4 ms·

> Substitution - I understand that you cannot subcontract the work without the client knowledge and approval. That means the service is most likely personal. D

> Substitution - I understand that you cannot subcontract the work without the client knowledge and approval. That means the service is most likely personal. Do you know the rational behind this one? Obviously when you hire a solo freelancer you want to work with that particular freelancer. Why would this single clause being false mark you as being an employee?

varispeed 6y ago
It's just how they defined it - essentially personal service == employment. They understand that if you really run a business then your client hires your company to create a product for them and it is up to the company who and how makes it, otherwise your company in their eyes is just a vehicle to avoid tax. What is most bizarre is that then you become an employee only for tax purposes - that is you are not necessarily gaining any employment rights, but in practice a freelancer has to be an employee of an agency, so you retain employment rights in exchange for severe pay cut. From April true freelancing will be very difficult because of that. For example if you are signed up to an agency, you are required to look for new contracts when you have a downtime and you may be required to accept contracts if agency finds one. My own opinion is that such agencies corrupted the bodies responsible for these law changes - agencies will be getting % for essentially doing nothing and freelancers won't be able to use profits to fund their own projects (not in the way it used to be - it has become much more expensive).
- seanwilson 6y ago
  This includes solo freelancers though? So I've always seen the advice that to earn more, you can't be seen as a replaceable commodity and you need to attract clients that want to work with you in particular. This ruins that? I heard that as long as your contract includes something about how you could be replaced by someone equally skilled, you can work around this? The client can still terminate the contract if they didn't like the replacement.

varispeed 6y ago

It's just how they defined it - essentially personal service == employment. They understand that if you really run a business then your client hires your company to create a product for them and it is up to the company who and how makes it, otherwise your company in their eyes is just a vehicle to avoid tax. What is most bizarre is that then you become an employee only for tax purposes - that is you are not necessarily gaining any employment rights, but in practice a freelancer has to be an employee of an agency, so you retain employment rights in exchange for severe pay cut. From April true freelancing will be very difficult because of that. For example if you are signed up to an agency, you are required to look for new contracts when you have a downtime and you may be required to accept contracts if agency finds one. My own opinion is that such agencies corrupted the bodies responsible for these law changes - agencies will be getting % for essentially doing nothing and freelancers won't be able to use profits to fund their own projects (not in the way it used to be - it has become much more expensive).

seanwilson 6y ago
This includes solo freelancers though? So I've always seen the advice that to earn more, you can't be seen as a replaceable commodity and you need to attract clients that want to work with you in particular. This ruins that? I heard that as long as your contract includes something about how you could be replaced by someone equally skilled, you can work around this? The client can still terminate the contract if they didn't like the replacement.