HSBC contractors to be inside IR35

[DeludedKitten]

Time will tell if these regulations will have an effect on the issues. All I've attempted to say is that they might have an effect.

If you are an employee or worker then the payslip regulations apply. If you are not then they do not.

If you demand your payslip because it's your right, then you are asserting that you are either a worker or an employee.

For the majority of us, the payslip regulations are irrelevant because we are not workers and we are not employees.

[JohntheBike]

[QUOTE=DeludedKitten;2639221]

"If you demand your payslip because it's your right, then you are asserting that you are either a worker or an employee."

The client will be deciding your employment status.

"For the majority of us, the payslip regulations are irrelevant because we are not workers and we are not employees."

until the client determines that you are a disguised employee.

The point being is that if any client determines that an engagement is inside IR35 from next year, that "disguised employee" could ask for a payslip. So the clients will need to prepare for that possibility which may be a factor which encourages them not to blanket assess their contractors.

[ShandyDrinker]

Conscionable? Fair??

It's business! Not a good business for contractors, but business none the less.

Feck me, a few pennies may finally be dropping for the 2+ year permietractors in these places...

I agree with you about the business side and the permietractors comment. In one of the more recent places I contracted in a handful of longish term contractors went perm overnight when the original private sector rollout was mooted.

People whining about fairness per the comment in the original article isn't my concern. My concern is blanket assessments, as has been in evidence in the public sector, despite what the consultation may say about blanket assessments being against the legislation. The object of the exercise is still to get people onto the payroll or inside IR35, regardless of the reality of the situation.

As I believe end clients and agencies have been remarkably quiet on what they intend to do post April 2020, rumours leaking out from a company such as HSBC only serves to reinforce my belief that blanket assessments will become the norm.

Roles in the public sector are now routinely advertised as being outside IR35. Even roles at HMRC.

I'll take a large folding-money bet that HSBC do the same in a few years, once all their best people walk out and they're left with the dross to complete their critical projects.

I am sure that HMRC will be getting their own house in order prior to the April 2020 private sector rollout and ensuring they have no outside IR35 contractors so they can't be accused of hypocrisy.

[JohntheBike]

"I am sure that HMRC will be getting their own house in order prior to the April 2020 private sector rollout and ensuring they have no outside IR35 contractors so they can't be accused of hypocrisy"

I agree, and even if they were, they'd just ignore any criticisms, evidenced by Mel Stride's stance in the debate in the HoC over the loan charge.

[DeludedKitten]

[QUOTE=JohntheBike;2639241]

"If you demand your payslip because it's your right, then you are asserting that you are either a worker or an employee."

The client will be deciding your employment status.

"For the majority of us, the payslip regulations are irrelevant because we are not workers and we are not employees."

until the client determines that you are a disguised employee.

The point being is that if any client determines that an engagement is inside IR35 from next year, that "disguised employee" could ask for a payslip. So the clients will need to prepare for that possibility which may be a factor which encourages them not to blanket assess their contractors.

Even if the client (or anyone, for that matter) decides that you are inside IR35 that does not necessarily make you an employee or a worker - you would need to go to a tribunal to prove that.

So the "disguised employee" could ask for a payslip (as they can now) but the client is under no legal obligation to give them one until they are proven to be a worker or an employee.

If you go to tribunal and prove that you are a worker or employee and you asked for a payslip and they did not give you one then they may get into trouble for that, but I doubt that any significant penalty would be applied to the client for not giving you a payslip when the legal requirements were unclear.

The payslip regulations only apply if you are a worker or an employee. They do not necessarily apply if you are inside IR35 because tax status and employment status do not align. The payslip regulations can only come into things if you ask for one, you are denied one, and you go to tribunal and are found to be a worker or employee. Other than that, they are totally irrelevant.

[jmo21]

[QUOTE=DeludedKitten;2639482]

Even if the client (or anyone, for that matter) decides that you are inside IR35 that does not necessarily make you an employee or a worker - you would need to go to a tribunal to prove that.

So the "disguised employee" could ask for a payslip (as they can now) but the client is under no legal obligation to give them one until they are proven to be a worker or an employee.

If you go to tribunal and prove that you are a worker or employee and you asked for a payslip and they did not give you one then they may get into trouble for that, but I doubt that any significant penalty would be applied to the client for not giving you a payslip when the legal requirements were unclear.

The payslip regulations only apply if you are a worker or an employee. They do not necessarily apply if you are inside IR35 because tax status and employment status do not align. The payslip regulations can only come into things if you ask for one, you are denied one, and you go to tribunal and are found to be a worker or employee. Other than that, they are totally irrelevant.

I believe the point he is making is that this should be enough to stop HSBC blanket assessing everyone as it may lead to employment claims.

[PerfectStorm]

Nothing to stop them offering new contracts with increased dayrates, which is what I suspect will happen in some cases.

As to HSBC themselves, well.... when you've got towers full of contractors you have to ask yourself who the perms actually are

[TwoWolves]

I interviewed with them for a Scala/Akka role, quite advanced requirements. Got an offer but the drive to the face-to-face was hell so I rejected as I couldn't really do the commute after all.

They are going to struggle to fill seats on their out-of-london gigs.

[BoredBloke]

I interviewed with them for a Scala/Akka role, quite advanced requirements. Got an offer but the drive to the face-to-face was hell so I rejected as I couldn't really do the commute after all.

They are going to struggle to fill seats on their out-of-london gigs.

Especially when they have a line in their contract stating that contractors can only bill a maximum of 220 days per year - that equates to having to take 2 full months off. Also for the role I was offered the background checks took a full 4 weeks after the interview - and it took them 2 weeks to arrange the interview!

[northernladuk]

Especially when they have a line in their contract stating that contractors can only bill a maximum of 220 days per year - that equates to having to take 2 full months off. Also for the role I was offered the background checks took a full 4 weeks after the interview - and it took them 2 weeks to arrange the interview!

It's not as bad as that though as there a number of factors to consider which generally means the 220 days is fairly irrelevant.

There are 253 working days this year
You take say 20 days a year leaving 233
If you are in finance you are like to have an xmas furlough of up to say 13 days leaving 220

There is also the assumption you'll be there for a year. I'd much rather be on a year long 220 day gig than a 6 mother and potential time on the bench. Could very easily end up billing less than 220 days with gaps between gigs

I've not been anywhere that hasn't been flexible with the rule depending on what you are working on.

So I don't think the 220 day is as big a factor on many gigs. Certainly not a decision point I've had to use.

And all that said. We obviously hate taking time off voluntarily but when there is no choice I find I enjoy the time of much more. I'm not technically losing billing time if it's enforced