Work colleagues

[Thorongil]

36 minutes ago, IrishBhoy said:

You will know better than me, that’s just some of the things I’ve heard that is allowing contractors to continue using limited companies. I know London had IR35 implemented slightly before the rest of the country, but any jobs I’ve seen in the past 6 months working in London depots have been outside IR35. I think the TfL underground depots are still inside actually, but Alstom and Bombardier have managed to fall outside by hiring contractors through new, smaller companies sub contracted to them. 
 

We’ve got a parliament full of millionaires dodging every penny of tax they can, I can’t get too angry at a guy making £40k a year that manages to get a few grand off his tax bill. 

Would need to see the arrangements but outsourcing work to a company is different from hiring people to do work inside or outside of IR35. 

if the deemed worker in any such arrangement is working in practice like an employee then the rules are breached and the end user is liable. 

The only genuinely compliant instances I’ve seen where people have been Outside have been for freelancers and for consultants who might do a few months giving a company advice and not doing any actual work. These people tend to be maybe 2 days a month and tend to have other actual jobs.

[coprolite]

6 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

There is no cost saving for the employers though. Daily rates haven’t reduced as a result of IR35. 

Employers save costs by engaging people who should be employees as contractors. They save holiday pay, sick pay and parental leave pay as well as Employers NICs. 

That's why they try to avoid hiring through the payroll.

I'm not suggesting the new rules would save engaging companies money. 

[Scott Steiner]

I actually get on well with my work colleagues.. they are nice people.

Have had a few different managers over the years some good some bad.

[Thorongil]

17 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Employers save costs by engaging people who should be employees as contractors. They save holiday pay, sick pay and parental leave pay as well as Employers NICs. 

That's why they try to avoid hiring through the payroll.

I'm not suggesting the new rules would save engaging companies money. 

Contractors don’t save companies money. They cost the same or significantly more depending on the skill set and level. 
Businesses use contractors for convenience and flexibility, and often because they can be paid for from project budgets and not front ring fenced salary budgets. 

[coprolite]

40 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Contractors don’t save companies money. They cost the same or significantly more depending on the skill set and level. 
Businesses use contractors for convenience and flexibility, and often because they can be paid for from project budgets and not front ring fenced salary budgets. 

Those sound like circumstances in which it might be legitimate to not employ workers. 

The issue is that many firms employ people but pay them like they're temporary contractors. Rife in IT, engineering, care, sales, all sorts really. 

Lots of times the "convenience and flexibility" could be acheived by fixed term employment contracts. 

I've seen permanent employees from receptionists to directors paid as if they're contractors, clearly just because it is cheaper. I've had a director of a care agency state that they couldn’t payroll their carers and still make their business model work. 

I maybe overstated my case before, but a lot of businesses hire people as contractors to save money. 

[Bairnardo]

Those sound like circumstances in which it might be legitimate to not employ workers. 
The issue is that many firms employ people but pay them like they're temporary contractors. Rife in IT, engineering, care, sales, all sorts really. 
Lots of times the "convenience and flexibility" could be acheived by fixed term employment contracts. 
I've seen permanent employees from receptionists to directors paid as if they're contractors, clearly just because it is cheaper. I've had a director of a care agency state that they couldn’t payroll their carers and still make their business model work. 
I maybe overstated my case before, but a lot of businesses hire people as contractors to save money. 

In the oil and gas industry, contractors are often used alongside staff doing the same roles. In most cases, the contractors have a higher base salary but far fewer perks. I remember a HR wife telling me before that a company staff member for that particular company costs roughly 3 x their "base salary" by the time you add on all the extras, and it was cheaper to use the contractors even with their higher wage.

[Bairnardo]

When I was a contractor many moons ago, countless fellow contractors used to take delight in parking their Ferraris and Porsches next to the boss who was hiring them. I remember over-hearing a group of them loudly talking about they could "only" afford to top up their pensions by £800 to £1000 that month. In full view of employees and management.
This sort of behaviour is just insane.
Short of the boss walking in and finding the contractor pleasuring his wife in his own office, it's hard to imagine a more provocative thing to do.
The golden rules were:
1) Never discuss money. Ever.
2) If you want to buy a "look at the size of my cock" car like a Ferrari, don't bring it to work and certainly don't park it next the the boss.
When IR35 hit, there was no sympathy for these guys whatsoever.

One of these types once stood in the company of me and a few of my colleagues and casually told us, in a way like he thought we would genuinely be interested or impressed, that his tax bill for the last year was probably higher than our salary.

It was a proper shoulder shrug/minter moment.

This guy was a gigantic arsehole btw.

[Thorongil]

48 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Those sound like circumstances in which it might be legitimate to not employ workers. 

The issue is that many firms employ people but pay them like they're temporary contractors. Rife in IT, engineering, care, sales, all sorts really. 

Lots of times the "convenience and flexibility" could be acheived by fixed term employment contracts. 

I've seen permanent employees from receptionists to directors paid as if they're contractors, clearly just because it is cheaper. I've had a director of a care agency state that they couldn’t payroll their carers and still make their business model work. 

I maybe overstated my case before, but a lot of businesses hire people as contractors to save money. 

Contractors aren’t in any way cheaper. In IT particularly the cost circa double. FTCs are an option companies sometimes use but workers largely don’t want that. They want the security and benefits that come with a perm job or the extra pay that comes with being a contractor.

The higher up the salary range the more expensive a contractor becomes. You could have a perm project manager on say £65k per annum. For a contractor you’re looking at £500 per day which is £115k. That’s much more expensive than having an employee, but you might only need them for a year. 
 

At the lowest end of the scale, the AWR regulations come into play, and there is agency margin as well as the cost of NI and holiday pay built into the charge rate.

there are a few different categories to consider. Agency temp, contractor, consultant and freelancer. All have their differences but none of them are cheaper than hiring employees.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Thorongil

[Thorongil]

47 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

50 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Those sound like circumstances in which it might be legitimate to not employ workers. 
The issue is that many firms employ people but pay them like they're temporary contractors. Rife in IT, engineering, care, sales, all sorts really. 
Lots of times the "convenience and flexibility" could be acheived by fixed term employment contracts. 
I've seen permanent employees from receptionists to directors paid as if they're contractors, clearly just because it is cheaper. I've had a director of a care agency state that they couldn’t payroll their carers and still make their business model work. 
I maybe overstated my case before, but a lot of businesses hire people as contractors to save money. 

In the oil and gas industry, contractors are often used alongside staff doing the same roles. In most cases, the contractors have a higher base salary but far fewer perks. I remember a HR wife telling me before that a company staff member for that particular company costs roughly 3 x their "base salary" by the time you add on all the extras, and it was cheaper to use the contractors even with their higher wage.

It’s more like 1.5x. 

[Bairnardo]

5 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

It’s more like 1.5x. 

I find it highly unlikely that you know more than the HR wife at the exact company I am talking about tbf. 

[Thorongil]

26 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I find it highly unlikely that you know more than the HR wife at the exact company I am talking about tbf. 

Not really a strong area for a HR generalist; they aren’t known for their commercials and often have to defer to finance or to reward specialists. she could be using some hyperbole or trying to excuse/justify something. 

The cost of employing someone is not 3x their basic pay. 

[coprolite]

51 minutes ago, Thorongil said:

Contractors aren’t in any way cheaper. In IT particularly the cost circa double. FTCs are an option companies sometimes use but workers largely don’t want that. They want the security and benefits that come with a perm job or the extra pay that comes with being a contractor.

The higher up the salary range the more expensive a contractor becomes. You could have a perm project manager on say £65k per annum. For a contractor you’re looking at £500 per day which is £115k. That’s much more expensive than having an employee, but you might only need them for a year. 
 

At the lowest end of the scale, the AWR regulations come into play, and there is agency margin as well as the cost of NI and holiday pay built into the charge rate.

there are a few different categories to consider. Agency temp, contractor, consultant and freelancer. All have their differences but none of them are cheaper than hiring employees.

This might be true for it specialists with valuable skills.

When i worked in sales i was told "you're self employed" but worked off a script provided by the employer at a time and place determined by them (ie an employee). Commission of £10 per sale totalled way less than the minimum wage they'd have had to pay an employee. I don't recall getting a premium to compensate for my lack of a company car or health insurance. 

Thing is i needed a job and they had them. Much the same as the sub saharans that work as "self-employed" carers throughout the South East. 

The skilled IT consultant has bargaining power that few people in the economy do and is far from typical. The bargaining power is usually with the employer and they can insist on whatever arrangements suit them without paying any extra. 

I have absolutely no problem with genuine contracting arrangements and am not criticising them. 

The problem is where companies exploit workers and stiff the treasury by badging employment as something else. 

[Thorongil]

7 minutes ago, coprolite said:

This might be true for it specialists with valuable skills.

When i worked in sales i was told "you're self employed" but worked off a script provided by the employer at a time and place determined by them (ie an employee). Commission of £10 per sale totalled way less than the minimum wage they'd have had to pay an employee. I don't recall getting a premium to compensate for my lack of a company car or health insurance. 

Thing is i needed a job and they had them. Much the same as the sub saharans that work as "self-employed" carers throughout the South East. 

The skilled IT consultant has bargaining power that few people in the economy do and is far from typical. The bargaining power is usually with the employer and they can insist on whatever arrangements suit them without paying any extra. 

I have absolutely no problem with genuine contracting arrangements and am not criticising them. 

The problem is where companies exploit workers and stiff the treasury by badging employment as something else. 

How long ago was this? Commission only stuff like that is something else entirely. Is the modern equivalent MLM? 

Workers currently have a lot of bargaining power and the employment market tends to swing between workers and employers having control. Just now unemployment is low and also there is the impact of Brexit. Employers are having to pay or do without people.

[scottsdad]

One of my colleagues has been with us for 10 years. I've been asked to write some nice stuff in his long service letter that will be sent to him. 

He's a good guy so happy to do it. Actually a nice thing to finish off the week with. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

6 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

One of my colleagues has been with us for 10 years. I've been asked to write some nice stuff in his long service letter that will be sent to him. 

He's a good guy so happy to do it. Actually a nice thing to finish off the week with. 

Does he do any work?

[Hillonearth]

On 12/12/2021 at 14:52, oaksoft said:

I think a lot of this type of behaviour stems from using their earnings to over-compensate for loneliness.

Most of these guys are probably living away from home and have absolutely no job security whatsoever. If you're constantly moving around, chances are you'll have no social life outside the 4 walls of work.

I packed in contracting once we moved house and for a few awful months was commuting every week from one end of the country to the other - only being at home with my family for one day at the weekend.

The contracting world is full of divorcees, people who don't see their kids grow up and people who have nobody to have a beer with at the weekends. If they genuinely think a Ferrari and a full bank account is suitable compensation for that I'd be happy to leave them to it.

You could be describing one we had a while back - mid forties, divorced and drove a Maserati IIRC. Would spend the whole week droning on about how much he earned in comparison to the employees and then start casting about on Friday with a certain air of desperation to see if anyone was going out for a post-work bevvy.

He had the kind of personality that if he entered a room it felt that two people had just left it, so just naw.

[scottsdad]

2 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Does he do any work?

Yes - in the good guy column.

[alta-pete]

On 12/12/2021 at 15:29, Thorongil said:

Not really a strong area for a HR generalist; they aren’t known for their commercials and often have to defer to finance or to reward specialists. she could be using some hyperbole or trying to excuse/justify something. 

The cost of employing someone is not 3x their basic pay. 

In my industry the relationship between income generated by an individual and their wage is fairly transparent. It was a basic tenet of the annual pay review negotiation - if your income hadn't exceeded that magic 3x your salary figure, you were nailed on for the static/basic cost of living increase. And if you were regularly below that 3x benchmark you were fairly effectively managed out the door.   

[Florentine_Pogen]

3 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It's one reason why I try not to actively hate specific people.

You just don't know what kind of trauma and damage is lurking behind the annoying facade.

Good grief.....what is going on here ??  oaksoft going all Vicar of Dibley gives me the fear.......................

[Robin.Hood]

Watching 17 cases of Grey Goose fall off a cage was a highlight of the day. Not the actual cases falling off the cage but the guy who who attempted to try save any. Impressive