Well, here I am...

[eek]

You mean in the new website where it's hidden in plain sight on a menu and then you click on it, can read it in the viewer or can download it? No pleasing some people


As i said above, my predecessor reviewed and revised the Codes in October last year. If the wording is still woolly, then I'll make it more clear.

Can't you see the gapping large (and very intentional) flaw in the current wording - clause 9 is written so that nothing is carried over to the following year.

Now granted the Pimlico case overrides it but as webberg pointed out on LinkedIn today the definition you are using requires a very legalistic interpretation.

[Chris Bryce]

Clearly you aren't aware of what I am doing nor who I'm getting my information from are you - which shows how careful I've been keeping in stealth mode...

Hint I've spent a year working on something that offers real time compliance check for umbrellas which means I'm currently speaking to a lot of umbrella owners / both inside and outside the FCSA and a lot of them have confirmed the above....

Am I understanding you correctly? You have evidence of wrongdoing that might screw over innocent contractors - your fellow contractors - but you'll not share that evidence, even privately, with a guy who might actually be able to do something about it?

Not sure I've got that right? I do hope not.

[eek]

Am I understanding you correctly? You have evidence of wrongdoing that might screw over innocent contractors - your fellow contractors - but you'll not share that evidence, even privately, with a guy who might actually be able to do something about it?

Not sure I've got that right? I do hope not.

It’s MUC so the contractors don’t have a problem - HMRC will be going after the agencies as the only tax lost is on the employers side - and even then it’s more VAT than anything else. And in any case

1) it’s not my responsibility to police your members - I just call up my contact at HMRC so they are added to the quarterly runs.

2) given that all the people I’m talking to want FCSA to be knocked down a peg or 5 why would we rush to help you before the FCSA is taken down a few pegs

3) But given your statement above your attitude seems to have changed since your last conversation with Seb at SafeRec which left him under the distinct impression that you actually don't care less about the issues his payroll checker identifies - and everything he does relates to skimming, scams and the various other techniques used by umbrellas to pocket an extra £2-5 profit for the umbrella.

For reference 1 scam identified is Salary sacrificing the employee pension contribution and adding a separate field for Employer NI saving which the umbrella pockets (that took some time to deceiver what was happening). Now explained by the fact the umbrella has 2 systems 1 calculates the gross pay incorrectly, the other does the payslip - and the difference is paid into the pension pot in a way no-one could track.

so let’s be honest are you going to be as two faced this time round as you were when you were at IPSE because point 3 to me shows that you seem to be reverting to your old habits.

I'm speaking to Seb on Wednesday so you've got a day to demonstrate that you've changed your spots and no longer say different things depending on the audience you are talking to.

[eek]

And to be blunt the issue I have with the FCSA is simple

I believe that except for the agreed umbrella margin every penny from the assignment fee paid by the agency should go to the worker (income or pension) or HMRC.

The FCSA doesn’t.

I believe that an umbrella’s main customer is the worker

the FCSA doesn’t

Unless you are going to get ALL your members to that point the FCSA is part of the problem and not part of any solution.

[mudskipper]

Clearly you aren't aware of what I am doing nor who I'm getting my information from are you - which shows how careful I've been keeping in stealth mode...

Hint I've spent a year working on something that offers real time compliance check for umbrellas which means I'm currently speaking to a lot of umbrella owners / both inside and outside the FCSA and a lot of them have confirmed the above....

classic eek

Welcome to CUK Chris, and best of luck with the new role.

[eek]

classic eek

Welcome to CUK Chris, and best of luck with the new role.

yep classic eek - keep things quiet until you know it works - no point announcing something and discovering it doesn’t do what you promise or you can’t access the required bank data.

this is really just bad timing on Chris’s part - while we’ve been working on it for ages it’s only now (literally last week) we have the integrations working with the payroll providers - which means we can slurp the historic data we need to show the umbrella is paying PAYE fully

[SimonMac]

And to be blunt the issue I have with the FCSA is simple

I believe that except for the agreed umbrella margin every penny from the assignment fee paid by the agency should go to the worker (income or pension) or HMRC.

The FCSA doesn’t.

I believe that an umbrella’s main customer is the worker

the FCSA doesn’t

Unless you are going to get ALL your members to that point the FCSA is part of the problem and not part of any solution.

Next you’ll be saying some directors didn’t run IPSE for the benefit of contractors

[eek]

Next you’ll be saying some directors didn’t run IPSE for the benefit of contractors

Ipse’s definition of a contractor just changed to be something very different to their PCG days.

whether that worked out for IPSE we can leave others to judge.

[malvolio]

Ipse’s definition of a contractor just changed to be something very different to their PCG days.

whether that worked out for IPSE we can leave others to judge.

PCG was primarily for the group people on here call "contractors", and that agencies sell to their clients as the agency's resources. In the real world, most organisations, and especially HMG ones, see "Contractors" as either external providers of services through BigCo structures who are not part of their organisation or as people who build stuff that you can kick. They did not and do not recognise you and me as "contractors" since we were clearly one man bands; after a while they got tired of the inherent confusion and stopped listening.

IPSE was a deliberate change to broaden the scope to all freelance workers, which includes SE people, agency workers and all the other one man bands, including us "contractors". It was never the intention to abandon our comparatively small group (50k out of around 5.5 million and rising) despite what various disaffected (mostly-ex) PCG members thought.

If you're going to quote history, can we at least start from the right place in the book.

[cojak]

And as for ‘be nice’…


This is OUR fecking money you're talking about.