Agency Workers Directive

[Rob Crossland]

Originally Posted by JeffreyC

How will it affect us? They are already employees with full employee rights (unless you treat yours any different)

And yes we provide FULL employment rights - have spent months trying to educate BIS (was BERR).

[The SMG]

Originally Posted by Rob Crossland

AWD is not only about rights - after 12 weeks (as currently drafted) a contractor (excludes Ltd Co contractor) has to be compared with a permie equivalent and a number of terms adjusted (potentially). Let's imagine a support analyst on £13 per hour - after 12 weeks he/she could have salary adjusted and benefits changed. Imagine that the perm equivalent receives £15 per hour and a pension benefit.. who will fund that difference?

Do you think they've actually considered how a permie might feel, after having worked in a company for many years to then be equaled (benefits wise) by a temporary worker just three months into their contract?

Also, I thought the consultation period had finished - wasn't it 31st July 2009?

[Rob Crossland]

Originally Posted by The SMG

Do you think they've actually considered how a permie might feel, after having worked in a company for many years to then be equaled (benefits wise) by a temporary worker just three months into their contract?

Also, I thought the consultation period had finished - wasn't it 31st July 2009?

This is EU legislation - it's coming - it is simply when and in what form the UK adopt it but won't be materially different. Starting point from our friends in the EU is that "you" (contractors) are vulnerable and need protecting! The form of flexible working we have in the UK is not as widely accepted nor understood in EU and is often seen as exploitation.

There are 2 consultation periods - you have until 31st Jul and then a further consultation based on that thereafter.

Worse case it comes in October 2009, medium case before next Gen Election (GB has promised unions it will come in) and has to be in by 2011.

[The SMG]

Originally Posted by Rob Crossland

Gen Election (GB has promised unions it will come in) and has to be in by 2011.

b1oody Brown and his Socialist preferences. I say scr3w the unions and get Blair back in power. Better still, vote Tory at the next General Election - come on the Blues!

G

[Bel]

Originally Posted by The SMG

Do you think they've actually considered how a permie might feel, after having worked in a company for many years to then be equaled (benefits wise) by a temporary worker just three months into their contract?

Also, I thought the consultation period had finished - wasn't it 31st July 2009?

My interepretation of the AWD is to discourage employers from using flexible workers. The way the EU see it is this:

(a) flexible workers only really flexi-work because they can't get a permanent job but don't get the same rights are full-time workers. So they are disadvantaged, second class citizens

(b) permanent employees feel more insecure because they could be made redundant and forced to take up flexible work that doesn't offer them the same rights as before.

(c) flexible workers want to be full time employees, but are deterred from opportunities to do this because it's easier for hirers to engage them as agency workers with few or no rights, instead of creating 'proper jobs.'

All these approaches are appropriate for lowly paid agency workers that don't get the opportunity to train, re-skill or get appropriate permanent employment.

It's inappropriate for owner managed contractors that actively choose to work this way - no matter what daily rate they negotiate. I also fail to see why work routed through a staffing agency should be considered a 'special case.' It's no different than any other route to market.

The problem is this: recruiter lobbyists have made a rod for their own back - and at owner managed contractors' expense. They've always considered contractors to be a sub-set of the 'agency temporary worker' community. Not businesses in their own right, just as they are (except when it suits their own convenience, like they have over this issue). They are ill equipped to lobby government about what's in flexible workers' own interests - because it's really tied into what's in their own industry's interests, understandably perhaps. They treat contractors like commodities not businesses. Yet they don't own contractors or even control them, even when working to end hirers.

[curleyted]

Originally Posted by The SMG

b1oody Brown and his Socialist preferences. I say scr3w the unions and get Blair back in power. Better still, vote Tory at the next General Election - come on the Blues!

G

I think the big problem you have there my mucker is that this is an EU directive, nowt to do with El Gordo and his evil plans.

[Rob Crossland]

Originally Posted by Bel

My interepretation of the AWD is to discourage employers from using flexible workers. The way the EU see it is this:

(a) flexible workers only really flexi-work because they can't get a permanent job but don't get the same rights are full-time workers. So they are disadvantaged, second class citizens

(b) permanent employees feel more insecure because they could be made redundant and forced to take up flexible work that doesn't offer them the same rights as before.

(c) flexible workers want to be full time employees, but are deterred from opportunities to do this because it's easier for hirers to engage them as agency workers with few or no rights, instead of creating 'proper jobs.'

All these approaches are appropriate for lowly paid agency workers that don't get the opportunity to train, re-skill or get appropriate permanent employment.

Those are fair assessments and the ironic point that by wanting to include Umbrella Co's - they are not understanding that we address those points.

a) We provide full rights and do not start at a high entry point.

b) Same point

c) There are now options

I am not suggesting that Umbrella is a panacea but that BIS do need to understand that not everyone is exploited and that the middle ground (the typical Umbrella space) can be good for workers.

[The SMG]

Originally Posted by Rob Crossland

Those are fair assessments and the ironic point that by wanting to include Umbrella Co's - they are not understanding that we address those points.

a) We provide full rights and do not start at a high entry point.

b) Same point

c) There are now options

I am not suggesting that Umbrella is a panacea but that BIS do need to understand that not everyone is exploited and that the middle ground (the typical Umbrella space) can be good for workers.

I'm going to ask you to put your neck on the line here Rob. What do you think the Umbrella model / setup will look like post implementation of the AWD in the UK?

[Rob Crossland]

Originally Posted by The SMG

I'm going to ask you to put your neck on the line here Rob. What do you think the Umbrella model / setup will look like post implementation of the AWD in the UK?

There are still a number of variables - I suspect that some smaller operators will struggle with the complexity and increase in effort.

The 12 week point is not cast in stone and lobbying continues - worse case it will see an initial "original" 12 week umbrella (if it stayed @ 12) and then something different post that period via a modified umbrella. The Contractor might not notice much difference if rates are higher than comparable permie or could be potentially better off if rate is lower than comparator!

I think there will be a potential increase in inside ir35 psc like structures for those contracts that are long enough to warrant the setup etc (and before Mal/PCG shouts I am talking about less than 3 months which are typical in current market).

On the positive side, we have a cunning plan so I am not doom filled (despite how this might come across) and we have a good track record of doing things the right way and are working very closely with BIS, APSco, SPA, CBI, REC and others.

The purpose of me challenging Jeffrey previously was to raise the profile a little more and suggest that we can't sit on our hands.

I know that Umbrella is not for all (Mal) and yet it provides a good structure for many people and also for people who simply don't want the hassle (in their risk / quality / hassle PERSONAL profile).

Upwards and onwards.
Rob

[Malvolio]

Actuallly I have no problems with people using umbrellas, and have said before that if you are IR35 caught (and we won't go in to the debate that most of us aren't) they are as good a way of doing things as any other. What does irk slightly is people who use Umbrellas and then complain they don't get the same freedoms as people who don't.

As for the AWD and Umbrella companies, I don't actually see much of an issue. If the umbrella is already picking up the usual responsibilities of an employer, which the good ones are, the AWD probably won't make much practical difference in real terms other than imposing a bit more of an overhead. The problem will be ensuring freelancers who don't need the protection being caught up in the same safety blanket as agency workers and other casual staff, who do.

Incidentally an EU directive is issued as a broad objective, not as an absolute rule. It's up to the sovreign state how they implement it and to what extent. UK is perfectly at liberty to correctly reflect the unique nature of the freelancer market here a compared to the rest of the EU. My fear is that they won't but will implement another one-size-fits-all nonsense.