+- 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: Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. (/showthread.php?tid=5278)
Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. - P Prentice - 6th May 2014
i would suggest asking for tenders to excavate (in accordance with the wsi) a given part of the site based on the evaluation
Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. - Wax - 6th May 2014
Perhaps there should also be a wider debate on some of the other dodgy employment practices some units are indulging in? 0 hours contracts, rolling contracts terminated just before employment rights kick in, the instance on workers registering and being employed through an agency along with the increasingly common "self employment" ( interesting article in the Guardian on what self employment means " last act of desperation for job seekers artificially keeping the unemployment figures down")
What is the chartered IFA,s stand on all this?
Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. - Mike.T. - 6th May 2014
and companies that get rid of staff before Bank holidays only to rehire them again directly after, or make staff pay for very poor accommodation, etc, etc, etc.
I'd rather work the so called bogus Self employed route than for a company that has no or very poor standards, and there are plenty out there.
Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. - Marc Berger - 6th May 2014
Possibly they should be named in the wsi if not co-authors of it.
Maybe Mike/Wax employment rights don't stack up for anybody who calls themselves an archaeologist working on a site which has a finite life expectancy. there has always been place of work, travel to site and travel time to site conflicts. Keep working the self employed route, it's not bogus so long as you hold on to the fact that no one else can produce your archaeology. It would be interesting to See Hmrc turn that argument around.
Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. - Wax - 7th May 2014
I have no problem with self employment when it is genuinely that, the test is the HMRC guidelines. I have worked as a digger applying those guidelines and it is possible. In this part of the country we have several one man bands who get together with other self employed archaeologist to tender for jobs then disband at the end of the work. They are not a cheap option but have good reputations and tackle some of the small but complex jobs bigger units or single self employed would not go for. i wonder if the Avon job is this sort of set up?
Without the self assessment tax code the company contracting you will have difficulty with its records being unable to prove to HMRC that you are self employed. As for insurance again if you don't have this and the contractor is not asking for evidence that you do then apart from the risks you are putting yourself into you must ask if this is genuine self employment.
Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. - Marc Berger - 7th May 2014
I Wax agree that you can work as a digger under HMRC guidelines but you are just making it more troublesome if you get contracts through employment adverts which have employment terms in them. Could you say what guidelines that you were able to meet as a "digger". I definitely think that the one man bands banding together is an important model for the future of archaeology.
Although I agree that if you have some form of insurance it helps qualify somebody as self employed where I struggle with insurance is what is it for? particularly public. The fact is that it is not my land that I might be working on. Most owners have public liability as part of their buildings insurance and if I trip over their archaeology I would image that they would be my first line of inquiry. If anything any digger going onto somebody else's land should inquire if the landowners have any insurance. Where you take out health/life insurance is really not about being an archaeologist.
Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. - Wax - 7th May 2014
The HMRCs guidelines are quite clear and if you negotiate the terms and conditions under which you work then provide an invoice when that work is finished I see no problem. It's the level to which you can negotiate that determines whether you are self employed or not.
I would agree that in general basic digging would not often fall into the catagory of self employed but when you are experienced and skills are in demand it is surprising how flexible prospective clients can be.
As for insurance if you are responsible for digging a hole that some member of the public falls into then I doubt whether the land owners insurance would come into it at all. And may the gods help you if that machine you are supervising cuts a major service.
If you are truely self employed then you are responsible for the insurance side of things and a client who is taking you on real self employment terms will (should) check.
Like many here I think that most adverts for selfemployed diggers are from companies trying to avoid the hassle of taking on short term staff. My stints of selfemployment have not be in response to adverts but rather through a base of regular clients and contacts, people who need projects undertaken know what I can do and are willing to negotiate.
Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. - BAJR - 7th May 2014
Quote:Regardless of Marc's odd idea of tax status I do find this type of job advert pretty unacceptable. No specific pay rate is mentioned, only a figure between a couple of BAJR rates.Apart from I had asked them to remove the rates they offer, as it is up to the individual ho much they wish to charge themselves out at. I can't have self employed rates... that is up to you. Though it has oft been repeated that self employed rate should be around 1.6 [at least] what an employed rate is. ie a digger should be starting at a minimum of about 100 upwards plus be asking about expenses - stuff that a real SE would know - my rates are anywhere between £155 - £250 pd depending on what is asked of me. )
It is unfortunate that people are using the word "advert" and that I provide a "job service". hence it is clear beyond all doubt the status of the individual who is being asked to talk to the client. where they will ( as grown ups) negotiate their rate.
This is a hoary old chestnut. and there is even a BAJR guide about it.
There is nothing illegal about it and happens rarely now. If you want to talk to the client, then talk to them and tell them what your day rate is, and negotiate your contract. If you can't do that./ then don't
Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. - BAJR - 7th May 2014
Quote:employment adverts which have employment terms in them.
THIS IS NOT AN EMPLOYMENT ADVERT... it is an invitation for self employed individuals who wish to carry out archaeological work with someone else winning jobs. Self employed people should know the ropes.
http://www.archaeologists.net/practices/selfemployment
please read that as well.
Nudge in the direction for the definition of a selfemployed archaeologist. - Mike.T. - 7th May 2014
Marc Berger Wrote:Possibly they should be named in the wsi if not co-authors of it.
Maybe Mike/Wax employment rights don't stack up for anybody who calls themselves an archaeologist working on a site which has a finite life expectancy. there has always been place of work, travel to site and travel time to site conflicts. Keep working the self employed route, it's not bogus so long as you hold on to the fact that no one else can produce your archaeology. It would be interesting to See Hmrc turn that argument around.
I wasn't being serious about the self employed work being bogus. I've worked several times as self employed under similar conditions as stipulated in the controversial advert and as far as the HMRC was concerned it was legit and yes I was actually self employed, I'm guessing they know more about it than anyone. I actually managed to make some money, paid my tax and NIC's and enjoyed it more than being stuck on a payroll.