PDA

View Full Version : Taylor Review



jamesbrown
7th July 2017, 21:30
<placeholder>

In the process of being leaked here (https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes) FWIW. Full report next week...

EDIT: full report here (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/626772/good-work-taylor-review-modern-working-practices.pdf).

Scratch It
7th July 2017, 21:33
"dependent contractor"... tulip

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEKWCdQXcAIYcEr.jpg:large

jamesbrown
7th July 2017, 21:36
"dependent contractor"... tulip

I think they're just suggesting a renaming of "worker" status under employment law (to "dependent contractor"), although they're also suggesting that self-employment is better defined in both primary and secondary legislation (something IPSE and others have called for too). There are a few interesting things but, from what I've scanned so far, mostly anticipated.

Scratch It
7th July 2017, 21:39
I think they're just suggesting a renaming of "worker" status under employment law (to "dependent contractor"), although they're also suggesting that self-employment is better defined in both primary and secondary legislation (something IPSE and others have called for too). There are a few interesting things but, from what I've scanned so far, mostly anticipated.

Fair enough - the 12 steps a bit concerning too - thoughts on 3?

"12 steps towards fair and decent work with realistic scope for development and fulfilment

...

Step 3. In the medium term, in the interests of innovation, fair competition and sound public finances we need to make the taxation of labour more consistent across employment forms while at the same time improving the rights and entitlements of self-employed people."

jamesbrown
7th July 2017, 22:44
Fair enough - the 12 steps a bit concerning too - thoughts on 3?

"12 steps towards fair and decent work with realistic scope for development and fulfilment

...

Step 3. In the medium term, in the interests of innovation, fair competition and sound public finances we need to make the taxation of labour more consistent across employment forms while at the same time improving the rights and entitlements of self-employed people."

Yeah, again, something that has been well-telegraphed. When Hammond started on this journey in the last budget (NICs U-turn), Taylor was only irritated that the gov't didn't hold it's nerve. TBH, I think its going to be rather difficult for the gov't to make sweeping changes in the current circumstances (if it was hard with an overall 17 seat effective majority, it's infinitely harder now....), except where there is strong cross-party support (i.e. more likely on employment rights than taxation). If they do start to move on this, I think they will opt for a slow/steady approach (long consultations). Had May acquired a substantial majority, I would be saying something completely different...

eek
7th July 2017, 23:08
Regarding 3 if you remove the incentive for companies to pretend people are self employed you may reduce the number of people self employed to more accurate levels...

MrWebDev
11th July 2017, 08:50
The Taylor Review is released today already plenty of chat this morning, lots of talk about a new "dependent contractor" status.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40561807

TheFaQQer
11th July 2017, 09:07
The Taylor Review is released today already plenty of chat this morning, lots of talk about a new "dependent contractor" status.

Taylor Review: UK should end cash-in-hand economy - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40561807)

From what has been discussed in the media, "dependent contractor" is just a new name for "worker". That's the line that Taylor was giving on Radio 4 this morning.

eek
11th July 2017, 09:13
From what has been discussed in the media, "dependent contractor" is just a new name for "worker". That's the line that Taylor was giving on Radio 4 this morning.

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...

BlueSharp
11th July 2017, 09:15
Listing to BBC4 this morning they were talking about the report due to be published. Very much appears to be Taylor siding with business about supporting a dependent contractor model who has some but not all rights of a worker.

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.

jamesbrown
11th July 2017, 09:25
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
11th July 2017, 10:03
...

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
11th July 2017, 10:20
Full report here (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/626772/good-work-taylor-review-modern-working-practices.pdf).

jamesbrown
11th July 2017, 10:44
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
11th July 2017, 10:51
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
11th July 2017, 11:41
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
11th July 2017, 11:54
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. :ohwell

MarkT
11th July 2017, 12:00
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. :ohwell

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
11th July 2017, 12:01
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
11th July 2017, 12:11
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?

7specialgems
11th July 2017, 12:31
We're Brexiting and the government are reducing business rates in an attempt to keep British workers employed in on-shore jobs.

I think we can safely assume that any features of Taylor's report which call for an increase in employer's NI takings and a reform of worker's rights will be given short shrift by the government.

eek
11th July 2017, 12:37
We're Brexiting and the government are reducing business rates in an attempt to keep British workers employed in on-shore jobs.

I think we can safely assume that any features of Taylor's report which call for an increase in employer's NI takings and a reform of worker's rights will be given short shrift by the government.

:laugh :rollin: Most gig economy work is service based that needs to be performed locally. Employers NI can be attached to that dependent worker and no-one will care... As I stated at the time of the budget Hammond's mistake was to announce it before this report came out rather than leaving things to November after this report...

jamesbrown
11th July 2017, 12:51
:laugh :rollin: Most gig economy work is service based that needs to be performed locally. Employers NI can be attached to that dependent worker and no-one will care... As I stated at the time of the budget Hammond's mistake was to announce it before this report came out rather than leaving things to November after this report...

That and the pesky manifesto commitment. In the current context, it would go through without major problems (much puffing from The Sun etc., but no fatal damage). However, Damian Green has now confirmed that the NIC changes won't be reintroduced, which leaves another 2bn black hole. I wonder how that might be filled... :laugh Certainly, enough contractors being designated as workers/dependent contractors would help if ErNI is going to be imposed on hirers.

What's surprising about this report is the lack of surprises. Almost everything was well-telegraphed. I also don't expect much to make it through to legislation; at least, very little unless Labour is onside.

On umbrellas, don't they typically employ the Swedish derogation to comply with the AWR? The FT was trailing a recommendation on that being abolished; did you catch the text on that?

AtW
11th July 2017, 13:11
We're Brexiting and the government are reducing business rates in an attempt to keep British workers employed in on-shore jobs.

Where did you see reduction in business rates? Our office's rates are doubling, staggered over next 5 years.


I think we can safely assume that any features of Taylor's report which call for an increase in employer's NI takings and a reform of worker's rights will be given short shrift by the government.

More likely the opposite, it's the whole point of exercise - get Employer NICs - 13.8%, much bigger catch than few %-tage on Employee NICs which Govt indeed can resist.

eek
11th July 2017, 13:16
That and the pesky manifesto commitment. In the current context, it would go through without major problems (much puffing from The Sun etc., but no fatal damage). However, Damian Green has now confirmed that the NIC changes won't be reintroduced, which leaves another 2bn black hole. I wonder how that might be filled... :laugh Certainly, enough contractors being designated as workers/dependent contractors would help if ErNI is going to be imposed on hirers.

What's surprising about this report is the lack of surprises. Almost everything was well-telegraphed. I also don't expect much to make it through to legislation; at least, very little unless Labour is onside.

On umbrellas, don't they typically employ the Swedish derogation to comply with the AWR? The FT was trailing a recommendation on that being abolished; did you catch the text on that?

Page 59 and It's aimed more at agency's rather than umbrellas and focusses on equal pay after 12 weeks....


The Government should repeal the legislation that allows agency workers to opt out of equal pay entitlements. In addition, the Government should consider extending the remit of the EAS Inspectorate to include compliance with the AWR.
It has been suggested that such a move might limit the options for agency workers who wish to benefit from the protections associated with being an employee of the recruitment agency but we do not agree: Employment businesses will still be able to offer permanent employment contracts to their agency workers in the same way that they could prior to 2010. The individuals will also still be able to benefit from equal pay after 12 weeks. Recruitment agencies should already have mechanisms in place to ensure equal pay after the qualifying period as it would be unlawful to structure arrangements to avoid equal pay. As such, any administrative costs should be minimal.

AtW
11th July 2017, 13:18
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?

They'll have hotline for cleaners to shop those who pay them cash and get a big cash reward for that.

TheFaQQer
12th July 2017, 08:56
Matthew Taylor will be on BBC Radio 4's Money Box with Paul Lewis from 3pm today.

If you want to ask questions, you can email moneybox@bbc.co.uk or call 03700 100 444 from 1pm.

jamesbrown
20th November 2017, 00:28
Work and Pensions SC report here (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/352/35202.htm). One recommendation is for a statutory definition with more emphasis on D&C.

matzie
20th November 2017, 07:33
Work and Pensions SC report here (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/352/35202.htm). One recommendation is for a statutory definition with more emphasis on D&C.

In the Draft Bill (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/352/35209.htm#_idTextAnchor048) there's a lot that doesn't sound too bad for us, such as the inclusion of these factors in determining status:

(a) whether the contract places an obligation on the individual to perform work personally;
(b)whether the other party to the contract retains the potential to control to a substantial degree how the individual’s work will be carried out in relation factors such as:
(i) disciplining the individual;
(ii) the activities to be carried out;
(iii) the order in which activities are to be carried out;
(iv) the equipment or products to be used in carrying out the activities;
(v) the rate of pay for the activities;
(vi) where the work will be carried out;
(vii) how the activities will be carried out; and
(viii) the hours during which the work is to be carried out.
(c) whether the individual is integrated into the other party to the contract’s business;
(d) whether the other party to the contract provides tools or equipment;
(e) the degree of financial risk undertaken by the individual; and
(f) whether the individual is prohibited from working for others during the contract.

and

(a) whether the individual assumes responsibility for the success or failure of his business;
(b) whether the individual can hire others at their own expense;
(c) whether the individual has the ability to determine the manner in which the services are carried out;
(d) whether the individual actively markets their services;
(e) whether the individual can negotiate and set the price for their services; or
(f) whether the individual is responsible for their own indemnity cover or public liability insurance”.

I think a CEST based on those criteria would be ok.

SueEllen
20th November 2017, 09:28
Rachel Reeves MP Labour (Leeds West) and Lord Taylor are currently on LBC lobbying for bringing the Taylor review into fruition.

They want people to be labelled workers by default and leave it to the employer to prove otherwise.

Tasslehoff
20th November 2017, 10:56
In the Draft Bill (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/352/35209.htm#_idTextAnchor048) there's a lot that doesn't sound too bad for us, such as the inclusion of these factors in determining status:

(a) whether the contract places an obligation on the individual to perform work personally;
(b)whether the other party to the contract retains the potential to control to a substantial degree how the individual’s work will be carried out in relation factors such as:
(i) disciplining the individual;
(ii) the activities to be carried out;
(iii) the order in which activities are to be carried out;
(iv) the equipment or products to be used in carrying out the activities;
(v) the rate of pay for the activities;
(vi) where the work will be carried out;
(vii) how the activities will be carried out; and
(viii) the hours during which the work is to be carried out.
(c) whether the individual is integrated into the other party to the contract’s business;
(d) whether the other party to the contract provides tools or equipment;
(e) the degree of financial risk undertaken by the individual; and
(f) whether the individual is prohibited from working for others during the contract.

and

(a) whether the individual assumes responsibility for the success or failure of his business;
(b) whether the individual can hire others at their own expense;
(c) whether the individual has the ability to determine the manner in which the services are carried out;
(d) whether the individual actively markets their services;
(e) whether the individual can negotiate and set the price for their services; or
(f) whether the individual is responsible for their own indemnity cover or public liability insurance”.

I think a CEST based on those criteria would be ok.

These seem like entirley sensible definitons on employment vs. contracting.

Hence the will never see the light of day in any HMRC tool :)

TheFaQQer
20th November 2017, 11:24
In the Draft Bill (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/352/35209.htm#_idTextAnchor048) there's a lot that doesn't sound too bad for us, such as the inclusion of these factors in determining status:

(a) whether the contract places an obligation on the individual to perform work personally;
(b)whether the other party to the contract retains the potential to control to a substantial degree how the individual’s work will be carried out in relation factors such as:
(i) disciplining the individual;
(ii) the activities to be carried out;
(iii) the order in which activities are to be carried out;
(iv) the equipment or products to be used in carrying out the activities;
(v) the rate of pay for the activities;
(vi) where the work will be carried out;
(vii) how the activities will be carried out; and
(viii) the hours during which the work is to be carried out.
(c) whether the individual is integrated into the other party to the contract’s business;
(d) whether the other party to the contract provides tools or equipment;
(e) the degree of financial risk undertaken by the individual; and
(f) whether the individual is prohibited from working for others during the contract.

and

(a) whether the individual assumes responsibility for the success or failure of his business;
(b) whether the individual can hire others at their own expense;
(c) whether the individual has the ability to determine the manner in which the services are carried out;
(d) whether the individual actively markets their services;
(e) whether the individual can negotiate and set the price for their services; or
(f) whether the individual is responsible for their own indemnity cover or public liability insurance”.

I think a CEST based on those criteria would be ok.

Still misses MoO completely from the definition.

jamesbrown
20th November 2017, 11:42
Still misses MoO completely from the definition.

Agreed but, since they're proposing a new statutory definition, they can choose whatever case law (or not) they prefer, and new case law will emerge from the new statute. I think a statutory definition makes sense, and is somewhat likely (although more likely to get kicked into the long grass), inline with what IPSE has said, but it's unlikely that RoS and MoO will feature much, if at all (indeed, Taylor was explicitly arguing for the former to be downgraded). There may be elements of MoO that are simpler to include (e.g. evidence that work has been offered and declined or not offered), but there are many more (measurable) indicators of D&C, so it isn't surprising they'd focus on that.

eek
20th November 2017, 12:04
Given a new definition and so a new start for case law it will focus on the areas where Hmrc wins points in tax tribunals (direction and control) and remove the bits where Hmrc tend to lose the cases on (substitution and mutual obligation).

Given that there are already employment contracts where mutual obligation hardly exists (zero hour contractors for one) I can’t see there being much pushback there.

I expect it’s going to turn out that asking for an actual definition does more harm than good

jamesbrown
7th February 2018, 00:56
HMG response here (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-to-benefit-from-enhanced-rights-as-government-responds-to-taylor-review-of-modern-working-practices).

Some press coverage:

Holiday and sick pay for gig economy workers - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42959756)
Government to scrutinise employment status after rise of gig economy with Uber and Deliveroo | City A.M. (http://www.cityam.com/280151/government-scrutinise-employment-status-after-rise-gig)
https://www.unison.org.uk/news/article/2018/02/governments-good-work-plan-no-good-wont-work-isnt-plan-says-unison/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/07/gig-economy-workers-angry-at-lack-of-bogus-self-employment-curbs

jamesbrown
7th February 2018, 01:01
The government has acted on all but one of Matthew Taylor’s 53 recommendations. It rejected his proposals to reduce the difference between the National Insurance contributions of employees and the self-employed following Budget 2016 and subsequently have no plans to revisit the issue.

:laugh

RokkieContract
27th June 2018, 12:33
Rachel Reeves MP Labour (Leeds West) and Lord Taylor are currently on LBC lobbying for bringing the Taylor review into fruition.

They want people to be labelled workers by default and leave it to the employer to prove otherwise.

Its more so than that, there is a underlying movement that wants all corporate slaves, debt bondage, exploitation. The Taylor report in its own words is full of contradictions.

"Tackling exploitation and the potential for exploitation at work". - I see that a lot of you need this review due to being exploited by your masters. At £250-£3k a day there is exploitation going on at an industrial level.

"Increasing clarity in the law and helping people know and exercise their rights;" - Let us ignore written contracts which is the basis of our legal system and look through them and try and work out what really means, lets just do away with UK contacts completely. No contract really means what is written anyway, right ?

"Over the longer term, aligning the incentives driving the nature of our labour market with our modern industrial strategy and broader national objectives" - we need corporate slaves post Brexit, this will help tackle those rouge elements in our labour market.

HMRC never go after the 500k I would estimate undocumented builders, Gardners and other companies that are operating in the UK economy. Anyone who is legitimate is the easiest target, so lets just squeeze those compliant individuals some more. At the top end the hedge fund traders and the like squirrel away huge amounts offshore, never catch the eye of anyone. The large accountancy companies come up with super aggressive tax schemes, the Chinese sell goods to the Uk Vat, tax and duty free... but lets not worry about those, when we can squeeze the compliant individuals a lot more as they are easier targets and will just comply.