+- 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 - Dinosaur - 23rd September 2011
Kajemby Wrote:That would be fine, if the company we both know you work for actually gave the option for SE staff to set their own hours, which we both know they don't. Don't get me wrong, they were good to work for, but lets not kid ourselves that SE staff can dictate what hours or what days they work there, as they cannot. That is dictated in the contract that is sent out before work starts.
Judging by the fairly random amounts of time that people seem to take off when they've previously committed themselves to being out digging, I'd disagree with that, the likes of myself who have gone for the pension option with a strictly restricted number of days leave PA certainly can't get away with that! And when I was SE I did actually work when I wanted and not when I didn't (and was free to turn down jobs I couldn't be a**ed with, and on numerous occasions went and worked for other units with more interesting-looking sites), its just that the best way of getting paid tended to be being on site when it was open, an archaeologist was required, and when there were actually other people there to supervise, so it all tended to end up looking like a 9-5 40hr week. Being employed certainly puts a crimp in the amount of work I can get done/days when I can't be bothered to get out of bed
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - RedEarth - 23rd September 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:Judging by the fairly random amounts of time that people seem to take off when they've previously committed themselves to being out digging, I'd disagree with that, the likes of myself who have gone for the pension option with a strictly restricted number of days leave PA certainly can't get away with that! And when I was SE I did actually work when I wanted and not when I didn't (and was free to turn down jobs I couldn't be a**ed with, and on numerous occasions went and worked for other units with more interesting-looking sites), its just that the best way of getting paid tended to be being on site when it was open, an archaeologist was required, and when there were actually other people there to supervise, so it all tended to end up looking like a 9-5 40hr week. Being employed certainly puts a crimp in the amount of work I can get done/days when I can't be bothered to get out of bed
Which sounds like a pretty good definition of self-employed compared to not, as far as I understand it!
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Unitof1 - 23rd September 2011
Red earth, bajr, martin, ify, two points
1.stop pulling this same semantic “mistake”, example:
Quote:[SIZE=3]A self-employed individual can do whatever they like, by definition, especially they don't really have any real agreement with their employer.
In terms of quality assurance, you end up with 'staff' you cannot control or discipline, working to their own methods, but for whom you are ultimately liable.
I spent a long time in a past life being treated like an employee on SE rates. rates I did not control going on sites I did not choose and working when I was told. I bust out of that over 15 years ago... thank god I had paid tax.. others had not... and suffered.. some still do! No mortage for them
[/SIZE]
If someone is self employed it is impossible for them to have an employer or to be ‘staff’. They have a client. In commercial archaeology based on the tradition of polluter pays, the client is the polluter and by rights the landowner. That other people including archaeologists may act, as agents of the polluter is irrelevant. They, including RAOs are clients. If self-employed people do not pay their taxes they are criminals. If self-employed archaeologists do not fulfil their service they are not paid.
2. Freedom to do the “job”.
Quote:[SIZE=3]A self-employed individual can do whatever they like, by definition, especially they don't really have any real agreement with their employer.It is irrelevant about when or where or how long you have to perform the service.
In terms of quality assurance, you end up with 'staff' you cannot control or discipline, working to their own methods, but for whom you are ultimately liable.
I spent a long time in a past life being treated like an employee on SE rates. rates I did not control going on sites I did not choose and working when I was told. I bust out of that over 15 years ago... thank god I had paid tax.. others had not... and suffered.. some still do! No mortage for them
[/SIZE]
The freedom is to marshal and provide to the client highly intellectual observations on deposits that the self-employed archaeologist deems to be archaeological contexts. They are selling their trust and reputation. There is a word for this but I cant remember what it is. Obviously as client you may disagree that a deposit is 10yr and that’s probably why you would “employ” volliiytrees or uneducated or inexperienced people who are not archaeologists to get the colour that you want presumably using “control or disipline”. Beware about 4.5% of the population is colour blind and the majority are men.
http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/
ify were right to point out the self employment is massively undefined in statutory law in Britain. Its almost as bad as commercial archaeology. It is still evolving at quite a rapid rate, and self-assessment is huge looming mess. But “self”-employment recognises individual responsibility which I would suggest to those in employment is a key attribute of an archaeologist who has to provide unbiased observations. That archaeologists don’t like “employing” other archaeologists is no surprise in a competitive world.
The what ever it is -statement- by ify is totally inadequate.
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Jack - 23rd September 2011
RedEarth Wrote:There's a world of difference between a company taken on to carry out work as a sub-contractor and an individual 'self-employed' archaeologist, which is what this seemed to be really about.
The company is of course going to agree to some things as part of their contract, in order to fit in with how the site is being run if nothing else - no point saying you'll all get there and start work at 7am if it's not accessible until 8 after all! Have you really seen archaeologists being told 'how to do what task they were doing'? That sounds a little unlikely as presumably the 'engineers and managers' wouldn't have a clue!
A self-employed individual can do whatever they like, by definition, especially they don't really have any real agreement with their employer. Obviously it is in their interests to do what is expected as they might find employment opportunities disappearing very quickly.
I suspect that only self-employed 'subbys' in archaeology have no special powers of freedom, although it does seem to be a trend in other professions to make people 'self-employed'.
Oo, sorry didn't mean to be misleading. I was talking about construction companies. But good point about the difference between companies and individuals.
But I still disagree with the statement 'A self-employed individual can do whatever they like, by definition, especially they don't really have any real agreement with their employer.'
If the job falls under the CDM regulations they are bound by them. They are also bound by the 'site regulations' as set out by the principal contractor. The site regulations can be anything from safety regulations, hours, to uniforms!'. Also the self-employed individual is bound by whatever contract for service (or is it to service, or is it 'agreement', can't remember) they have signed.
There are companies in other industries who also have 'self-employed staff' who have to follow the dictations of their supervisors. Try asking the digger drivers on a large construction project who they work for and if they are employed or self employed. Its a real eye-opener!
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - RedEarth - 23rd September 2011
Jack Wrote:Oo, sorry didn't mean to be misleading. I was talking about construction companies. But good point about the difference between companies and individuals.
But I still disagree with the statement 'A self-employed individual can do whatever they like, by definition, especially they don't really have any real agreement with their employer.'
If the job falls under the CDM regulations they are bound by them. They are also bound by the 'site regulations' as set out by the principal contractor. The site regulations can be anything from safety regulations, hours, to uniforms!'. Also the self-employed individual is bound by whatever contract for service (or is it to service, or is it 'agreement', can't remember) they have signed.
There are companies in other industries who also have 'self-employed staff' who have to follow the dictations of their supervisors. Try asking the digger drivers on a large construction project who they work for and if they are employed or self employed. Its a real eye-opener!
I agree that it's not just in archaeology where the difference between employed and self-employed is presumably quite blurred to the point of being non-existant.
As for the various regulations you mention people being bound by, whether self-employed or no, since these are set out by HSE they are legal requirements. A quote from the HSE wesbite on what happens if you don't follow the CDM regulations: 'serious breaches of health and safety legislation on your construction project could result in construction work having to be stopped by HSE or your local authority and additional work maybe needed to rectify matters. In the most serious circumstances you may be prosecuted.' Other regulations are also likely to be heavily H&S based and while someone who is self-employed could ignore them they would probably be thrown off the site.
The issue certainly isn't restricted to archaeology though, but employers in archaeology are no doubt good at using as yet another way of shafting 'staff' if they choose too.
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Martin Locock - 23rd September 2011
Self employed people on a construction site would either come under the main contractor's H & S if they were subcontracted, or else would have to have their own H & S risk assessment in place if working directly for a construction company (way above just holding a CSCS card).
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - BAJR - 23rd September 2011
Exactly.
And there is much spurious stuff about self employed. Half truths, real truths and almost truths.
At the end of the day I work for clients, who often have their own timescales, so I must work within the main contract. no point me saying, will see you next thursday and then not turn up
I would soon find myself quite hungry! I also decide with my client what I will do for them, how much it will cost etc... sometimes I work to a fixed cost - ie, if I finish the job faster, then I take a bonus, if I am slower, I take a hit.! - Sometimes I work for a day rate, based on how fast the client can work. ie - A services trench will take as long to evaluate as it takes the machine operator to dig it. if they take 3 days... fine... I get paid three days. I also have insurance for various works, covering me for volunteers, members of teh public and myself. Sometimes I don't need that, as I come under the main contractor, sometimes I do. SOmetimes the contractor will provide tools, but mainly I am expected to turn up with all the equipment I need to carry out my work (when was the last time you saw a carpenter saying " I can't do the job as the client did not give me a hammer??)
It is a contract between you and the client. you decide your terms and your cost. when teh cleint starts dictating times, rates, conditions etc..then provides all your tools, from drawing boards to nails and shovels. then you have to ask? Am I self Employed? Do I have what it takes to be self employed? or am I a labour only contractor. Which can look the same?
But read this article from 2009
Quote:There have been many failed attempts to move workers from CIS into PAYE. All contractors have had inspection visits, letters, and threats. Many have moved workers into PAYE and paid penalties and arrears of PAYE only to find that within months, they have to use self-employed workers again if they are to stay competitive.http://www.fmb.org.uk/information-and-help/information-services/tax/?entryid58=141596
In July, HMRC announced its intention to attack bogus selfemployment again – but this time it will do it with legislation. HMRC proposes a piece of new law, which will mean:
All money actually paid for construction work must be taxed under PAYE unless:
There are some interesting things to think about here. PAYE would be compulsory for anyone paying a labour-only subcontractor. It’s like a default option on a computer – PAYE is essential and unavoidable unless the person paying a subcontractor is certain he is supplying materials, plant or other workers.
- The worker provided all the materials for the job, or
- The worker provided all the plant and equipment over and above normal tools of the trade, or
- The worker brought other workers who he paid himself.
WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?
The requirement to deduct PAYE is on the person paying the money – so if workers come via any agency, intermediary, umbrella company etc – it is that business that must operate PAYE.
And note carefully, the legislation does not make anyone an employee – it simply puts pay packets into PAYE. There is the same flexibility to have a casual workforce – it is just that Class 1 NICs must be paid.
There is no start date for the legislation yet – so with luck the industry will start having to operate it from an agreed future date and the playing field will be fair.
SO WHAT SHOULD MEMBERS OF THE FMB DO?
Before you jump for the ‘Tell them to Buzz Off’ option, just think. The Consultation estimates that there are 300,000 labour-only subcontractors in the UK who never supply materials and only take home one man’s pay packet – they are not paying others. The loss of tax and NIC to the Chancellor is estimated at ?350,000,000. Ask yourself if he will willingly ignore such a loss of tax?
The Consultation listed the previous attempts that HMRC made to get us all onto the straight and narrow:
The sensible response is to work with HMRC to make the new legislation work so that only labour-only subcontractors go into PAYE – and not genuine traders who are in business on their own account and take risks that go well beyond the fact that they won’t be paid if it snows.
- The 1997 amnesty
- The 2004/5 extra compliance activity
- The 2004/5 and 2005/6 waves of targeted letters
- The 2006/7/8 development of the ESI tool on the Internet
- The 2007 new CIS returns with declarations and penalties. What a list!
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Dinosaur - 23rd September 2011
Well tell us what happened then, don't leave us in suspense.....
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - kevin wooldridge - 23rd September 2011
I would say and have said for many years, that there are in reality very few genuinely self-employed archaeologists. David being one exception for all of the reasons he states.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what spurious jusification archaeologists come up with to try and convince themself or others they are self employed, it will be HMRC that decide and they will largely use the 'Yes' test they have been pushing for a few years now (see link below). I think IfA are wholly justified in issuing the latest advice because they, like me, like most of us following this discussion know that many so called SE archaeologists are nothing of the sort and that this is a major scam being perpetrated that is defrauding the tax authority and which a law abiding body such as the IfA cannot condone. Diggers Forum should be congratulated for raising this issue...
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employment-status/index.htm
IfA Now have a policy on Self Employment - Kajemby - 24th September 2011
Dinosaur Wrote:Judging by the fairly random amounts of time that people seem to take off when they've previously committed themselves to being out digging, I'd disagree with that, the likes of myself who have gone for the pension option with a strictly restricted number of days leave PA certainly can't get away with that! And when I was SE I did actually work when I wanted and not when I didn't (and was free to turn down jobs I couldn't be a**ed with, and on numerous occasions went and worked for other units with more interesting-looking sites), its just that the best way of getting paid tended to be being on site when it was open, an archaeologist was required, and when there were actually other people there to supervise, so it all tended to end up looking like a 9-5 40hr week. Being employed certainly puts a crimp in the amount of work I can get done/days when I can't be bothered to get out of bed
That would be fine, if that were still true of the company you work for - I know from experience, that if I worked hours outside of the basic hours set within the contract, without being given permission first, I would not be paid the amount I worked. I think it actually states that in the contract, which was non negotiable (which is fine, as I didn't have to sign it, or take the work), bit I'd have to dig it out to confirm that.
If people take time off when they have committed themselves to digging, it is usually for a good reason as when you do not get paid leave, taking it becomes very expensive.
Generally the company was great to work for, don't get me wrong, and I had a great time, with some good archaeology thrown in, but I do realise how thin the interpretation of self employment can be spread. For instance, ppe provided, tools provided (except personal tools), working times set, supervisor on site directing what jobs need doing, and where, Etc etc etc...... The only difference between that and regular employment was that I had to pay my own taxes (which I didn't mind at all, and was aware of that from the beginning).