Will Hector come after Public Sector Contractors

[malvolio]

You are getting it the wrong way around. The Uber ruling is more likely to result in freelancers being treated as permies, thats what the Uber drivers wanted and it's what they got in court.

As far as HMG are concerned we are the ones abusing the IR35 rules that are there to protect permies forced into self employment against their will, by not behaving like good little employees and paying our "fair share" under PAYE. What we need to be doing is pointing them at cases like UKHO and the others that will follow as an example of what will happen to them if they push through the changes.

We've already seen this happen with the aborted change in the CLOne contracts 2 years ago. Hundred of contractors refused to sign it and it quickly became apparent that if it went ahead, it would seriously impact delivery on major projects across government. Delivery and business continuity very quickly became issues for multiple departments at a senior level.

In that case Govt. were able to blame Capita for ballsing it up, this time around it's of their own making.

Totally agree. We all need clear blue water, both for taxation and employment rights, between voluntary and involuntary freelance workers. The Uber ruling actually supports that separation. If it is properly used, of course...

[bobspud]

You are getting it the wrong way around. The Uber ruling is more likely to result in SOME freelancers being treated as permies, thats what the Uber drivers wanted and it's what they got in court.

As far as HMG are concerned we are the ones abusing the IR35 rules that are there to protect permies forced into self employment against their will, by not behaving like good little employees and paying our "fair share" under PAYE. What we need to be doing is pointing them at cases like UKHO and the others that will follow as an example of what will happen to them if they push through the changes.

We've already seen this happen with the aborted change in the CLOne contracts 2 years ago. Hundred of contractors refused to sign it and it quickly became apparent that if it went ahead, it would seriously impact delivery on major projects across government. Delivery and business continuity very quickly became issues for multiple departments at a senior level.

In that case Govt. were able to blame Capita for ballsing it up, this time around it's of their own making.

There are a few issues. First one is that most of the time its the upper contract or the way an end client treats the contractor that HMRC use to attack the contractor for being a disguised employee. It has never hurt anyone apart from the contractor and that was plain wrong.

Lots of unwary professionals were dragged out of their safe permanent role and told a lie about being a contractor. Then stuck on a site and treated like a permanent employee.

Now that problem starts to goes away because for the first time HMRC are starting to attack the department or firm, saying hang on you told me these are business relationships yet you are treating them like workers you are at fault...

There is noting wrong with the department telling you that because you sit at a desk and are fed trouble tickets all day you are actually really a temp not a business. In fact UKHO probably had 60% of their contractors doing that, which is why they went so knee jerk.

My first big job in IT started with me being a temp with Reed working for ICL. It was long before IR35 so there was nothing stopping me being a company but the relationship was one of being a temp and so I was paid that way. Then shortly after I started about 12 weeks I was hired and enjoyed 3 more years with them before I went to do something else.

To solve the impending catastrophe in government, what needs to happen is that a further CL1 paper needs to come out stating that:

If a department hires a contractor for:

• A clear project or programme
• That requires a specific skill set
• And that the contractor has the skills
• And as such needs minimal intervention to delver to the schedule

Then the contract must be based on the deliverable not time on site and the contract will fall outside one of a controlled person.

Then we need to admit we are changing the role of contractors and draw a line in working practices and then set an amnesty for anyone not fitting the new scope and find a way to adjust the money so that lots of contractors don't suddenly go bust. At the end of the day its just a massive change control and we all know how suppliers handle them.

Totally agree. We all need clear blue water, both for taxation and employment rights, between voluntary and involuntary freelance workers. The Uber ruling actually supports that separation. If it is properly used, of course...

This is the hard part. If the IPSE has anything to take away from this is that the actual contractor pool is far smaller than what we actually have today and that lots of people gave up firm jobs believing they were contractors and actually what they were were super-temps at best.

Im not saying someone can't be a BAU person and a contractor but there needs to be a serious wake up for all those people that are being misled into believing help desks are a safe place to be a contractor in their current form.

On the bright side I am seeing plenty of opportunities in departments for freelancers to compete to take on full support of given services or systems.

[eek]

This is the hard part. If the IPSE has anything to take away from this is that the actual contractor pool is far smaller than what we actually have today and that lots of people gave up firm jobs believing they were contractors and actually what they were were super-temps at best.

Im not saying someone can't be a BAU person and a contractor but there needs to be a serious wake up for all those people that are being misled into believing help desks are a safe place to be a contractor in their current form.

On the bright side I am seeing plenty of opportunities in departments for freelancers to compete to take on full support of given services or systems.

But IPSE can't do that as they represent all members including those (probably the vast majority) that are just super-temps who are being well paid due to the beneficial tax arrangements of working via a PSC... Been there done that, I was accused of trying to throw people under the bus to sort out the problem (yes I am because its those people who are causing me problems).

The thing to remember is that there is a reason why I'm an expensive freelance resource. I can do things few other people can which is why I hate the current criteria. Substitution is an utter pain (few people I can trust) Supervision, Direction and Control are outside my remit once HMRC state asking questions to the end client yet I don't think anyone has really supervised me in years beyond can you make the system do x and is it done yet...

[eek]

Now that problem starts to goes away because for the first time HMRC are starting to attack the department or firm, saying hang on you told me these are business relationships yet you are treating them like workers you are at fault...

Note this is not HMRC doing this. Its the employment tribunals and the unions carefully cherry picking cases to take to said tribunals...

[bobspud]

Note this is not HMRC doing this. Its the employment tribunals and the unions carefully cherry picking cases to take to said tribunals...

But on the back of that HMRC are gearing up a team to look at firms that are using masses of off books self employed workers...

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...mployed-status

[bobspud]

Supervision, Direction and Control are outside my remit once HMRC state asking questions to the end client yet I don't think anyone has really supervised me in years beyond can you make the system do x and is it done yet...

This ^

What we are looking for is the right balance of risk for the client on both sides of this coin. At the moment it costs them nothing to say: "lets say they are all caught and move on..."

We want them to be thinking "if 300 contractors are all caught I owe them all Holiday and sickness pay so lets think this through and more over make sure we treat them so there is no blurred lines of distinction..."

The latter will end up with an effective and strong gig economy.

[eek]

But on the back of that HMRC are gearing up a team to look at firms that are using masses of off books self employed workers...

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...mployed-status

I will believe it when I see it....

[MrMarkyMark]

But IPSE can't do that as they represent all members including those (probably the vast majority) that are just super-temps who are being well paid due to the beneficial tax arrangements of working via a PSC... Been there done that, I was accused of trying to throw people under the bus to sort out the problem (yes I am because its those people who are causing me problems).

The thing to remember is that there is a reason why I'm an expensive freelance resource. I can do things few other people can which is why I hate the current criteria. Substitution is an utter pain (few people I can trust) Supervision, Direction and Control are outside my remit once HMRC state asking questions to the end client yet I don't think anyone has really supervised me in years beyond can you make the system do x and is it done yet...

That's my situation +1.

As a specialist it is me making recommendations, declaring risks and costs over different approaches, bringing in / recommending other people, performing the work in the way I see fit etc. etc.

[bobspud]

I will believe it when I see it....

Lets think this one through for a minute.

If a contractor is singled out for being a disguised employee why is it Ok for the agency to have issued them with a false document (their contract) when it is known by the agent that the overarching contract actively cancels the clauses that the contractor and their professional representation use to make their declaration of inside or outside IR35?

Why shouldn't HMRC be attacking the much easier target of the contract between the agent and the end client to show wrong doing? In fact if HMRC adopted the policy of pitying the contractor that had been misled instead of costing them their home in legal fees, they would have far more people willing to come forward and point the finger at the firms that are abusing the tax system for their advantage.

[LondonManc]

Good luck to them too. This was always what needed to happen. Too many companies do well out of pushing permies off the books.

I'm quite close to the sorts of people that will also tulip bricks when they figure this mess out... I really don't want to wind them up too soon as they may actually manage to solve it in time, but from where I'm standing this is one huge mess that is most likely to go our way.

As for trying to get rates down, there is a reason they are as high as they are now and that is scarce supplies. I don't think this matters treatment will help that problem much.

Boomed

Therein lies the crux of the true contractor's problem. HMG are trying to fight this battle and we generally end up as collateral damage because they cannot generally hit them without hitting us.

Any ideas?