Taylor Review

[jamesbrown]

I would wait and see. I suspect there will be 4 types of worker:-

Employed
Zero hours
Dependent
Self employed...

What I'm really looking forward to is any definition of supervision and control as both that and his dislike of cash in hand are going to be interesting...

It was tough to decipher this from the leaked text. I couldn't make out if the zero hours comment was a drafting error, intended to read "dependent worker", or a different category. The context suggested the latter, but it's tough to see the distinction elsewhere in the leaked text (and why a zero hours contract would necessarily fall closer to employment). My guess is that there are only three categories, but it isn't clear yet...

[Hobosapien]

...

Had various people such as an Uber driver but interestingly a spokesperson from Plimco's plumbers who hinted that if they have to cover holiday and sick pay it would come out of the hourly rate.

I'm going to assume the sick pay comment is statuary sick pay and rights and everyone in a dependent contractor relationship will have to pay full wack NI with the 'Employer' paying the employer bit.

It seems obvious that is the way they are going. Get as many 'off book' people including those currently getting cash in hand onto PAYE so they get the NI and sell it on benefiting the worker with more rights.

I can see the employers in those situations trying to use the model that the umbrellas do, where they hold back part of the generated income for paying out as sick/holiday pay if necessary and if not used up within a certain time frame they pay it out to the individual so nothing lost overall but helps them conform to inflexible rules. They may also 'illegally' try to cover their NI obligations this way.

Maybe this review will result in more methods of operating so there are ways of conforming that fit the actual working practices so less need to fudge things to conform. Then there is less likeliness of others getting caught up in rule changes that don't or shouldn't really apply to them.

[jamesbrown]

Full report here.

[jamesbrown]

Important paragraphs (p. 36).

To do this, government should look at what the test
is for worker status. Currently, an individual can have
almost every aspect of their work controlled by a
business, from rates of pay to disciplinary action and
still not be considered a worker if a genuine right to
substitution exists. We do not think this is fair, or reflects
many of the opportunities presented in the modern
world of work. The key employment protections which
are available to ‘workers’ are there to support anyone
who is not genuinely self-employed and it should not
be that easy for employers to avoid any responsibilities
in this way. We therefore think that it is important
for Government to ensure that the absence of a
requirement to perform work personally is no longer an
automatic barrier to accessing basic employment rights.

Ultimately, if it looks and feels like employment, it
should have the status and protection of employment.

In addition, we believe the principle of ‘control’ should
be of greater importance when determining dependent
contractor status, with the legislation outlining what
it means in a modern labour market and not simply
in terms of the supervision of day-to-day activities.
We don’t envisage a significant departure from the
approach currently taken by the courts where control
is often a key factor when deciding if someone is a
‘worker’ or ‘self-employed’. We believe that, if done
correctly, placing greater emphasis on control and
less emphasis on personal service will result in more
people being protected by employment law. While
this number is likely to be very small in the overall
context of employment levels nationally, we believe it
is fairer. It will also make it harder for some employers
to hide behind substitution clauses which can only be
challenged effectively through the courts.

[MarkT]

High level - we are replacing the word "worker" with the words "dependency contractor" and focussing more on control and ignoring substitution.

Net impact to real life Contractors is probably zero, although if you are caught by IR35, you may be able to get some sick pay and employment rights, pro rata.

[eek]

It was tough to decipher this from the leaked text. I couldn't make out if the zero hours comment was a drafting error, intended to read "dependent worker", or a different category. The context suggested the latter, but it's tough to see the distinction elsewhere in the leaked text (and why a zero hours contract would necessarily fall closer to employment). My guess is that there are only three categories, but it isn't clear yet...

Found the bit I was after...

Page 44

The Government should ask the LPC to consider the design and impacts of the introduction of a higher NMW rate for hours that are not guaranteed as part of the contract.

and Page 48 has the roll over towards a proper contract

Government should act to create a right to request a contract that guarantees hours which better reflect the actual hours worked, for those on zero hour contracts who have been in post for 12 months.

The incentive of no longer having to pay those higher NMW rates would probably be enough for companies to agree to the second bit...

Page 46 regarding holiday pay may please umbrella companies...

[Hobosapien]

Net impact to real life Contractors is probably zero, although if you are caught by IR35, you may be able to get some sick pay and employment rights, pro rata.

Which may drive agencies to require contractors use an umbrella rather than Ltd so the holiday/sick pay aspect is handled for them, like they are doing now for inside IR35 in PS so they don't have to handle payroll.

So there may be an impact on real life contractors one way or another.

[MarkT]

Which may drive agencies to require contractors use an umbrella rather than Ltd so the holiday/sick pay aspect is handled for them, like they are doing now for inside IR35 in PS so they don't have to handle payroll.

So there may be an impact on real life contractors one way or another.

Nah - we'd just indemnify them against it. We do that now, most contracts have paragraphs about us being responsible for all taxes. We'd just be responsible for any sick/holiday pay.

You have to be caught by IR35 or "control" before this is relevant anyway surely.

[7specialgems]

I can't see anything that is actually actionable.

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?

The generalised battlecry to be able to work your way up and onto more money in lower skill, lower pay jobs is typical right-of-entitlement delusion as well. Progression and pay scales for riding your Deliveroo bicycle or driving for Uber. You're a genius Taylor.

Like the efforts of IPSE, the IR35 forum and virtually anything offered up by the Office for Tax Simplification before Matthew Taylor's turn to bang the drum, I cannot see anything in this report being translated into legislation.

Not by any Tory government, least of all a Tory government that had to backpedal over the employer NI changes and now needs to be propped up to have a majority.

[meanttobeworking]

This may be a massive oversimplification but, if there is an emphasis on control being the strongest determining factor on whether someone is truly self employed or not, and if the engager is liable for NI and benefits if the contractor is controlled, wouldn't this be a powerful motivation for engagers take a much more active interest in ensuring working practices and engagements are truly on a self employed / not controlled / outside IR35 basis?