Reply to: Useful tool

[saptastic]

Also there is this

Company positions on IR35 private sector reform April 2020

[ComplianceLady]

I've had a look at this and shared it with some colleagues last week. I like the concept and it builds on what I tell clients - engaging on an outside basis will make is easier for you to attract top contractors so I'd like to see this time of information disseminated (even with the potential accuracy flaws discussed elsewhere) I wanted to provide some feedback - appreciate it can feel like criticism and please know that's not my intent. It's a good idea but I think it needs work to be really useful, which I'd really like to see happen.

I think the summary page with red/amber/green could be misleading.

I've yet to see a client that are doing 'blanket inside IR35' so I'd remove that wording and stick with PAYE/Brolly only. Whilst I get the point that this could be pedantry, it's incredibly difficult talking to clients and contractors who don't understand the topic massively and when there is confusing language all over the place it makes it harder, where we are able to we should make things clearer (imho)

Equally instead of 'Blanket assessments with some exceptions' - I'd make this 'most roles are only suitable for inside/PAYE/brolly with some exceptions'.

The category 'Individuals assessed fairly' I think includes too many scenarios - The ideal would this would be 'individual assessments completed using X' .

I would actually do 2 sections - client assessing using X and then likely outcome - most roles PAYE, most roles outside or some in and some out

Then a seperate marker for 'policy approach, no PSC's'

I think that approach would give you more information more easily and be more accurate.

I know a client who is using Qdos but having pre-assessed all roles will fall inside IR35 - therefore they are assessing fairly but still inside. I know another client who is using a policy approach as they engaged with Qdos, realised they're all inside so decided not to bother with individual assessments. Both clients will have the same outcome for the same reasons but would look significantly different.

Appreciate the disclaimer on the jobs page but it really worries me. I can see red flags in every advert I clicked - again not something you can control but it is concerning that roles are being advertised incorrectly.

[JohntheBike]

Because everything on this forum, LN, FB, twitter, and all other social sites is all fact-checked before being shared by users?

I'm really at a loss why a small cohort of CUK forum users are so persistently hostile to other users here.

criticism doesn't need to be hostile. But you are correct, there is a small number of posters here who are both critical (accepted) and abusive (not accepted). However flawed, those posters who clearly have good intentions, shouldn't be vilified if their opinions aren't shared by others.

[Paralytic]

We don't edit/curate content, so feels closer to wikipedia than el reg. We've just whiteboarded next round of changes - including some community flagging / voting features - perhaps like reddit.

Do you log any information about who submits the information, in case an authority comes requesting? Do people need to register details in order to add details?

[inniAccounts]

eek, appreciated (genuinely) - that's given us a few things to look into.

We don't edit/curate content, so feels closer to wikipedia than el reg. We've just whiteboarded next round of changes - including some community flagging / voting features - perhaps like reddit.

[eek]

I thought the likes of Facebook / Twitter said that they were platform providers and had no control over the content thus getting away with hosting anything people may take objection to.

I suspect the same model could be used here?

Nope, see my comment above, you are only a platform if it's fully automated.. Even then if an option was manually created by the editorial team, you could pin the blame on the owner of the site.

And I will repeat this once again, it's not a criticism of the site - it's trying to protect you from upsetting someone who will bankrupt you out of spite or just accidentally.

[ladymuck]

I thought the likes of Facebook / Twitter said that they were platform providers and had no control over the content thus getting away with hosting anything people may take objection to.

I suspect the same model could be used here?

[eek]

It's the Wikipedia approach, open source knowledge and if it's wrong someone will correct it

Wikipedia only works as an excuse if there is no person in between.

Going back to an e-mint legal conference on forums back in the early 2000's a forum where posts are manually checked before posting has a very different set of requirements to one where posts are automatically posted. Equally applying any editoral control afterwards on what is written and posted could open you to problems later.

This is one of those areas where the minutia of how the site works could be very important - blanket statements that it's like Wikipedia only work if it works exactly like that - and there are enough comments here that show that isn't the case.

[inniAccounts]

It's the Wikipedia approach, open source knowledge and if it's wrong someone will correct it

Thank you Simon. Yes, you can post to correct. There's clear contact details for correction. I've contacted media teams at organisations with contentious feedback. I feel I'm taking reasonable measures.

Plus, IMHO, the negative impact of sending a under a small business who's trying to do good by other small businesses would quickly outweigh the negative impact of a comment from a site user.

And I feel like this is cause worth sticking one's neck out for.

But's lets agree to disagree on this, and move on?

[SimonMac]

Because everything on this forum, LN, FB, twitter, and all other social sites is all fact-checked before being shared by users?

I'm really at a loss why a small cohort of CUK forum users are so persistently hostile to other users here.

It's the Wikipedia approach, open source knowledge and if it's wrong someone will correct it

[wattaj]

Because everything on this forum, LN, FB, twitter, and all other social sites is all fact-checked before being shared by users?

I'm really at a loss why a small cohort of CUK forum users are so persistently hostile to other users here.

Incorrect advice on here is corrected by other, more knowledgeable users and the moderators keep everyone within the law. Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook users can be pursued for deformation. What makes you special?

We're trying to help you. Though I am reminded of primary school life saving lessons: one can't save a man who does not want to be saved. Let the ****er drown, then drag the body ashore if safe to do so.

[oliverson]

I don't disagree it's got flaws.

Didn't spot that other thread. Oops.

I missed the other thread as well. Actually that's a lie, as having referred to it I saw endless bickering and so it turned me right off. In fact there's a lot of bickering on a lot of threads these days. Makes one wonder why one bothers coming on here anymore.

[inniAccounts]

Because everything on this forum, LN, FB, twitter, and all other social sites is all fact-checked before being shared by users?

I'm really at a loss why a small cohort of CUK forum users are so persistently hostile to other users here.

[eek]

No, I'm not saying that.

We provide the platform. Contractors provide the content.

And were the company to sue you for misrepresentation (i.e. libel) how would you act?

An anonymous person told me won't work in court - and you couldn't name the person without causing subsequent problems.

I really think a short course in Journalism would do a lot of website owners the power of good.

What I do find annoying is that you are attacking us when all I'm doing is pointing out flaws before they become really, really expensive for you. A libel case in the UK would bankrupt you within days and the companies you are libelling wouldn't even blink.

[wattaj]

No, I'm not saying that.

We provide the platform. Contractors provide the content.

So, you are participating in publishing known libels?

That's very odd behaviour... what does your insurer think of this behaviour?