10th September 2010, 09:52 PM
There was a lot of this in the construction industry in the late 80s and early 90s. Basically a lot of the big housebuilders and engineering firms used to work out what they'd pay someone in a year, divide by about 200 and offer that as a day rate - telling their 'subbies they could earn more (as long as they didn't take any holidays or sick) while they paid out much less. It also cut their admin bills - less need for HR, tax administration, slashed employers liability insurance costs (fewer staff, 'dangerous' tasks undertaken by 'independent contractors' and the like) and meant they were well buffered against downturns in work or rain-offs, they simply didn't need to pay.
This all went swimmingly until the Inland Revenue, as they were then, realised how much they were losing out on at a time in employers NICs, iffy claims against tax and the like when the government were trying to slash the national debt and 'maximise' income, turned round and pointed out that these subbies weren't actually self-employed and demanded large sums of cash with menaces. The HSE got involved as well because of the arcane nature of the provisions of the HASAW 1974 regarding the responsibilities of employers.
I'd also like to know how self-employment works in terms of CDM regs - it would be interesting to see whether these units all require their 'subcontractors' to provide risk assessments and method statements.
So basically, I'm a bit less bothered about people getting ripped off. That's really their look out, and if archaeologists are stupid enough to allow that, then that's probably the reason why pay is so sh1t. I'm just waiting to see what the HSE do when there's a RIIDOR incident on a CDM site or when the revenue hit a couple of the units using 'self-employed' staff for back NICs... Unfortunately, I've been waiting a long time for the second and I'm hoping I don't see the first.
This all went swimmingly until the Inland Revenue, as they were then, realised how much they were losing out on at a time in employers NICs, iffy claims against tax and the like when the government were trying to slash the national debt and 'maximise' income, turned round and pointed out that these subbies weren't actually self-employed and demanded large sums of cash with menaces. The HSE got involved as well because of the arcane nature of the provisions of the HASAW 1974 regarding the responsibilities of employers.
I'd also like to know how self-employment works in terms of CDM regs - it would be interesting to see whether these units all require their 'subcontractors' to provide risk assessments and method statements.
So basically, I'm a bit less bothered about people getting ripped off. That's really their look out, and if archaeologists are stupid enough to allow that, then that's probably the reason why pay is so sh1t. I'm just waiting to see what the HSE do when there's a RIIDOR incident on a CDM site or when the revenue hit a couple of the units using 'self-employed' staff for back NICs... Unfortunately, I've been waiting a long time for the second and I'm hoping I don't see the first.