Public sector IR35 consultation launched

[mudskipper]

Looks like Gauke is out, doesn't say who's in yet.

Jane Ellison

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24...ison/battersea

[jamesbrown]

This bodes well . Methinks that the mechanism invented to deal with this (and it does need to be dealt with) will not spare legitimate contractors. Some sort of threshold hourly/daily rate has been suggested before, but it seems likely to be bundled with wider reform.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-self-employed

Autumn Statement perhaps. Can't wait

[Hobosapien]

This bodes well . Methinks that the mechanism invented to deal with this (and it does need to be dealt with) will not spare legitimate contractors. Some sort of threshold hourly/daily rate has been suggested before, but it seems likely to be bundled with wider reform.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-self-employed

Autumn Statement perhaps. Can't wait

Sounds like the case re Hermes is more FTC and fake self-employed (another form of outsourcing) rather than agency temps they could legitimately use for short term cover when their permies are off sick or on holiday, or during exceptionally busy periods such as the run up to crimbo.

Though depends how wide they cast the net as to whether us contractors will also be in the firing line.

[malvolio]

This bodes well . Methinks that the mechanism invented to deal with this (and it does need to be dealt with) will not spare legitimate contractors. Some sort of threshold hourly/daily rate has been suggested before, but it seems likely to be bundled with wider reform.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-self-employed

Autumn Statement perhaps. Can't wait

I do love an optimist...

[jamesbrown]

I do love an optimist...

Fair point.

I'm not someone who thinks there's zero value in lobbying - on the contrary - but the broader context is tough, and the new Gov't is a partially known quantity with some fairly grand rhetoric. I guess we'll be watching IPSE, but it's tough to measure success when the counterfactual is unknown...

[jamesbrown]

Sounds like the case re Hermes is more FTC and fake self-employed (another form of outsourcing) rather than agency temps they could legitimately use for short term cover when their permies are off sick or on holiday, or during exceptionally busy periods such as the run up to crimbo.

Though depends how wide they cast the net as to whether us contractors will also be in the firing line.

Absolutely, there's always been a fairly clearcut (IMO) distinction between the exploitation of low-paid workers and contracting more generally (whether inside or outside IR35). There are clearer/cleaner opportunities to address the former than the latter, but whether they'll be taken or used as a smokescreen for wider "reform", I guess we'll see.

[eek]

Fair point.

I'm not someone who thinks there's zero value in lobbying - on the contrary - but the broader context is tough, and the new Gov't is a partially known quantity with some fairly grand rhetoric. I guess we'll be watching IPSE, but it's tough to measure success when the counterfactual is unknown...

I remember spending a lot of time last September having very interesting chats with senior union reps..... It's why I really liked the minimum x times living wage approach as it solves their problems without really impacting us (oh answers large parts of the IR35 questions)..

Hey ho - permie off I go*....

* Actually I'm going the other way and setting up a consultancy but thats only because I nowadays make my money fixing the screw ups the consultancies have already created....

[jamesbrown]

I remember spending a lot of time last September having very interesting chats with senior union reps..... It's why I really liked the minimum x times living wage approach as it solves their problems without really impacting us (oh answers large parts of the IR35 questions)..

Hey ho - permie off I go*....

* Actually I'm going the other way and setting up a consultancy but thats only because I nowadays make my money fixing the screw ups the consultancies have already created....

Yep, I think it's worthy of further consideration as it's a somewhat standalone problem. There are downsides though (many small businesses start with very limited funds), so it would need to be somewhat more sophisticated (e.g. focused on particular sectors/occupations where this is prevalent).

On your latter points, that's the only concrete way to avoid a sudden deflation of the contracting bubble, if and when it finally happens. Best to plan now. That being said, if they do deflate it, I don't see them "making the best" of the EU ref result, so I continue to be moderately optimistic, despite some of my posts above

[eek]

Yep, I think it's worthy of further consideration as it's a somewhat standalone problem. There are downsides though (many small businesses start with very limited funds), so it would need to be somewhat more sophisticated (e.g. focused on particular sectors/occupations where this is prevalent).

On your latter points, that's the only concrete way to avoid a sudden deflation of the contracting bubble, if and when it finally happens. Best to plan now. That being said, if they do deflate it, I don't see them "making the best" of the EU ref result, so I continue to be moderately optimistic, despite some of my posts above

The thing is it's not a funds issue (only someone peddling an FLC would suggest that). The issue here is companies reducing their costs by pretending their staff are self employed and the only fix for that is the simple statement -hourly / daily rates below x times living wage have to be paid paye.

That solves the problem every Union wants solved in a clear cut simple way and avoids the ir35 = no expenses issue that we ended up with last year. It also means that those people will need to be paid either directly or via agency / umbrella which is one of the things both the unions and HMRC want.

Yes it may throw a few contractors out in the early stages of their careers (but to be blunt you shouldn't start contracting until you offer value and people are willing to pay for it). But it also then leaves a very limited number of specialists who earn well above the minimum wage - and that allows proper discussions to be had regarding us now the bigger issue has been fixed by laws that are easy to follow and check...

[jamesbrown]

The thing is it's not a funds issue (only someone peddling an FLC would suggest that). The issue here is companies reducing their costs by pretending their staff are self employed and the only fix for that is the simple statement -hourly / daily rates below x times living wage have to be paid paye.

That solves the problem every Union wants solved in a clear cut simple way and avoids the ir35 = no expenses issue that we ended up with last year. It also means that those people will need to be paid either directly or via agency / umbrella which is one of the things both the unions and HMRC want.

Yes it may throw a few contractors out in the early stages of their careers (but to be blunt you shouldn't start contracting until you offer value and people are willing to pay for it). But it also then leaves a very limited number of specialists who earn well above the minimum wage - and that allows proper discussions to be had regarding us now the bigger issue has been fixed by laws that are easy to follow and check...

It is insofar as a non-contracting business may legitimately decide to pay its (not formally employed) directors less than NMW. Also, any simple rule needs to be difficult to circumvent. Could the employer conceive of a payment mechanism (e.g. per parcel) that circumvents the mechanism to which the law applies (per hour/day)? So, I agree with the principle, but the implementation is never that straightforward.