• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Collective bargaining

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
    I'd be quite happy to take tuition from you on this issue, but in contrast, I guess you'd not be interested in learning about IBM mainframe issues.
    'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by JohntheBike;2661044 What many people are unaware of is that those[B
      Unix and Windows servers that they delight in using are often hosted by an IBM mainframe emulating such platforms.[/B]

      I discovered this when working for Ford in Cologne many years ago. The technology, originally called VM370 had been developed in the late 1960's by IBM and I'd had some exposure to the technology in the early 1970's when one physical mainframe was hosting two different types of IBM mainframe operating systems. During my 20 year absence from the IBM mainframe environment, clearly further operating systems were emulated. My current client uses 16 different LPARS, all hosted on one IBM mainframe, which also provides numerous other LPARS to a variety of clients.
      really? Z/VM running windows?? RHEL yes, IBM Unix System Services, yes.
      anything else, no.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by BR14 View Post
        really? Z/VM running windows?? RHEL yes, IBM Unix System Services, yes.
        anything else, no.
        Perhaps I mis-understood my German colleagues then.

        edit -

        So a modern System z mainframe “emulates” a hardware architecture— one that has never even existed as wires and silicon. The IBM Personal/370, Personal/390, and Multiprise systems of the ’90s combined varying levels of hardware emulation with OS/2-based services (mainly for I/O processing).

        OS/2 is a series of computer operating systems, initially created by Microsoft and IBM under the leadership of IBM software designer Ed Iacobucci.[2] As a result of a feud between the two companies over how to position OS/2 relative to Microsoft's new Windows 3.1 operating environment,[3] the two companies severed the relationship in 1992 and OS/2 development fell to IBM exclusively.[4] The name stands for "Operating System/2", because it was introduced as part of the same generation change release as IBM's "Personal System/2 (PS/2)" line of second-generation personal computers. The first version of OS/2 was released in December 1987 and newer versions were released until December 2001.

        OS/2 was intended as a protected-mode successor of PC DOS. Notably, basic system calls were modeled after MS-DOS calls; their names even started with "Dos" and it was possible to create "Family Mode" applications – text mode applications that could work on both systems.[5] Because of this heritage, OS/2 shares similarities with Unix, Xenix, and Windows NT.

        IBM discontinued its support for OS/2 on 31 December 2006.[6] Since then, it has been updated, maintained and marketed under the name eComStation. In 2015 it was announced[7] that a new OEM distribution of OS/2 would be released that was to be called ArcaOS.[8] ArcaOS is available for purchase.[9]

        so perhaps what my German colleagues were saying is that ZoS is capable of emulating Windows rather than it was actually doing so commercially.
        Last edited by JohntheBike; 10 July 2019, 13:38.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
          Perhaps I mis-understood my German colleagues then.

          edit -

          So a modern System z mainframe “emulates” a hardware architecture— one that has never even existed as wires and silicon. The IBM Personal/370, Personal/390, and Multiprise systems of the ’90s combined varying levels of hardware emulation with OS/2-based services (mainly for I/O processing).

          OS/2 is a series of computer operating systems, initially created by Microsoft and IBM under the leadership of IBM software designer Ed Iacobucci.[2] As a result of a feud between the two companies over how to position OS/2 relative to Microsoft's new Windows 3.1 operating environment,[3] the two companies severed the relationship in 1992 and OS/2 development fell to IBM exclusively.[4] The name stands for "Operating System/2", because it was introduced as part of the same generation change release as IBM's "Personal System/2 (PS/2)" line of second-generation personal computers. The first version of OS/2 was released in December 1987 and newer versions were released until December 2001.

          OS/2 was intended as a protected-mode successor of PC DOS. Notably, basic system calls were modeled after MS-DOS calls; their names even started with "Dos" and it was possible to create "Family Mode" applications – text mode applications that could work on both systems.[5] Because of this heritage, OS/2 shares similarities with Unix, Xenix, and Windows NT.

          IBM discontinued its support for OS/2 on 31 December 2006.[6] Since then, it has been updated, maintained and marketed under the name eComStation. In 2015 it was announced[7] that a new OEM distribution of OS/2 would be released that was to be called ArcaOS.[8] ArcaOS is available for purchase.[9]

          so perhaps what my German colleagues were saying is that ZoS is capable of emulating Windows rather than it was actually doing so commercially.
          there's a clue there. 'PC' operating system. it Never ran on a mainframe.

          i guess you know as much about IBM mainframes as you do about everything else.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by BR14 View Post
            there's a clue there. 'PC' operating system. it Never ran on a mainframe.

            i guess you know as much about IBM mainframes as you do about everything else.
            well I know the difference between ASCII and EBCDIC and the implications of how data is transferred between such platforms. Do you?

            Comment


              #36
              Meanwhile, on Planet Real ....

              As has been said elsewhere in this sub head of threads, the CUK posting community and the larger contracting community share little common ground when it comes to taking control of their own situation and not being led by the Judas goat to a sticky end.

              The first time IR35 appeared, we saw the rise and rise of loan schemes and spin offs and that is not ending well.

              We see public sector reform producing inconsistent and often incoherent results with people doing what might appear to be the same job being designated differently from each other.

              Private sector reforms promise the same.

              I predict that we will see the rise of new schemes but this time around they will be harder to spot, be hidden in opaque structures and in some cases will be driven by end clients, especially those close to the "small" thresholds.
              Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

              (No, me neither).

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by webberg View Post
                Meanwhile, on Planet Real ....

                As has been said elsewhere in this sub head of threads, the CUK posting community and the larger contracting community share little common ground when it comes to taking control of their own situation and not being led by the Judas goat to a sticky end.

                The first time IR35 appeared, we saw the rise and rise of loan schemes and spin offs and that is not ending well.

                We see public sector reform producing inconsistent and often incoherent results with people doing what might appear to be the same job being designated differently from each other.

                Private sector reforms promise the same.

                I predict that we will see the rise of new schemes but this time around they will be harder to spot, be hidden in opaque structures and in some cases will be driven by end clients, especially those close to the "small" thresholds.
                yes, I guess this is as good an opinion as any other.

                Comment


                  #38
                  I started this thread thinking that if enough contractors got their head around this issue and managed to see the bigger picture and be willing to lead and not be led, then there was a once in a generation opportunity for contractors to take back some control over their situation.

                  I think I see now that there is little appetite for this.

                  We can speculate on why that is but as a non contracting observer, I'll offer my view.

                  1. Many contractors manage to hold two conflicting views simultaneously. They like to think of themselves as independent specialists and experts who can dictate the manner in which they work (when, how, where, what) but are also happy to conform to established industry norms in terms of agencies because to do otherwise is rocking the boat.

                  2. The power of the end client - often exercised via a tied agency - is huge. Many contractors are wary of asserting their leverage against these entities.

                  3. There is a significant population of contractors who have been with one end client for considerable periods and "trust" that they will be looked after as we enter a new reform phase.

                  4. Contractors are expert in their chosen field and expect others who claim expertise to be the same. To their detriment and my embarrassment there are many who fail to meet the required level of expertise or trustworthiness. However, hope seems to triumph over experience here and many contractors continue to place reliance upon experts but do not want to undertake even the shallowest of due diligence on them.

                  5. Many contractors regard business admin, tax, finance, accounts, bookkeeping and all the other tasks associated with the structure of a business as a necessary evil, to be undertaken only at the last minute and at the lowest cost possible in terms of time and money.

                  6. Many contractors will choose an obviously inferior product or service over a better quality one, for the narrowest of margins. That is not unusual in itself and probably happens in all businesses. However, ponder on how that position is reflected in the relationship between a contractor and their client. There I suspect the contractor considers that the end client is getting a bargain price but a quality product.

                  I'm not disheartened by the above. Rather I suspect that much of this I knew but am now forced to admit.

                  In the coming months and years, we will continue to push for transparency and openness in all interactions between contractors and those servicing their needs. Only by understanding risk/reward can contractors avoid the sort of nightmare caused by tax enquiries and the like.

                  Unfortunately HMRC has a pre populated list of "suspects" for IR35 status enquiries and I for one have no confidence that promises of a light touch here are worth anything.

                  Once we are past that, I can see a new wave of IR35 enquiries, this time into end client practices - an extension of all of this to small companies - and perhaps in a couple of decades the end of self employment.

                  Thank you all for the contributions.
                  Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

                  (No, me neither).

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by webberg View Post
                    I started this thread thinking that if enough contractors got their head around this issue and managed to see the bigger picture and be willing to lead and not be led, then there was a once in a generation opportunity for contractors to take back some control over their situation.

                    I think I see now that there is little appetite for this.

                    We can speculate on why that is but as a non contracting observer, I'll offer my view.

                    1. Many contractors manage to hold two conflicting views simultaneously. They like to think of themselves as independent specialists and experts who can dictate the manner in which they work (when, how, where, what) but are also happy to conform to established industry norms in terms of agencies because to do otherwise is rocking the boat.

                    2. The power of the end client - often exercised via a tied agency - is huge. Many contractors are wary of asserting their leverage against these entities.

                    3. There is a significant population of contractors who have been with one end client for considerable periods and "trust" that they will be looked after as we enter a new reform phase.

                    4. Contractors are expert in their chosen field and expect others who claim expertise to be the same. To their detriment and my embarrassment there are many who fail to meet the required level of expertise or trustworthiness. However, hope seems to triumph over experience here and many contractors continue to place reliance upon experts but do not want to undertake even the shallowest of due diligence on them.

                    5. Many contractors regard business admin, tax, finance, accounts, bookkeeping and all the other tasks associated with the structure of a business as a necessary evil, to be undertaken only at the last minute and at the lowest cost possible in terms of time and money.

                    6. Many contractors will choose an obviously inferior product or service over a better quality one, for the narrowest of margins. That is not unusual in itself and probably happens in all businesses. However, ponder on how that position is reflected in the relationship between a contractor and their client. There I suspect the contractor considers that the end client is getting a bargain price but a quality product.

                    I'm not disheartened by the above. Rather I suspect that much of this I knew but am now forced to admit.

                    In the coming months and years, we will continue to push for transparency and openness in all interactions between contractors and those servicing their needs. Only by understanding risk/reward can contractors avoid the sort of nightmare caused by tax enquiries and the like.

                    Unfortunately HMRC has a pre populated list of "suspects" for IR35 status enquiries and I for one have no confidence that promises of a light touch here are worth anything.

                    Once we are past that, I can see a new wave of IR35 enquiries, this time into end client practices - an extension of all of this to small companies - and perhaps in a couple of decades the end of self employment.

                    Thank you all for the contributions.
                    Generally I agree with what you say, and I do believe, like many others, that HMRC's end goal is to eliminate self employment altogether.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by JohntheBike View Post
                      Generally I agree with what you say, and I do believe, like many others, that HMRC's end goal is to eliminate self employment altogether.
                      I think they want to decide how much tax anyone pays.

                      Luckily in the UK there has to be a set of rules which can be challenged in court. Though HMRC only get pulled up in a few cases as fighting them is too expensive.

                      What it really needs is far fewer rules that are more clearly written. I do have a funny story to tell on that - sadly can't be posted publicly.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X