+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment (/showthread.php?tid=4089)
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Medway Blue - 21st September 2011
Sometimes even the best/quickest are left wondering when the next job will start. ?67.50 is better than watching Jeremy Kyle all day!
Terms......hmmmm......you cheque is in the post, promise!
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Martin Locock - 21st September 2011
I'd be interested to see the contracts that are being issued to freelancers: any chance you could post one, anonymised of course.
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Unitof1 - 21st September 2011
In November the IfA Council meet to decide the IfA salary minima for next year. Hosty in most years tries the same publicity trick. And every year they end up talking about Unions.
The thing is that the salaries, (if that’s what they should be called) that they are most concerned about are those paid to people who work in the field. The majority of these field workers who work in the field are not members where as most members work around the field.
This so called “self employment policy statement” by ify just shows the attitude of ify members is to make self employed archaeologists who work in the field(workers) unable to negotiate fees unconnected to what the employers pay their employees. The effect of this is to make the position one of employment in the eyes of the inland revenue and so therefore the position of “self employment” untenable unless you can clearly show your independence. For some odd reason ify have no problem with this for “specialists”. Is it because they work around the field like most of the members? There is a catch 22 and which way it falls I have no idea and that is that a person by making the statement to the inland revenue that they are an archaeologist is self fulfilling and so may charge for the services of an archaeologist-what ever that is. And there in lies crux-what are the services of an archaeologist. Who defines that? I claim to the inland revenue that it is independence.
This is what bamboozlement ify have come up with and note that it is directed at self-employed “members” and you have a lot of them out digging dont you.
Quote:[SIZE=3]Responsibility of IfA self-employed members
In order to meet IfA minimum salaries, self-employed members should remember to include the appropriate uplift to the minimum salary for their grade to compensate for lack of sick pay, paid annual leave and employers’ pension contribution.
[/SIZE]
Up yours. Would ify care to state which Principle of their worthless codes this statement is based on.
Quote:[SIZE=3]Unit, I don't understand your last point - what sort of statement were you hoping for?[/SIZE]
Anybody who is self employed should automatically have the right to be a full member of ify, no subs required.
Self employed archaeologists should set up their own association of field archaeologists. Something like Association of independent field archaeologists.
AIFA
Principle 1 Independence.
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Martin Locock - 21st September 2011
"Anybody who is self employed should automatically have the right to be a full member of ify, no subs required."
Thanks for clarifying. But surely subs to a professional body are a legitimate business expense and so are written off for tax purposes anyway?
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Unitof1 - 21st September 2011
and are passed on to the client so that ups your price against archaeologists that are not members
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Martin Locock - 21st September 2011
Good point: so roll on chartership so that it's a level playing field.
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Unitof1 - 21st September 2011
anything that recognises archaeologists as an individual for tax purposes
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Martin Locock - 21st September 2011
I agree with Unit that the IfA statement heads into murky waters when it tries to rule on what terms a freelancer might agree to - I understand that the policy is aimed at employers' expectations of what they should be paying, but even so it seems bizarre to stop people charging less if they want to, for whatever reason. However, as Medway Blue has implied, if the figure of ?64.50/day were not stated as a fixed point of some kind, freelancers could become stuck in a race to the bottom of who could charge the least. I hope that the Self Employment working party included representatives of the whole range of self employed archaeologists and will look carefully at the impact of its policy.
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Wax - 21st September 2011
I find myself agreeing with Martin and Unit of 1 . The IFA statement appears to be more a statement on how employers should deal with those who are self employed rather than a policy for those who are self employed . Unit is right the key definition of self employed is independence which means charging what ever you as an individual see fit (or the market can handle). That said many archeologists have been forced down the route of self employment by various organisations trying to cut costs it is still cheaper for them to take on individuals at ?100 a day than to take on employees with all the benefits they have. Should anyone be a self employed digger? ( I discount those with a higher skills set who can hire themselves out for watching briefs etc).
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Dinosaur - 21st September 2011
Martin Locock Wrote:Good point: so roll on chartership so that it's a level playing field.
....except for those that aren't members?......:face-stir: