Do you Opt Out?

[raphal]

I used to go by what an agency suggested (90% of contractors opt out). After visiting this forum I understood the benefits of opt in. For my last contract I insisted that I wanted to opt in, but agency told me they would not release my contract unless I sign opt out. All the conversations on this happened over phone. Asked them for an email mentioning why they think I should opt out, which I never got. I did not want to lose the contract so I had to opt out.

[eek]

I used to go by what an agency suggested (90% of contractors opt out). After visiting this forum I understood the benefits of opt in. For my last contract I insisted that I wanted to opt in, but agency told me they would not release my contract unless I sign opt out. All the conversations on this happened over phone. Asked them for an email mentioning why they think I should opt out, which I never got. I did not want to lose the contract so I had to opt out.

To which the reply should have been

1) don't worry I have copious notes from these phone calls so won't have any problem documenting your by-passing of the law in my complaint.

or 2) sign the contract and send a second email revoking the opt out as soon as they confirm return the fully signed contract...

[malvolio]

I never volunteer to, but when it's clear that it's an "opt out or don't actually get submitted" I do.

Yes the agents aren't allowed to, but let's face it not only do we lack a way to enforce the rules, but they can easily claim that there were better candidates so it's a total farce.

If only the stupid opt out hadn't been negotiated in the first place we wouldn't have been saddled with this particular mess for years.

I wonder which organisation was responsible for having the opt out put in to the legislation?

We all know that, but it was (and is) for valid commercial reasons for contractors who use subbies or their own staff. It's the agencies that have perverted it and BIS that refuse to enforce the law.

[Bones]

I am really shocked at the number of people who casually buckle and sign the opt out!! All they are doing is adding to the pimps statistics that claim 'most contractors opt out' and therefore so should you!
It is the principle of protecting the rights for all thats most important not spinelessly caving in when the pimp says jump.

[northernladuk]

I am really shocked at the number of people who casually buckle and sign the opt out!! All they are doing is adding to the pimps statistics that claim 'most contractors opt out' and therefore so should you!
It is the principle of protecting the rights for all thats most important not spinelessly caving in when the pimp says jump.

I think you are wrong. All the people that have responded are experienced contractors and have made a decision based on a good understanding of the situation. They are not being spineless and caving. If you want a group of people to pick on go for the contractors that don't engage in this forum, don't have a clue about IR35 and probably don't even know what opt out means.

[Contreras]

it was (and is) for valid commercial reasons for contractors who use subbies or their own staff.

Is that really the reason why the PCG gave us the opt-out?

Is there any official guidance on that (other than hearsay)?

I had hoped to read something about it in PCG's guide to the agency regs.. If the opt-out exists specifically "for contractors who use subbies or their own staff" then one could presume that the disadvantages of opting out in such circumstances would be discussed there.

[tractor]

...

We all know that, but it was (and is) for valid commercial reasons for contractors who use subbies or their own staff. It's the agencies that have perverted it and BIS that refuse to enforce the law.

You really do need to stop making these random statements! The conduct Regs are completely silent on the matter of subsitution.

None of the above in Malvolio's statement is true! I am interested Mal, are you on the CC or are you just a misinformed member?

If anyone who is a PCG member wants to know why what Mal is saying is Bull go take a look at PCG forums during this week. There's not much activity there so the discussion should be easy to find.

[tractor]

.....

I think you are wrong. All the people that have responded are experienced contractors and have made a decision based on a good understanding of the situation. They are not being spineless and caving. If you want a group of people to pick on go for the contractors that don't engage in this forum, don't have a clue about IR35 and probably don't even know what opt out means.

I agree entirely. The reason for my posting the poll is because I can get no valid information even from the PCG. That may change.

It's a shame you cannot have a poll without discussion because I really only wanted the numbers, not the reasoning. I would not presume to advise anyone on their business model if their mind was already made up.

[tractor]

...

Is that really the reason why the PCG gave us the opt-out?

Is there any official guidance on that (other than hearsay)?

I had hoped to read something about it in PCG's guide to the agency regs.. If the opt-out exists specifically "for contractors who use subbies or their own staff" then one could presume that the disadvantages of opting out in such circumstances would be discussed there.

PCG didn't give us the opt out. The predecessor of the BIS did. Whilst the PCG did make representations, they were ignored at the final hurdle.

[malvolio]

You really do need to stop making these random statements! The conduct Regs are completely silent on the matter of subsitution.

None of the above in Malvolio's statement is true! I am interested Mal, are you on the CC or are you just a misinformed member?

If anyone who is a PCG member wants to know why what Mal is saying is Bull go take a look at PCG forums during this week. There's not much activity there so the discussion should be easy to find.

I didn't say anything about substitution. Not everyone is a one man band, there are plenty of people out there in partnerships , with their own staff or using sub-contractors who do not want to be bound to the Agency Regulations which is what would happen if there wasn't an opt out. Would you want to run a business where you would have to pay everyone before you got paid yourself, or have a means to prevent your people decamping to the client and taking over your business? Since the scope of the Regs was so broad, the ability for them not to apply was necessary.

As I said, it is the agencies that are misusing it, nobody else.