Freelance Limited Company (FLC) offering from IPSE

[TheFaQQer]

Or perhaps create a voice that actually represents contractors and their viewpoint.....

You could do that, certainly, and I wish you the best of luck in doing so.

However, the question raised concerned how could the members push back on any proposal, which I can't see an alternative voice being able to do, and certainly isn't going to happen before September 30th.

If members want to push back on the proposal, then their best bet is to make sure that their dissatisfaction is registered somewhere that it will be heard.

[jamesbrown]

As far as I am aware, you aren't going to get an official representative from IPSE on CUK in the near future.

The deadlines for the consultation is September 30th, and IPSE will be making a response to the consultation and discussion papers before the consultation closes.

The best way to push back on something that IPSE are doing is, however, to make your voice heard in an environment where someone will listen. I'm not saying "don't post on CUK", and I appreciate that it's inconvenient to post in more than one place, but the only place that you are guaranteed that your posts will be read by the board is to make them on the IPSE forums. Every post there is read by the board, so if you want to raise something then it has to be done there. If there is a valid alternative to suggest, then get over there and say it, please - the board will listen to the members.

I know that's not the message that some people want to hear, and I'd love to see some kind of IPSE presence on CUK (and anywhere else that there is a vibrant freelance community) - but for the time being I can't see that coming (and almost certainly not before the end of the consultation period). At what is a crucial time for contractors, those members with a desire to have a voice on these issues should make their points over there.

I've made my thoughts known through the IPSE consultation process. If they ignore that, they'll ignore anything I have to say on the IPSE forum. The problems with the FLC concept are well-rehearsed, including on the IPSE forum. Voicing issues is an apt description of what's happening there. However, there's really no form of discussion or acceptance of the constructive criticism being offered. There's a bunker mentality to behold. Unless the consultation process reveals an overwhelmingly negative response from the membership, it's quite clear that this idea will proceed (and, let's face it, many of the members could be sold on the basic premise - i.e. a regulation/tax trade-off - even if it isn't remotely deliverable).

[jamesbrown]

If members want to push back on the proposal, then their best bet is to make sure that their dissatisfaction is registered somewhere that it will be heard.

Indeed. I'll be making my voice heard through the IR35 discussion and T&S consultation rather than relying on IPSE to convey my views. Clearly, a coordinated response is (at some level) better than a few individuals talking at cross-purposes, but I think that's what we're trying to arrive at here.

[TheFaQQer]

I've made my thoughts known through the IPSE consultation process. If they ignore that, they'll ignore anything I have to say on the IPSE forum.

I disagree - there is significantly more scope on the forums to make the point about it being a really bad idea than the survey provides.

The problems with the FLC concept are well-rehearsed, including on the IPSE forum. Voicing issues is an apt description of what's happening there. However, there's really no form of discussion or acceptance of the constructive criticism being offered. There's a bunker mentality to behold.

The thing is - you have a key to the bunker, and can easily walk inside and shout at those inside to try and make yourself heard. Doing that outside the bunker isn't going to make much difference - even if people have already opened the door slightly, or made a big enough crack in the facade to allow some noise to be heard.

And someone new joining the debate may get a different reaction than those who have been making the argument for a long time against the concept - the more people that speak out within that bunker, the more likely the voices are to be heard.

[eek]

I disagree - there is significantly more scope on the forums to make the point about it being a really bad idea than the survey provides.

Can I just disagree with your disagreement and leave it at that....

I'm sure I've already said it but my T&S and IR35 responses will be online long before I send them off. Simply because I want them sanity checked and agreed by people...

[malvolio]

Indeed. I'll be making my voice heard through the IR35 discussion and T&S consultation rather than relying on IPSE to convey my views. Clearly, a coordinated response is (at some level) better than a few individuals talking at cross-purposes, but I think that's what we're trying to arrive at here.

Just to reiterate, IPSE's board will be taking all the input from their survey and collating the results, then presenting the outcome to the consultation, accurately and fully reflecting the views of their membership. Nobody is being ignored, not even eek. Or me.

As for the debate itself we can summarise that as one group who don't really understand what IPSE are doing with the FLC proposal not listening to a smaller group who do and both sides making subjective (and occasionally unsupportable) assessments of what they think the outcome will be. Which group is actually right is something of an unknown at this stage, as is the eventual outcome, but it is absolutely certain that nothing has been agreed or decided yet.

[jamesbrown]

I disagree - there is significantly more scope on the forums to make the point about it being a really bad idea than the survey provides.

The thing is - you have a key to the bunker, and can easily walk inside and shout at those inside to try and make yourself heard. Doing that outside the bunker isn't going to make much difference - even if people have already opened the door slightly, or made a big enough crack in the facade to allow some noise to be heard.

And someone new joining the debate may get a different reaction than those who have been making the argument for a long time against the concept - the more people that speak out within that bunker, the more likely the voices are to be heard.

Tone is everything, and the tone is not one of engagement or acceptance of the possibility that the concept itself might be flawed, putting aside any implementation details (i.e. that the debate is one of substance, as opposed to details). This was quite clear from the flawed structure of the consultation itself (it will be impossible to gauge demand from the broader membership or, indeed, opposition, as relatively few members will have time to write an essay at the end) and it continues to be clear from the responses on the forum that the discussion isn't one of substance, but one of "correcting myths among the membership". A position has been adopted and is in the process of being sold. It will take an overwhelmingly negative response from the members to avoid submission, and that is unlikely to occur across a very broad and very busy membership with variable understanding of the issues being addressed.

[jamesbrown]

As for the debate itself we can summarise that as one group who don't really understand what IPSE are doing with the FLC proposal not listening to a smaller group who do and both sides making subjective (and occasionally unsupportable) assessments of what they think the outcome will be. Which group is actually right is something of an unknown at this stage, as is the eventual outcome, but it is absolutely certain that nothing has been agreed or decided yet.

If there's any misunderstanding about what is being proposed, that represents a failure by IPSE to adequately document their intentions. I've read through the proposal and the supporting documentation carefully. My favorite line is, and I paraphrase, "the FLC is worthy of exploration, if you believe a preferential regime is deliverable". Um, yeah. The analysis is impeccable, of course, but the analysis is really quite straightforward.

[WordIsBond]

If there's any misunderstanding about what is being proposed, that represents a failure by IPSE to adequately document their intentions.

Yeah, it's a little insulting to say if someone doesn't buy the proposal that they just don't understand it, and they aren't listening.

But then, we've also been told that those who aren't persuaded are just burying their heads in the sand.

That may play really well to those who are already persuaded, but it isn't likely to persuade anyone else. "Oh, you aren't persuaded, you're stupid/not listening/short-sighted." To say that on a thread where several other proposals have been discussed, whether they are workable or not, is condescending at best, and isn't winning friends.

[yakitoo]

That may play really well to those who are already persuaded, but it isn't likely to persuade anyone else. "Oh, you aren't persuaded, you're stupid/not listening/short-sighted." To say that on a thread where several other proposals have been discussed, whether they are workable or not, is condescending at best, and isn't winning friends.

Thats usually a sign that you can't really defend what you are saying.