Thanks for the feedback Unit, I think you have everything round the wrong way... The survey wasn't about tax returns, although it did touch on the subject. The survey was to find out what was going on, and how the Diggers and Employers felt about it; only now can we develop responses from a position of knowledge - and that may well include investigating the tax situation further.
The survey defined away work in the way it did as that is the way that most archaeologists define it, and they were the ones we were asking to fill out the survey, not the tax man! If we only asked about those sites which are away from the office, we would have missed out on the experiences of those who do not live near the office in the first place and are working away from home even when they are washing finds in the office! We covered all aspects and permutations of working away from home and from office and that came through in the results. I don't think that it was a big mistake, I think it was a benefit. I think one 'big mistake' I made was to advertise the survey as about 'away-work' first and foremost, as I feel that it may have put off some who travel and commute to work, but who don't see themselves as working away. Luckily we did have responses from many non-away workers, but there is a chance the sample is skewed to those living out of rucksacks. But I still think the survey and the report is balanced and valid.
We did ask the employers if they had any problems/issues with the HMRC around these issues, and apart from an employer who was having to justify an increase in subs, and annother who paid the tax bill for some accommodation, none expressed any significant problems and where there are tax issues these are flagged in the text. Given that many subs have not been increased for over ten years, I find it hard to see how this would be a problem if the case for increase is intelligently put...
The recommendations shouldn't generally create any extra tax problems -none of the advertising ones should as they are merely about transparency, and neither should any of the travel and away work recommendations. They merely call for a levelling-up of the current varied and byzantine terms and conditions which occur across the industry. Many of those T&C do have tax implications, but they already have those implications now. When we have more feedback on all the recommendations we will certainly do more to highlight tax and other issues so Diggers can make more informed decisions, for example we've already highlighted the need for business-class car insurance when driving to different sites. Anyone who would like to assist with our work in doing this would be very welcome.
Any more feedback would be great.
The principle recommendations on transparent advertising are:
The survey defined away work in the way it did as that is the way that most archaeologists define it, and they were the ones we were asking to fill out the survey, not the tax man! If we only asked about those sites which are away from the office, we would have missed out on the experiences of those who do not live near the office in the first place and are working away from home even when they are washing finds in the office! We covered all aspects and permutations of working away from home and from office and that came through in the results. I don't think that it was a big mistake, I think it was a benefit. I think one 'big mistake' I made was to advertise the survey as about 'away-work' first and foremost, as I feel that it may have put off some who travel and commute to work, but who don't see themselves as working away. Luckily we did have responses from many non-away workers, but there is a chance the sample is skewed to those living out of rucksacks. But I still think the survey and the report is balanced and valid.
We did ask the employers if they had any problems/issues with the HMRC around these issues, and apart from an employer who was having to justify an increase in subs, and annother who paid the tax bill for some accommodation, none expressed any significant problems and where there are tax issues these are flagged in the text. Given that many subs have not been increased for over ten years, I find it hard to see how this would be a problem if the case for increase is intelligently put...
The recommendations shouldn't generally create any extra tax problems -none of the advertising ones should as they are merely about transparency, and neither should any of the travel and away work recommendations. They merely call for a levelling-up of the current varied and byzantine terms and conditions which occur across the industry. Many of those T&C do have tax implications, but they already have those implications now. When we have more feedback on all the recommendations we will certainly do more to highlight tax and other issues so Diggers can make more informed decisions, for example we've already highlighted the need for business-class car insurance when driving to different sites. Anyone who would like to assist with our work in doing this would be very welcome.
Any more feedback would be great.
The principle recommendations on transparent advertising are:
- Details of the starting salary available to a new starter, avoiding use of incremental pay ranges that may make salaries appear greater than they could be for a new starter.
- State what level of experience is required for the post.
- Any probationary period.
- Details of sick pay, holiday entitlement and pension provision including any qualification periods.
- The length of the working week and whether any compulsory overtime may be required.
- Where the job will be based and whether away work is envisaged.
- Whether a driving licence or specific skills card is required.
- Indicate whether accommodation will be provided if the contract is a short term appointment and whether there is any charge for this.
- Indicate whether there are any subsistence allowances for away work and how much these are and when they are paid.
- Give details of pay for travelling time for both drivers and passengers, clearly stating that travel time is not paid if that is the case.
- All travel time outside of core hours should be paid to all staff, or the equivalent TOIL accrued: this should be paid to all drivers and passengers. Staff should be paid for their hours.
- All driving and passenger time on Saturdays should be paid in full at time and a half, or the equivalent TOIL accrued; all driving and passenger time on Sundays should be paid in full at double time or the equivalent TOIL accrued.
- Mileage should be paid to all employees who use their own vehicles for work‐related travel. Where company fuel cards are used a payment should be made to cover running costs, wear and tear and depreciation on a pro‐rata monthly rate.
- Mileage rate of at least 40p per mile, reviewed annually and increased in line with the RAC Cost of Motoring Index or a similar index.
- Away work to be triggered after a drive of a maximum of 1.5 hours unless it is for a short duration (1‐2 nights maximum), and all staff are happy to travel.
- National minimum sub of ?15 a night for stays in B&B, rising to ?20 a night in April 2013 to reflect inflation.
- Minimum notice period for away work of two weeks except when absolutely unavoidable, possibility of ‘on‐call’ and ‘off‐call’ system for last minute away jobs.
- Rotation of staff on away jobs in a transparent manner.
- Rotation of drivers to prevent fatigue and ensure driving pay is spread around the team.
- National register of terms and conditions relating to travel and away work allowing employees to compare different employers.