PDA

View Full Version : Compliance company advising clients to label all contractors as 'supervised'



GB9
27th April 2016, 09:06
According to the article on today's home page, CXC Global (never heard of them before) are advising end clients to label contractors as 'supervised', or at least that's how it reads.

The article refers to an agency that appear to have advised clients to do the opposite. I assume because the client is suddenly wondering why they can't get the resource they need and don't want to pay more.

Now clearly, if a contractor should be supervised, then this should be reflected in the contract. However, equally, to suggest that all contractors should be supervised is as bad as suggesting none should be.

In an ideal world job ads etc would state up front whether or not supervision was applicable. Unlikely, for now at least.

Maybe Michelle Reilly would like to come on here and explain her position?

northernladuk
27th April 2016, 09:14
We need to know what 'supervised' really means. Until it is cast in stone every single party is going to take it differently.

GB9
27th April 2016, 09:28
We need to know what 'supervised' really means. Until it is cast in stone every single party is going to take it differently.

And that will probably require a court case.

It would be interesting to know why the agency was acting as it did.

It would equally be useful to know why the compliance lot think everyone should be labelled as 'supervised'. The way the article reads it appears no more than an arse covering exercise.

WTFH
27th April 2016, 09:37
Maybe CXC Global are a company desperate for publicity and so create a false story in the hope that people search for them or talk about them.

Fred Bloggs
27th April 2016, 09:57
Maybe CXC Global are a company desperate for publicity and so create a false story in the hope that people search for them or talk about them.Hmmm, I thought CXC were pretty reputable, perhaps overly cautious.

Pondlife
27th April 2016, 10:36
Do they operate a brolly structure in the UK


All required insurances – You won’t be left desiring any further cover with our solutions; our comprehensive insurance scheme will allow you to put your mind at ease.
International compliance structure – Regardless of where the work is taking place, we will ensure that you remain fully compliant the moment your contract begins.
Timesheet processing and invoicing – Just provide us with your time-sheets and we’ll do the rest, leaving you to concentrate on more important matters.
Fast and accurate payments – Payments are processed as quickly as possible. With CXC Global, you won’t be left waiting for your pay.
In-country support from experienced representatives – From banking information to local legislature, our experts will fill you in on everything you need to know.
Highly experienced team – Regardless of any queries, requests or concerns you may have, our team boast the experience to be able to deal with them – no sweat.

If so, there's your reason. It's part of the "all contractors are like brolly contractors" drum they're currently banging.

GB9
27th April 2016, 10:51
Do they operate a brolly structure in the UK



If so, there's your reason. It's part of the "all contractors are like brolly contractors" drum they're currently banging.

Good spot.

So brolly company uses compliance hat to suggest that all contractors should be labelled as under supervision, presumably so that they don't lose business to other brollies who have agreed non supervision with clients.

If they had said supervision should be agreed on a case by case basis that would have been sensible, but instead just another self interested bleat

I wonder if contractoruk would let us put out a release stating that contractors should only work through brollies that can agree non supervision clauses with end clients?

Pondlife
27th April 2016, 10:56
I wonder if contractoruk would let us put out a release stating that contractors should only work through brollies that can agree non supervision clauses with end clients?

Probably not because some gigs are inside IR35. If the client just wants a temp then that is what they get.

What the article from CXC is trying to do is muddy the water between Ltd contractors outside IR35 who can continue to claim travel expenses and Brolly contractors who cannot.

GB9
27th April 2016, 11:30
Probably not because some gigs are inside IR35. If the client just wants a temp then that is what they get.

What the article from CXC is trying to do is muddy the water between Ltd contractors outside IR35 who can continue to claim travel expenses and Brolly contractors who cannot.

Reading it I think it is also trying to say that through a brolly you must be under supervision whereas the un-named agency seems to have agreed with a client that supervision doesn't apply. If everyone in the brolly chain agrees then expenses can still be claimed.

DallasDad
27th April 2016, 18:46
Define supervised?
Am I supervised at client co site by being coerced into parking between two white lines...

does that count?

Pondlife
28th April 2016, 09:32
Define supervised?
Am I supervised at client co site by being coerced into parking between two white lines...

does that count?

No, that would be direction I should think. Unless the client is watching you on the CC camera. :D

Danglekt
28th April 2016, 10:53
Define supervised?
Am I supervised at client co site by being coerced into parking between two white lines...

does that count?

Steady, someone will be along soon to question how well cut out you are to be a contractor.

But it's ok, cos they will be a REAL contractor. :wink

TheFaQQer
28th April 2016, 11:30
Define supervised?
Am I supervised at client co site by being coerced into parking between two white lines...

does that count?

If you're engaged as an independent parking attendant, then probably. If you are engaged as a business analyst, then it's unlikely that falls within HMRC's definition of "supervision" which (IIRC) they published last year.

Jantina Consulting
4th August 2016, 18:26
According to the article on today's home page, CXC Global (never heard of them before) are advising end clients to label contractors as 'supervised', or at least that's how it reads.

The article refers to an agency that appear to have advised clients to do the opposite. I assume because the client is suddenly wondering why they can't get the resource they need and don't want to pay more.

Now clearly, if a contractor should be supervised, then this should be reflected in the contract. However, equally, to suggest that all contractors should be supervised is as bad as suggesting none should be.

In an ideal world job ads etc would state up front whether or not supervision was applicable. Unlikely, for now at least.

Maybe Michelle Reilly would like to come on here and explain her position?

This used to be a standard approach in respect of Agency Workers (umbrella employees and Ltd Co Contractors who had Opted In (EAA Regs)). If I recall correctly (it's been a while), there is a regulation in the AWR about supervision (though not Direction & Control). I suspect CXC's position arises from the AWR, but a blanket statement purporting the cover all Contractors (including those who are not Agency Workers for the purposes of AWR) is not helpful.