would surely lose.

He may lose still, but at least that thing would be invalidated - I am sure IR wanted to sneak this into in order to pressure others on that bogus reason pointing to the court case.

Frankly, while before I thought IR35 was fair, it seems to be that it is applied wrongly and the whole idea is probably wrong.

[oracleslave]

But it's not the whole thing in the ruling above is it?

To me it seems there are far more comdemming reasons to find that chap within IR35 than he provided progress reports.

If he were to appeal on that reason alone he would surely lose.

Absolutely it's not the whole thing. The fact that the judge mentioned it as a contributing factor just seems stupid to me.

[Moscow Mule]

I agree. Like someone posted on here previously if you had a building contractor working on your house you would expect him to have targets, work in a team and report progress would you not? The whole thing is ridiculous.

But it's not the whole thing in the ruling above is it?

To me it seems there are far more comdemming reasons to find that chap within IR35 than he provided progress reports.

If he were to appeal on that reason alone he would surely lose.