1st September 2009, 11:24 AM
The issue here is that there is a fundamental difference between the wage received as an employee (a proportion of the total fee received by the employer from the client), and the fee received by a self-employed freelancer (all the money they will ever get from this contract). As an employee you receive a wage, and essentially all you have to do, having got the job, is supply some bank details and turn up and do your job. You will be paid (nearly always!!) within a month/six weeks. To a greater extent everything is sorted for you by the employer. You receive benefits such as sick pay, compassionate leave, paid leave, training, away subs and pension subs as part of your package. That is why diggers often grumble about the disparity betweeen what they are charged out at, and their pay.
As a freelancer you not only have to go out and win the contract, you have to research the tax/NI situation, sort all the admin yourself (and it takes me rather more than 1.5 hours a quarter), and essentially do everything yourself, and pay for it either in time or in cash. You have to pay for everything out of that fee. You are running a business, you do not have the same overheads as a big business, but they still exist. Freelance work carries more risk, responsibility and costs than employed work, and you may not get paid for far longer than in employment, whilst having to pay expenses and costs up front. That is why freelancers are expected to be paid more than employees.
It seems likely that the unit in question has calculated their base level fee by fairly simply converting the pay minima into a day rate. It is obvious that this is a flawed conversion.*
The recession has hit archaeology hard, and there are hundreds of experienced diggers, and new graduates, looking for work. Most will not have any experience of freelance work before, and be aware of all the costs and potential pitfalls. The apparent desperation of the person who said they would try and avoid tax indicates how bad it has got. I think The Digger is right to highlight a few issues, and warn of potential problems. I was meant to have been helping write a Guide to Self-employment for BAJR which I wanted to then get checked by a professional tax/employment advisor. Unfortunately I haven?t had a chance, I think this all highlights that it might be needed. Although Peter will obviously doubt whether I am the right person to contribute.
On the specific point of The Digger, I am glad to see it return, although only if it fully researches all its scoops and isn?t just an extension of the often unsubstantiated rumour and speculation that exists at all levels in archaeology (and every other profession). I hope that the ease of sticking words up on a blog does not lead to dodgy reporting, and that time is taken to research any stories. It is often difficult though to get all the info, until a story has been ?broken? and it will be interesting to see how the blog format can carry stories forward.
As I said, I hope all facts have been checked (the advert is still on the web as of this morning), that the unit has been contacted to get their perspective, and that the IFA were at least asked to comment. I know that they are looking into related issues, so hopefully some guidance may be forthcoming soon. Unfortunately the highly individual nature of freelancing means it will probably never be possible to put a nice neat comparator between say the PIfA employee minima and a PIfA freelance minima, but it is clear that the rates offered here are not good.
*Peter?s point that there is a pay range up to ?85 a day is a good one, it would be good to see whether these upper levels are given out for PIfA level jobs. The advert clearly states that they want Field Supervisors ?an AifA level post surely? And it would be logical to assume that the higher rate is for such posts. Also on at least one occasion recently site jobs have been advertised with wide pay ranges ?dependant on experience?, however in every case the applicants got the bottom figure, despite decades of relevant experience!
edited as I said the name of the unit! D'Oh!
As a freelancer you not only have to go out and win the contract, you have to research the tax/NI situation, sort all the admin yourself (and it takes me rather more than 1.5 hours a quarter), and essentially do everything yourself, and pay for it either in time or in cash. You have to pay for everything out of that fee. You are running a business, you do not have the same overheads as a big business, but they still exist. Freelance work carries more risk, responsibility and costs than employed work, and you may not get paid for far longer than in employment, whilst having to pay expenses and costs up front. That is why freelancers are expected to be paid more than employees.
It seems likely that the unit in question has calculated their base level fee by fairly simply converting the pay minima into a day rate. It is obvious that this is a flawed conversion.*
The recession has hit archaeology hard, and there are hundreds of experienced diggers, and new graduates, looking for work. Most will not have any experience of freelance work before, and be aware of all the costs and potential pitfalls. The apparent desperation of the person who said they would try and avoid tax indicates how bad it has got. I think The Digger is right to highlight a few issues, and warn of potential problems. I was meant to have been helping write a Guide to Self-employment for BAJR which I wanted to then get checked by a professional tax/employment advisor. Unfortunately I haven?t had a chance, I think this all highlights that it might be needed. Although Peter will obviously doubt whether I am the right person to contribute.
On the specific point of The Digger, I am glad to see it return, although only if it fully researches all its scoops and isn?t just an extension of the often unsubstantiated rumour and speculation that exists at all levels in archaeology (and every other profession). I hope that the ease of sticking words up on a blog does not lead to dodgy reporting, and that time is taken to research any stories. It is often difficult though to get all the info, until a story has been ?broken? and it will be interesting to see how the blog format can carry stories forward.
As I said, I hope all facts have been checked (the advert is still on the web as of this morning), that the unit has been contacted to get their perspective, and that the IFA were at least asked to comment. I know that they are looking into related issues, so hopefully some guidance may be forthcoming soon. Unfortunately the highly individual nature of freelancing means it will probably never be possible to put a nice neat comparator between say the PIfA employee minima and a PIfA freelance minima, but it is clear that the rates offered here are not good.
*Peter?s point that there is a pay range up to ?85 a day is a good one, it would be good to see whether these upper levels are given out for PIfA level jobs. The advert clearly states that they want Field Supervisors ?an AifA level post surely? And it would be logical to assume that the higher rate is for such posts. Also on at least one occasion recently site jobs have been advertised with wide pay ranges ?dependant on experience?, however in every case the applicants got the bottom figure, despite decades of relevant experience!
edited as I said the name of the unit! D'Oh!