Reply to: Sky's current thrust

[Lance]

Not sure you can rubbish the MoO response. If this is how they see the contract and how they act then MoO exists.

rubbish.

Mutuality means both parties have to be party to the obligation. If one party isn't then it's not mutual.

[simes]

About which, earlier in the thread, I did with apology.

And again in the offending post, I caveated with the 'mash up' line...

The fact you seem to leap first and read third is in itself plum-making. If it's too difficult, start smaller and work up.

[LondonManc]

Yeah, all you've done there is to prove you've not read and understood.

My story was in relation to Samsung. You might need to understand That before you strive to understand points. Will leave with you for now...

Well done on making a complete plum of yourself. You lumped Samsung in with Sky in the first place. If they're different, don't lump them together. I've not worked at Samsung, but your implication was that they are virtually the same in their treatment of contractors.

[simes]

My point is, what's yours?

Sky do enough to differentiate contractors usually (or used to at Osterley; that may have changed). I'd have politely declined it, pointing out that I'm a contractor not an employee; thanks for the recognition. If you behave like an employee and accept it, it's like accepting any other employee benefit.

Yeah, all you've done there is to prove you've not read and understood.

My story was in relation to Samsung. You might need to understand That before you strive to understand points. Will leave with you for now...

[LondonManc]

Of the 50+ posts in this thread, about 10% have questions.

(Rhetorical) Question: ('cos I really couldn't care any less) What's your point?

My point is, what's yours?

Sky do enough to differentiate contractors usually (or used to at Osterley; that may have changed). I'd have politely declined it, pointing out that I'm a contractor not an employee; thanks for the recognition. If you behave like an employee and accept it, it's like accepting any other employee benefit.

[simes]

Is there a question or do you want a Cool Story Bro badge?

Of the 50+ posts in this thread, about 10% have questions.

(Rhetorical) Question: ('cos I really couldn't care any less) What's your point?

[eek]

Is there a question or do you want a Cool Story Bro badge?

It's a anecdote on why contractors are screwed and why companies going for blanket bans are doing the sanest option.

[LondonManc]

Continuing the mashed thread of both Sky's and Samsung's faltering thrusts in the world of first understanding IR35 and secondly to implement the correct structure, a second friend within Samsung had this to impart about the company's wider knowledge.

Said friend is an Operations Manager. Like him, his entire team of five or six are contractors. In a 60 person strong meeting in a boardroom to reflect on past successes and future trials, at the end of the meeting, 'friend' was asked to come up to the front to accept...

<drum roll>

...an Employee of the Month award.

While taking the applause and reviewing the tacky bit of plastic - which he has to return at the end of the month for next month's recipient - he noted that no one seemed to object that he Wasn't an employee and that the person who identified 'friend' also had no idea of the implications. Even at this time of the supposedly heightened awareness.

Laughing about this over a drink last night, we realised that we (both 'us' and the wider contracting community) are utterly screwed.

Is there a question or do you want a Cool Story Bro badge?

[simes]

Continuing the mashed thread of both Sky's and Samsung's faltering thrusts in the world of first understanding IR35 and secondly to implement the correct structure, a second friend within Samsung had this to impart about the company's wider knowledge.

Said friend is an Operations Manager. Like him, his entire team of five or six are contractors. In a 60 person strong meeting in a boardroom to reflect on past successes and future trials, at the end of the meeting, 'friend' was asked to come up to the front to accept...

<drum roll>

...an Employee of the Month award.

While taking the applause and reviewing the tacky bit of plastic - which he has to return at the end of the month for next month's recipient - he noted that no one seemed to object that he Wasn't an employee and that the person who identified 'friend' also had no idea of the implications. Even at this time of the supposedly heightened awareness.

Laughing about this over a drink last night, we realised that we (both 'us' and the wider contracting community) are utterly screwed.

[simes]

Thanks for update. Regardless if there was client IR35 insurance in place or not, if HMRC had launched an investigation into Samsung UK he would have been fired by HQ. So I don't blame him for that.

In a sense that's probably the theme for a lot of multi-nationals with UK offices. Someone in that UK office, has to be responsible for making the call.

• Zero risk approach = blanket inside, reduced talent pool to recruit from ( depending on rates ). However no one will lose their job for making this call.
  
• Allow outside IR35 with insurance = very little risk, but working practices not as flexible and potentially a big headache if HMRC come knocking and it ends up with a prolonged court case / appeals.

You're welcome.

Well I guess right now, anything is possible. There have been no cases upon which to build knowledge or experience. I might figure being fired if I did not have insurance in place. But not if all angles were covered. Anyway, brave new world, yet to be fleshed out.

As for the rest of the supposition, am really only the newsreader here. Will continue to post developments but I fear this has stopped in its tracks.

[krytonsheep]

Anyway, it was all null and void once the UK president stepped in and said he wanted 0% risk and told everyone to go through an umbrella company.
.

Thanks for update. Regardless if there was client IR35 insurance in place or not, if HMRC had launched an investigation into Samsung UK he would have been fired by HQ. So I don't blame him for that.


In a sense that's probably the theme for a lot of multi-nationals with UK offices. Someone in that UK office, has to be responsible for making the call.

• Zero risk approach = blanket inside, reduced talent pool to recruit from ( depending on rates ). However no one will lose their job for making this call.
  
  
• Allow outside IR35 with insurance = very little risk, but working practices not as flexible and potentially a big headache if HMRC come knocking and it ends up with a prolonged court case / appeals.

[simes]

What part of "more than tax at stake" are you not following? Are they insuring for compliance failures? No. Are they insuring for backdated pension contributions and employment benefits? No.

No large corporate is going to rely on some half-baked IR35 insurance that covers a fraction of a liability that they don't even understand. Kill the risk. What they're doing makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't to you, but I don't see why that matters...

Ok, glad you've got it nailed.

[jamesbrown]

Still not sure you've got me, or maybe I am way off course.

But, in the immediate present and soon to be past, Qdos have indemnified contractors against HMRC investigations, court cases and IR35 related losses based on their reviewing of contracts and conditions.

Presumably, Qdos are offering the same to clients.

Qdos say to the client;

1. Let us review / write the contracts.
2. Ensure that you (the client) maintain working conditions per contract.
3. Accept and pay the annual insurance premium. (As have contractors paid to Qdos and IPSE)
4. And, if you (the client) get investigated, we will assign a lawyer and see you right.

Not sure how else to explain this as it is a carbon copy of that which has been presented to and used by contractors for the past 20 years...

As for loss of reputation, who gives a flying FUBAR about that? Have contractors felt loss of reputation as being an issue when facing up to the HMRC? On the contrary, I am bloody sure they have been as happy as a knock kneed whelk on a long weekend, and only too happy to have shouted from the roof tops as to their successes against the jolly green giant.

Got it?

What part of "more than tax at stake" are you not following? Are they insuring for compliance failures? No. Are they insuring for backdated pension contributions and employment benefits? No.

No large corporate is going to rely on some half-baked IR35 insurance that covers a fraction of a liability that they don't even understand. Kill the risk. What they're doing makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't to you, but I don't see why that matters...

[simes]

OK, useful clarification, but my point still stands that the scope of the FUBAR that can befall a client is way beyond the immediate issue of taxes and, presumably, Qdos were only advising on IR35 compliance.

How are Qdos going to indemnify a client against loss of reputation, regulatory failures, retrospective claims of employment benefits, etc.? There's too much risk involved in classifying workers for tax purposes. Better to avoid the problem altogether and create actual employees, which is what most large clients (esp. in heavily regulated sectors) seem to be doing.

Still not sure you've got me, or maybe I am way off course.

But, in the immediate present and soon to be past, Qdos have indemnified contractors against HMRC investigations, court cases and IR35 related losses based on their reviewing of contracts and conditions.

Presumably, Qdos are offering the same to clients.

Qdos say to the client;

1. Let us review / write the contracts.
2. Ensure that you (the client) maintain working conditions per contract.
3. Accept and pay the annual insurance premium. (As have contractors paid to Qdos and IPSE)
4. And, if you (the client) get investigated, we will assign a lawyer and see you right.

Not sure how else to explain this as it is a carbon copy of that which has been presented to and used by contractors for the past 20 years...

As for loss of reputation, who gives a flying FUBAR about that? Have contractors felt loss of reputation as being an issue when facing up to the HMRC? On the contrary, I am bloody sure they have been as happy as a knock kneed whelk on a long weekend, and only too happy to have shouted from the roof tops as to their successes against the jolly green giant.

Got it?

[jamesbrown]

Correct me if I am wrong. You might be misunderstanding me.

Qdos were brought in to indemnify the client in this case. NOT the contractor. So Qdos's experiences in IR35 law while defending contractors will surely be put to use for the brave new world in defending clients.

To clarify and state, Qdos are now introducing themselves to Clients to shore up contract writing and working conditions to protect Clients, post April 2020.

Hope that helps any misunderstanding or lack of clarity on my part.

...And in a separate post, a follow up from said Samsung friend.

OK, useful clarification, but my point still stands that the scope of the FUBAR that can befall a client is way beyond the immediate issue of taxes and, presumably, Qdos were only advising on IR35 compliance.

How are Qdos going to indemnify a client against loss of reputation, regulatory failures, retrospective claims of employment benefits, etc.? There's too much risk involved in classifying workers for tax purposes. Better to avoid the problem altogether and create actual employees, which is what most large clients (esp. in heavily regulated sectors) seem to be doing.