Reply to: Taylor Review

[RokkieContract]

Contradictions.

Rachel Reeves MP Labour (Leeds West) and Lord Taylor are currently on LBC lobbying for bringing the Taylor review into fruition.

They want people to be labelled workers by default and leave it to the employer to prove otherwise.

Its more so than that, there is a underlying movement that wants all corporate slaves, debt bondage, exploitation. The Taylor report in its own words is full of contradictions.

"Tackling exploitation and the potential for exploitation at work". - I see that a lot of you need this review due to being exploited by your masters. At £250-£3k a day there is exploitation going on at an industrial level.

"Increasing clarity in the law and helping people know and exercise their rights;" - Let us ignore written contracts which is the basis of our legal system and look through them and try and work out what really means, lets just do away with UK contacts completely. No contract really means what is written anyway, right ?

"Over the longer term, aligning the incentives driving the nature of our labour market with our modern industrial strategy and broader national objectives" - we need corporate slaves post Brexit, this will help tackle those rouge elements in our labour market.

HMRC never go after the 500k I would estimate undocumented builders, Gardners and other companies that are operating in the UK economy. Anyone who is legitimate is the easiest target, so lets just squeeze those compliant individuals some more. At the top end the hedge fund traders and the like squirrel away huge amounts offshore, never catch the eye of anyone. The large accountancy companies come up with super aggressive tax schemes, the Chinese sell goods to the Uk Vat, tax and duty free... but lets not worry about those, when we can squeeze the compliant individuals a lot more as they are easier targets and will just comply.

[jamesbrown]

The government has acted on all but one of Matthew Taylor’s 53 recommendations. It rejected his proposals to reduce the difference between the National Insurance contributions of employees and the self-employed following Budget 2016 and subsequently have no plans to revisit the issue.

[jamesbrown]

HMG response here.

Some press coverage:

Holiday and sick pay for gig economy workers - BBC News
Government to scrutinise employment status after rise of gig economy with Uber and Deliveroo | City A.M.
https://www.unison.org.uk/news/artic...n-says-unison/
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ployment-curbs

[eek]

Given a new definition and so a new start for case law it will focus on the areas where Hmrc wins points in tax tribunals (direction and control) and remove the bits where Hmrc tend to lose the cases on (substitution and mutual obligation).

Given that there are already employment contracts where mutual obligation hardly exists (zero hour contractors for one) I can’t see there being much pushback there.

I expect it’s going to turn out that asking for an actual definition does more harm than good

[jamesbrown]

Still misses MoO completely from the definition.

Agreed but, since they're proposing a new statutory definition, they can choose whatever case law (or not) they prefer, and new case law will emerge from the new statute. I think a statutory definition makes sense, and is somewhat likely (although more likely to get kicked into the long grass), inline with what IPSE has said, but it's unlikely that RoS and MoO will feature much, if at all (indeed, Taylor was explicitly arguing for the former to be downgraded). There may be elements of MoO that are simpler to include (e.g. evidence that work has been offered and declined or not offered), but there are many more (measurable) indicators of D&C, so it isn't surprising they'd focus on that.

[TheFaQQer]

In the Draft Bill (https://publications.parliament.uk/p...dTextAnchor048) there's a lot that doesn't sound too bad for us, such as the inclusion of these factors in determining status:

(a) whether the contract places an obligation on the individual to perform work personally;
(b)whether the other party to the contract retains the potential to control to a substantial degree how the individual’s work will be carried out in relation factors such as:
(i) disciplining the individual;
(ii) the activities to be carried out;
(iii) the order in which activities are to be carried out;
(iv) the equipment or products to be used in carrying out the activities;
(v) the rate of pay for the activities;
(vi) where the work will be carried out;
(vii) how the activities will be carried out; and
(viii) the hours during which the work is to be carried out.
(c) whether the individual is integrated into the other party to the contract’s business;
(d) whether the other party to the contract provides tools or equipment;
(e) the degree of financial risk undertaken by the individual; and
(f) whether the individual is prohibited from working for others during the contract.

and

(a) whether the individual assumes responsibility for the success or failure of his business;
(b) whether the individual can hire others at their own expense;
(c) whether the individual has the ability to determine the manner in which the services are carried out;
(d) whether the individual actively markets their services;
(e) whether the individual can negotiate and set the price for their services; or
(f) whether the individual is responsible for their own indemnity cover or public liability insurance”.

I think a CEST based on those criteria would be ok.

Still misses MoO completely from the definition.

[Tasslehoff]

In the Draft Bill (https://publications.parliament.uk/p...dTextAnchor048) there's a lot that doesn't sound too bad for us, such as the inclusion of these factors in determining status:

(a) whether the contract places an obligation on the individual to perform work personally;
(b)whether the other party to the contract retains the potential to control to a substantial degree how the individual’s work will be carried out in relation factors such as:
(i) disciplining the individual;
(ii) the activities to be carried out;
(iii) the order in which activities are to be carried out;
(iv) the equipment or products to be used in carrying out the activities;
(v) the rate of pay for the activities;
(vi) where the work will be carried out;
(vii) how the activities will be carried out; and
(viii) the hours during which the work is to be carried out.
(c) whether the individual is integrated into the other party to the contract’s business;
(d) whether the other party to the contract provides tools or equipment;
(e) the degree of financial risk undertaken by the individual; and
(f) whether the individual is prohibited from working for others during the contract.

and

(a) whether the individual assumes responsibility for the success or failure of his business;
(b) whether the individual can hire others at their own expense;
(c) whether the individual has the ability to determine the manner in which the services are carried out;
(d) whether the individual actively markets their services;
(e) whether the individual can negotiate and set the price for their services; or
(f) whether the individual is responsible for their own indemnity cover or public liability insurance”.

I think a CEST based on those criteria would be ok.

These seem like entirley sensible definitons on employment vs. contracting.

Hence the will never see the light of day in any HMRC tool

[SueEllen]

Rachel Reeves MP Labour (Leeds West) and Lord Taylor are currently on LBC lobbying for bringing the Taylor review into fruition.

They want people to be labelled workers by default and leave it to the employer to prove otherwise.

[matzie]

Work and Pensions SC report here. One recommendation is for a statutory definition with more emphasis on D&C.

In the Draft Bill (https://publications.parliament.uk/p...dTextAnchor048) there's a lot that doesn't sound too bad for us, such as the inclusion of these factors in determining status:

(a) whether the contract places an obligation on the individual to perform work personally;
(b)whether the other party to the contract retains the potential to control to a substantial degree how the individual’s work will be carried out in relation factors such as:
(i) disciplining the individual;
(ii) the activities to be carried out;
(iii) the order in which activities are to be carried out;
(iv) the equipment or products to be used in carrying out the activities;
(v) the rate of pay for the activities;
(vi) where the work will be carried out;
(vii) how the activities will be carried out; and
(viii) the hours during which the work is to be carried out.
(c) whether the individual is integrated into the other party to the contract’s business;
(d) whether the other party to the contract provides tools or equipment;
(e) the degree of financial risk undertaken by the individual; and
(f) whether the individual is prohibited from working for others during the contract.

and

(a) whether the individual assumes responsibility for the success or failure of his business;
(b) whether the individual can hire others at their own expense;
(c) whether the individual has the ability to determine the manner in which the services are carried out;
(d) whether the individual actively markets their services;
(e) whether the individual can negotiate and set the price for their services; or
(f) whether the individual is responsible for their own indemnity cover or public liability insurance”.

I think a CEST based on those criteria would be ok.

[jamesbrown]

Work and Pensions SC report here. One recommendation is for a statutory definition with more emphasis on D&C.

[TheFaQQer]

Matthew Taylor will be on BBC Radio 4's Money Box with Paul Lewis from 3pm today.

If you want to ask questions, you can email [email protected] or call 03700 100 444 from 1pm.

[AtW]

How exactly are they going to compel my cleaner to accept digital payments so that his bank statements proved I paid him. Are they going to outlaw cash? Are we supposed to enter into a dystopian cyperpunk future where I have to report my cleaner to the ministry of money because he wanted me to pay him using paper?

They'll have hotline for cleaners to shop those who pay them cash and get a big cash reward for that.

[eek]

That and the pesky manifesto commitment. In the current context, it would go through without major problems (much puffing from The Sun etc., but no fatal damage). However, Damian Green has now confirmed that the NIC changes won't be reintroduced, which leaves another 2bn black hole. I wonder how that might be filled... Certainly, enough contractors being designated as workers/dependent contractors would help if ErNI is going to be imposed on hirers.

What's surprising about this report is the lack of surprises. Almost everything was well-telegraphed. I also don't expect much to make it through to legislation; at least, very little unless Labour is onside.

On umbrellas, don't they typically employ the Swedish derogation to comply with the AWR? The FT was trailing a recommendation on that being abolished; did you catch the text on that?

Page 59 and It's aimed more at agency's rather than umbrellas and focusses on equal pay after 12 weeks....

The Government should repeal the legislation that allows agency workers to opt out of equal pay entitlements. In addition, the Government should consider extending the remit of the EAS Inspectorate to include compliance with the AWR.
It has been suggested that such a move might limit the options for agency workers who wish to benefit from the protections associated with being an employee of the recruitment agency but we do not agree: Employment businesses will still be able to offer permanent employment contracts to their agency workers in the same way that they could prior to 2010. The individuals will also still be able to benefit from equal pay after 12 weeks. Recruitment agencies should already have mechanisms in place to ensure equal pay after the qualifying period as it would be unlawful to structure arrangements to avoid equal pay. As such, any administrative costs should be minimal.

[AtW]

We're Brexiting and the government are reducing business rates in an attempt to keep British workers employed in on-shore jobs.

Where did you see reduction in business rates? Our office's rates are doubling, staggered over next 5 years.

I think we can safely assume that any features of Taylor's report which call for an increase in employer's NI takings and a reform of worker's rights will be given short shrift by the government.

More likely the opposite, it's the whole point of exercise - get Employer NICs - 13.8%, much bigger catch than few %-tage on Employee NICs which Govt indeed can resist.

[jamesbrown]

Most gig economy work is service based that needs to be performed locally. Employers NI can be attached to that dependent worker and no-one will care... As I stated at the time of the budget Hammond's mistake was to announce it before this report came out rather than leaving things to November after this report...

That and the pesky manifesto commitment. In the current context, it would go through without major problems (much puffing from The Sun etc., but no fatal damage). However, Damian Green has now confirmed that the NIC changes won't be reintroduced, which leaves another 2bn black hole. I wonder how that might be filled... Certainly, enough contractors being designated as workers/dependent contractors would help if ErNI is going to be imposed on hirers.

What's surprising about this report is the lack of surprises. Almost everything was well-telegraphed. I also don't expect much to make it through to legislation; at least, very little unless Labour is onside.

On umbrellas, don't they typically employ the Swedish derogation to comply with the AWR? The FT was trailing a recommendation on that being abolished; did you catch the text on that?