Reply to: IR35 - Did the big firms collude and break competition law?

[SussexSeagull]

They reached the same conclusion to minimise risk in upcoming years.

[Andy Hallett]

In short answer to the OP’s question, not a chance these firms would have colluded to make this happen. Apologies for bumping a thread that should have died.

[unixman]

Calm down dears. "Inside IR35 but rates to accommodate"


DevOps Architect, Openshift, Kubernetes Specialist, to GBP1200 day, North East England - Newcastle Tyne & Wear - February-21-2020 (HnJoO)

1.2k per day.

[AnthonyQuinn]

Each time, I've asked, "How did they all end up using the same approach?"

Because it's the most sensible one. There are some morons who have come up with a detailed evaluation process which they are suggesting to clients. As if business leaders were watching paint dry in spare time which they could now use to evaluate individual contractors.

[eek]

This is nonsense. IR35 as originally mooted in 1999 put the liability on the client or agent. Just as it is already with sole traders. Business lobbying caused the government to make the contractors liable.

And 20 years of businesses and contractors pushing their luck means the Government now have no choice but to get businesses to actually decide how, why and in which way they wish to employ people.

Do they want to employ contractors and treat them as contractors?
or do they really want employees?

Businesses can no longer use contractors to provide employees.

[NotAllThere]

I've had several conversations of late where people anecdotally mentioned that the IR35 impact to companies isn't as great as feared.

People have said, there's been an emotional reaction, but ultimately, very few contractors have chosen to move on.

Each time, I've asked, "Why do you think that is?"

A consistent response has been, "Because all the large companies had the same response, PSC bans, all contractors through umbrella companies. If companies all took a different approach, then there would have been large movements of contractors to those with a more flexible approach and a greater impact would have been seen"

Each time, I've asked, "How did they all end up using the same approach?"

A common response has been, "oh the larger resourcing companies ran working groups with companies to help them form a consistent response". By "larger resourcing companies", read Alexander Mann, Resource Solutions, etc.

So...

I'm no lawyer, but I work in markets where collusion and competition law are a factor. There are laws that stop cartels from working together to disadvantage market participants. These laws are there to encourage market liquidity and fair competition. If the above is true, and it feels like it could be, these laws would have been broken

Has this been discussed before and is there a legal opinion in the group that has a view?

This is nonsense. IR35 as originally mooted in 1999 put the liability on the client or agent. Just as it is already with sole traders. Business lobbying caused the government to make the contractors liable.

[ladymuck]

Nearly. It's PC with the little guy and Ladymucks job to be tasty.

An acquired taste...

[unixman]

I've had several conversations of late where people anecdotally mentioned that the IR35 impact to companies isn't as great as feared...

The financial corporations are frightened of the government, ever since the bank bailouts and the string of IT and security scandals that followed. Their overreaction isn't price fixing, they are just terrified of getting into trouble and are acting out of self-preservation.

[northernladuk]

I love that a serious topic is just a playground for your inside-baseball jokes. I don't come here often, but I do recognise your profile and I'm unsure of ever seeing a sensible contribution from you.

Ok ok. Dry your eyes mate and chin up. I'll stop with the banter....

So have a look at this quick guide to competition law.

https://assets.publishing.service.go...t-A-Glance.pdf

Does any of that come close to the PSC situation? Here it is in words if this helps with the details

How to comply with competition law - GOV.UK

If any of this is interesting to you then you can go here for more information, quizzes and more.

Competition law guidance - GOV.UK

I've only had a quick scan and that appears to tell me quite clearly you are barking up the wrong tree.

[eek]

Advisor says, 'I've talked to all your competitors and if you all work together to stick it to your suppliers / contractors, then you'll be in the clear and probably won't lose anyone.' That's collusion.

Advisor says, 'Here's what the government is doing. It leaves you options A, B, C, D, and E. Here's the disadvantages to A, B, C, and D. E does stick it to your contractors but the others have much higher risks for you. I'm advising all my clients to do E.' Client says, 'Yes, I see all those risks, you are right, we'll do E.' That's not collusion, that's sanity.

If I were back in my perm manager days, I'd be doing E, too. AT LEAST until we see the actual legislation and see if there's ways to mitigate some of the other risks to clients. It's not collusion, it's risk aversion. Who wants to be the one to put his head above the parapet when HMRC is looking for a target? Duh.

+1 you only have to look at the reaction (from regular posters) to what looks to be Aker's approach mentioned in https://www.contractoruk.com/forums/...or-ir35-3.html . Option E is really the only sane option until HMRC have picked their test guinea pig large firms...

[Lance]

IR35 - Did the big firms collude and break competition law?

Not at all. Competition law is there to protect suppliers. Large companies can't form a working group to decide how they deal with suppliers if that compresses the market. Competition law prevents that. Or should.

Competition law is to ensure that suppliers of a common service compete with each others’ to ensure that the consumer of the service has choice.

In your example the only common service is that provided by contractors to their clients.
To break competition law, all the contractors (all of them) would have to collude to be anti-competitive.
The client is the customer.

I get your logic, but you have the supplier/customer relationship upside down.

[GhostofTarbera]

I've had several conversations of late where people anecdotally mentioned that the IR35 impact to companies isn't as great as feared.

People have said, there's been an emotional reaction, but ultimately, very few contractors have chosen to move on.

Each time, I've asked, "Why do you think that is?"

A consistent response has been, "Because all the large companies had the same response, PSC bans, all contractors through umbrella companies. If companies all took a different approach, then there would have been large movements of contractors to those with a more flexible approach and a greater impact would have been seen"

Each time, I've asked, "How did they all end up using the same approach?"

A common response has been, "oh the larger resourcing companies ran working groups with companies to help them form a consistent response". By "larger resourcing companies", read Alexander Mann, Resource Solutions, etc.

So...

I'm no lawyer, but I work in markets where collusion and competition law are a factor. There are laws that stop cartels from working together to disadvantage market participants. These laws are there to encourage market liquidity and fair competition. If the above is true, and it feels like it could be, these laws would have been broken

Has this been discussed before and is there a legal opinion in the group that has a view?

EY advised most of the big players and gave them all the same advice

No conflict of interest there !!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[WordIsBond]

Advisor says, 'I've talked to all your competitors and if you all work together to stick it to your suppliers / contractors, then you'll be in the clear and probably won't lose anyone.' That's collusion.

Advisor says, 'Here's what the government is doing. It leaves you options A, B, C, D, and E. Here's the disadvantages to A, B, C, and D. E does stick it to your contractors but the others have much higher risks for you. I'm advising all my clients to do E.' Client says, 'Yes, I see all those risks, you are right, we'll do E.' That's not collusion, that's sanity.

If I were back in my perm manager days, I'd be doing E, too. AT LEAST until we see the actual legislation and see if there's ways to mitigate some of the other risks to clients. It's not collusion, it's risk aversion. Who wants to be the one to put his head above the parapet when HMRC is looking for a target? Duh.

[eek]

I love that a serious topic is just a playground for your inside-baseball jokes. I don't come here often, but I do recognise your profile and I'm unsure of ever seeing a sensible contribution from you.

I've seen more from NLUK in this thread than I've seen in all 14 of your posts over the years.

[WavyDavy]

Nearly. It's PC with the little guy and Ladymucks job to be tasty.

I love that a serious topic is just a playground for your inside-baseball jokes. I don't come here often, but I do recognise your profile and I'm unsure of ever seeing a sensible contribution from you.