Banks and 12 / 24 month termination

[Oliver6634]

Hi Guys,

Can someone tell me why the banks incorporate a ruling whereby any contractor onsite for 12 / 24 months or longer must be terminated and not allowed to return in the future?

Is this an internal policy (if so why) or legislation (worried about contractors claiming employment rights after a certain amount of time).

Please help if you can as I am about to ne confronted with this issue?

Thanks,


Oliver6634

[BlasterBates]

I did hear something along these lines, through a tel. interview, i.e. did it worry me, but I can't remember the circumstances. I assumed it was one of these rules that would get sidelined, so would be interesting to know what is happening. I suspect there are always exceptions. So if they can't do without you they won't. Otherwise just plan for the 12/24 months. Not hiring ever again sounds a bit extreme. On the good side, there will be plenty of jobs as they'll have to replace all those contractors. So you need to identify about 10-20 banks and work your way through them.

[HairyArsedBloke]

I suppose that's an original way of justifying "We can't source anybody from the UK; can we have some more work permits?"

[BolshieBastard]

My last international banking client is introducing a 47 week on site rule. God knows why though.

Can only think its HR getting the jitters contractors who may be IR35 caught would sue for employee benefits and, getting rid of people after 47 weeks(!?) somehow negates that.

[LegendsWear7]

Heard this from London agent this morning.

Another point for Tata Computer Services

[northernladuk]

It is supposed to be something to do with difference between contractor and permie and tax situation or something but I hear thats a load of codswallop and its HR's that have got it wrong. I have been to a number of gigs with 24 week rule, banking and others.

They do enforce it most of the time but the way round it is to put you through which ever managed service account is working with the client to get you off headcount so away from this rule.

[HeadOfTesting]

not all banks do this though

[TheFaQQer]

Can someone tell me why the banks incorporate a ruling whereby any contractor onsite for 12 / 24 months or longer must be terminated and not allowed to return in the future?

Because they don't understand the law. They don't understand the 24 month rule. Some time back there was a temp who claimed unfair dismissal and argued that he was an employee and won. Some clients are worried that contractors will be deemed employees based on the length of time they are there, because they are stupid.

[OwlHoot]

Because they don't understand the law. They don't understand the 24 month rule. Some time back there was a temp who claimed unfair dismissal and argued that he was an employee and won. Some clients are worried that contractors will be deemed employees based on the length of time they are there, because they are stupid.

OTOH, the way this Government is increasingly encouraging retrospective tax rulings, and supposedly have banks in their sights, one can't blame the banks for turning paranoid.