Reply to: COVID-19: Lloyds to put contractors on a three-day week, as IR35 grumbles grow

[simes]

You sure?

That I understand, or that I am thanking someone?

[northernladuk]

Ok, now understood. Thank you.

You sure?

[simes]

It's misunderstood as that's not the whole quote which is:

"You can’t have your cake and eat it too" i.e. you can't eat your cake and still have it

HTH

Ahh. The light dawns. Thank you.

It seems that you've not quite got the umbrella model sussed out. Working through your umbrella company means that, in effect, the umbrella is acting like a consultancy. You are, in effect, an employee of a consultancy rather than LBG. As such, Lloyds don't owe you a bean, whatever the timing of your transition to umbrella. The umbrella issues your P60 and P45 as appropriate, not LBG.

The umbrella claiming for 80% for you is a separate matter, one which has been discussed as a separate issue.

To be perfectly frank, I haven't at all got my Umbrella model sussed out. The umbrella side of things is brand new to me in terms of practical experience. And, if possible, I'd like to keep it that way.

Ok, now understood. Thank you.

[LondonManc]

Chaps, I was happy to leave the thread to die a quick death.

However, I did say, Sounded Almost Like... Not, It is exactly the same. But your (LondonManc and (oh God) NLUK's) comments are spot on.

Ok, could I please turn this around then and ask you to qualify what the author of the front page piece was referring to when he said "IR35 Grumblings"?

If not what I leapt all over, then what? Honest question, honestly asked.

It seems that you've not quite got the umbrella model sussed out. Working through your umbrella company means that, in effect, the umbrella is acting like a consultancy. You are, in effect, an employee of a consultancy rather than LBG. As such, Lloyds don't owe you a bean, whatever the timing of your transition to umbrella. The umbrella issues your P60 and P45 as appropriate, not LBG.

The umbrella claiming for 80% for you is a separate matter, one which has been discussed as a separate issue.

[gables]

Hence why I said, 'treated AS employees'.

Hasn't Lloyds actions undone the MoO element, at the very least? They have deemed all their contractors Inside due to, let's believe, the three pillars. Of which one is MoO.

This would seem to me to be a case of 'having your cake and eat it.' An expression I have never understood because well, what the hell else are you going to do with a cake. But in the spirit of its apparent definition...

Anyway, the article to which my moaning refers would seem to suggest like thinking. Of sorts.

It's misunderstood as that's not the whole quote which is:

"You can’t have your cake and eat it too" i.e. you can't eat your cake and still have it

HTH

[simes]

Chaps, I was happy to leave the thread to die a quick death.

However, I did say, Sounded Almost Like... Not, It is exactly the same. But your (LondonManc and (oh God) NLUK's) comments are spot on.

Ok, could I please turn this around then and ask you to qualify what the author of the front page piece was referring to when he said "IR35 Grumblings"?

If not what I leapt all over, then what? Honest question, honestly asked.

[LondonManc]

You know but putting it here for simes and anyone else that reads it. Just because there is an option to do no work on our contracts it does not make it a zero hours contract. Far from it. We have a SoW and are engaged to do a set piece of work. As part of that there is the ability to flex the time done.

Zero hours are the other way around. It's an overarching contract and then work is offered.

Using the term zero hours contracts when discussing our work isn't helpful.

Agreed - I was simply stating that you are potentially going to have a zero hour week through furlough, other budget issue, proper use of contractors in smaller firms, etc.

[northernladuk]

Contracts will vary, but no MoO is a minor part of IR35 status.
"We don't have to give you work but when we do, we'll tell you when, where and how do to it and watch you like a hawk while you (and only you) do it."
Jut put you straight inside IR35, right there pretty much.

Inside or outside can both be zero hours - furlough = zero hours.

You know but putting it here for simes and anyone else that reads it. Just because there is an option to do no work on our contracts it does not make it a zero hours contract. Far from it. We have a SoW and are engaged to do a set piece of work. As part of that there is the ability to flex the time done.

Zero hours are the other way around. It's an overarching contract and then work is offered.

Using the term zero hours contracts when discussing our work isn't helpful.

[LondonManc]

Of course. Yes, you're right.

Completely forgot that! Duh.

Sounds almost equivalent to a zero hours contract then...

Contracts will vary, but no MoO is a minor part of IR35 status.
"We don't have to give you work but when we do, we'll tell you when, where and how do to it and watch you like a hawk while you (and only you) do it."
Jut put you straight inside IR35, right there pretty much.

Inside or outside can both be zero hours - furlough = zero hours.

[simes]

Does seem so, to be sure.

Best chucked in the bin.

3/10
Could do better.

[northernladuk]

Well this thread ended up being a waste of internet space.

Can we move to General please??

[Old Greg]

Hence why I said, 'treated AS employees'.

Hasn't Lloyds actions undone the MoO element, at the very least? They have deemed all their contractors Inside due to, let's believe, the three pillars. Of which one is MoO.

This would seem to me to be a case of 'having your cake and eat it.' An expression I have never understood because well, what the hell else are you going to do with a cake. But in the spirit of its apparent definition...

Anyway, the article to which my moaning refers would seem to suggest like thinking. Of sorts.

They're not treated as employees. They don't receive pension, sick pay etc.

[portseven]

if you read it though they also paid them 2 weeks day rate to cover time off

So give on one hand, take on another

[simes]

Of course. Yes, you're right.

Completely forgot that! Duh.

Sounds almost equivalent to a zero hours contract then...

[GhostofTarbera]

Hence why I said, 'treated AS employees'.

Hasn't Lloyds actions undone the MoO element, at the very least? They have deemed all their contractors Inside due to, let's believe, the three pillars. Of which one is MoO.

This would seem to me to be a case of 'having your cake and eat it.' An expression I have never understood because well, what the hell else are you going to do with a cake. But in the spirit of its apparent definition...

Anyway, the article to which my moaning refers would seem to suggest like thinking. Of sorts.

They have not deemed anyone inside, just banned PSC’s


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum