Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
5th November 2007, 01:33 PM
This is very interesting. There is obviously no doubt that the terms and conditions offered meet (or perhaps exceed) the BAJR requirements for pay... however it is certainly an unusual form of job advert, nonetheless.
I am curious as to why, if work is available for 4-12 weeks, contracts could not be offered? "Self-sufficient in the field" - does this mean no welfare facilities? What are the implications for Health and Safety? Obviously there will be no SSP or other benefits either...
I not seeking to make or imply any criticism of SWAT and/or its management, performance or quality of work. I am just curious to know why this particular form of employment has been decided upon in this instance. What are the benefits for the employer? And what are those for the employee? Does this represent something we are likely to see more of in the future?
Anyone have any views?
[url=\"http://www.paulbelford.blogspot.com/\"]Paul Belford[/url]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
5th November 2007, 03:20 PM
It does seem that SWAT are attempting to tick all of the 'right' boxes, but maybe they are a little vague regarding the precise
'master-servant' relationship that might be involved. Despite all of SWAT's efforts to avoid being seen as an 'employer', Customs and Revenue are likely to interpret any hint of a 'master-servant' relationship as evidence to the contrary.
But good luck to anyone interested. Biggest problem I can see for any archaeologist becoming involved, is that a genuinely self-employed archaeologist providing their own tools, transport and 'self-sufficiency' in the south of England should probably be asking for a day-rate approaching twice the figure that SWAT are quoting...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
5th November 2007, 03:49 PM
" Despite all of SWAT's efforts to avoid being seen as an 'employer', Customs and Revenue are likely to interpret any hint of a 'master-servant' relationship as evidence to the contrary. "
Really? I was under the impression that it was quite common to be a self employed sub-contractor in the construction industry. One of the biggest headaches for sparkies, etc is the need to be insured for the work that they do, wheras archaeologists don't need to worry about that (I think). I take your point about day rates, though Kevin.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
5th November 2007, 04:11 PM
Too right on the day rate business. Any self respecting tradesmen wouldn't get out of bed for that. It is more approaching the rate of a labourer...begs the question: are these staff mere labourers to SWAT?
'I wanna be a punk rocker but my mammy will ne let me'
Campbell
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
5th November 2007, 04:11 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by OxbeastI was under the impression that it was quite common to be a self employed sub-contractor in the construction industry.
I can't do better than quote the following from the BAJR guide 'Employed or Self-employed'
'If you can answer 'Yes' to all of the following questions, it will usually mean you are self-employed.
Can you hire someone to do the work for you or engage helpers at
your own expense?
Do you risk your own money?
Do you provide the main items of equipment you need to do your job,
not just the small tools many employees provide for themselves?
Do you agree to do a job for a fixed price regardless of how long the job may take?
Can you decide what work to do, how and when to do the work and
where to provide the services?
Do you regularly work for a number of different people?
Do you have to correct unsatisfactory work in your own time and at
your own expense?
I would guess that the fact that the SWAT advert refers to a day-rate rather than a fixed-price job, already sails close to the wind of 'employed' in this instance.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
5th November 2007, 05:16 PM
Not sure whether applicable, but as a self employed sub-contractor in another industry I always had to have public liability insurance and at times employers liability (the latter probably not relevant in this case.
Quite how anybody is going to make any money as a self employed archaeologist at a rate of c.£100.00/day is beyond me when you take into account overheads - insurance, vehicle, tools etc.
Unless of course they were based on one site with known travel expenses and tools etc. provided, which would surely negate the validity of their self employed status.
Happiness depends on ourselves.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
5th November 2007, 08:23 PM
This has been a long and interesting advert for BAJR... taking over a month to get to this stage... and boy have I talked to a lot of people about it - Inland Revenue 3 tiems, SWAT, IFA (off the record advice) you name it... I have made it clear that the person has to be independant.. and must have all the correct insurances (ie... use of transport as a work vehicle) the correct tools and be part of a fee based system, where finicial risk is shared... ie... day rate = £100 but what that actually includes... and precludes.. no pension contributions, no sickness, no holidays... for example. If you can finish the site quicker, then you make more profit, if not you lose money... your responsibilites as a self employed person is in this case a grey area issue.. ( after much discussion and assurances) The Inland Revenue are happy, as long as certain criteria are met... it is a very very complex issue.... It does come down to risk, to freedom of action, to provision of all the requirements - therefore, it would be unfair to then say... oh, you are working in Orkney, and you have to provide your own accomodation .... As it says on the advert... check with SWAT to find out the full details of the contractrual arrangements... each job will be different .. each project will require a different approach....
The advert is their... but the onus is on the responant to ensure they are both happy with what they are getting into.... and are complient with the legal position regarding employment/self employement
see also
http://www.bajr.org/Documents/Employed_SelfEmployed.pdf
This is an unusual advert... but legally, stands...
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
5th November 2007, 08:33 PM
For the short term this could be deemed to be self employment. I think there is a sting in the tail - invoices are on a project basis which could be upto 12 weeks so if you are on 30 day terms then it will 16 weeks before you get paid.
Who will provide expensive kit like cameras, surveying equipment etc?
At £100 a day I suspect that this could in effect be pay under the BAJR guidelines. I dont want to put a damper on enterprise but I have misgivings about a digger having to share in risk on a fixed price contact. It is however near to what I advocate in terms of collectives.
I hope there is some transparency on what SWAT are charging. At £100 I think a disproportionate amount of profit is being retained on the current rates prevailing in Southern England.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
5th November 2007, 09:02 PM
At the risk of self promotion, I would suggest that a self employed field specialist should be considerd analogoues to a self employed finds specialist, in which case I would refer you to the article on charge out rates in 'The Archaeologist 63 from This spring. I can't see how £100 a day is anywhere near adequate (based on the details in the advert)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
5th November 2007, 10:19 PM
It does say from 100... that said... As a specialist I do charge myself out at a lot more than that... to cover all my costs.
Often field archs think that the differnce between the 160 quid a day charge out minus the 60 quid a day they get = 100 quid into the pocket of the contractors... sadly.... nope... thats not how it works... when was the last time you saw a director driving a selection of porches, nissan warriors and converted humvees
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
