So, I'm after some thoughts and inputs on this, we've been bouncing idea's about here at work, and it would be interesting to hear what you guys think will happen.
This is based on the assumption that all of the changes that are currently being debated happen - no expenses if through an agency or umbrella, much stronger IR35 application, and dividend changes making contracting less financially rewarding.
We have 2 main idea's -
1. Rates go up significantly for contractors that take contracts involving overnight stays and weeks away from home; or contractors only consider local gigs where expenses are not that high (which causes all kinds of problems for clients in the arse end of nowhere)
Main concern here is that a lot of clients perceive contractors to be expensive anyway, and if I explained to them that my guys want a rate rise as they cannot claim expenses, they simply would not give a damn, and not change what they pay.
2. The entire model changes, and we charge an introductory fee (no idea how we would work this out, say 10% of the entire value of the contract?), and then we leave the contractual affairs between client and contractor to themselves
Only concerns with the 2nd model, is that for longer, higher value contracts, the fee would be very, very high, and if a contractor leaves part way through, or does not complete, then this would have to be refunded - but with no weekly time sheets to the agency, we would have no way of proving this. Awkward and potentially open to abuse. As well as this, another fee would have to be charged at renewal to keep the current level of profits in our business. Again, this is potentially awkward.
I guess the cynical ones will hope that these changes will kill agency contract recruitment, so I expect to hear that also.
So - what do people think? Either of the above model make sense, or is there another way that you can see this working? Or, have the Tories finally decided to kill contracting off for all but the very dedicated?
This is based on the assumption that all of the changes that are currently being debated happen - no expenses if through an agency or umbrella, much stronger IR35 application, and dividend changes making contracting less financially rewarding.
We have 2 main idea's -
1. Rates go up significantly for contractors that take contracts involving overnight stays and weeks away from home; or contractors only consider local gigs where expenses are not that high (which causes all kinds of problems for clients in the arse end of nowhere)
Main concern here is that a lot of clients perceive contractors to be expensive anyway, and if I explained to them that my guys want a rate rise as they cannot claim expenses, they simply would not give a damn, and not change what they pay.
2. The entire model changes, and we charge an introductory fee (no idea how we would work this out, say 10% of the entire value of the contract?), and then we leave the contractual affairs between client and contractor to themselves
Only concerns with the 2nd model, is that for longer, higher value contracts, the fee would be very, very high, and if a contractor leaves part way through, or does not complete, then this would have to be refunded - but with no weekly time sheets to the agency, we would have no way of proving this. Awkward and potentially open to abuse. As well as this, another fee would have to be charged at renewal to keep the current level of profits in our business. Again, this is potentially awkward.
I guess the cynical ones will hope that these changes will kill agency contract recruitment, so I expect to hear that also.
So - what do people think? Either of the above model make sense, or is there another way that you can see this working? Or, have the Tories finally decided to kill contracting off for all but the very dedicated?
Comment