38 ms·

0-hour contracts have nothing to do with "Uberised" working arrangements, which are essentially a contracted worker. In a 0-hour contract, the worker does not h

by scott_w 8mo ago

0-hour contracts have nothing to do with "Uberised" working arrangements, which are essentially a contracted worker. In a 0-hour contract, the worker does not have the freedom to "offer labour without commitment." - They have an employment contract, so are an employee, not a self-employed contractor. - There are limitations on who else they could work for. - In practice, if they're called up to work last-minute, they can't say "no." For most 0-hour contracts, like retail, trying to setup your employees as self-employed contractors doesn't work because it's a blatant violation of the law. HMRC will come after you for employer's NI as you have disguised employees. Uber is a very different model because the way they setup the working arrangements allows them to keep taxi drivers outside the scope of disguised employees.

nickdothutton 8mo ago
Non-compete or any kind of limitation on who a zero hours contract person can work for, has been specifically and explicitly illegal since 2016 in the UK. In practice it has been unenforceable since more or less forever. [1] [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/zero-hours-contracts-guidance-for-employers/zero-hours-contracts-guidance-for-employers https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/zero-hours-contra... (last para.)
- scott_w 8mo ago
  Thanks for the info. I left retail work in 2011, when I definitely did have it in my contract, so things have changed a little bit since then.
varispeed 8mo ago
> as you have disguised employees. That's such a classist term. Surely little working class person cannot have its own business, it's disguised employment! It's like micro agency with resource of 1. But somehow we don't say agencies run "disguised employment", because the profits are going to the rich shareholders instead of filthy unwashed pleb.
- scott_w 8mo ago
  What on earth are you waffling on about? Disguised employee is the term used when a person fits into the legal definition of an employee but are contracted, as opposed to being employed. HMRC sets out the conditions it uses to determine this for tax purposes, which you can find on their website. > But somehow we don't say agencies run "disguised employment", No, they're not "disguised employment" because the contract terms and working conditions differ to that of an employment contract. It's nothing to do with class. Plumbers, electricians and joiners will typically run self-employed or private limited companies for their work. We don't call them disguised employees because they're not, they're independent contractors. Because "disguised employee" is nothing to do with class.
  - varispeed 8mo ago
    It is classist. The rule set was sharpened the moment skilled workers realised the agency / consultancy was charging £2k a day for their labour while paying them £60k a year, and decided to leave on Friday and invoice on Monday. Same desk. Same client. Same work. The only difference was that the margin stayed with the person producing the value instead of flowing to partners and shareholders. That is when it became “disguised employment”. When a multinational intermediary inserts itself and captures the spread, that is respectable commerce. When a one-person company does the same and keeps the surplus, it is suddenly suspicious and requires a special anti-avoidance regime. You can hide behind control tests and contractual nuances, but the economic reality is identical. The variable that changes is who captures profit. If a rule only becomes urgent when labour tries to behave like capital, that is not some sterile legal tidying exercise. That is class politics dressed up as “compliance”.
    - scott_w 8mo ago
      > The rule set was sharpened the moment skilled workers realised the agency / consultancy was charging £2k a day for their labour while paying them £60k a year, and decided to leave on Friday and invoice on Monday. Same desk. Same client. Same work. The only difference was that the margin stayed with the person producing the value instead of flowing to partners and shareholders. Right, so you're talking about IR35 specifically. This has nothing to do with "Uberisation" at all because the working arrangement and contract structure are completely different. It's also got fuck all to do with "classism" because it's 100% about tax. First off, IR35 does not apply to self-employed workers, it only applies to a worker contracting via a limited company. Second, it looks at how many "clients" you have. A limited company of 1 contracting to multiple clients is outside the scope of IR35 because, like your plumber, they are a business and not an employee trying to reduce the amount of tax they pay. Thirdly, IR35 companies are allowed but they must operate in a specific way (that makes them not worth the hassle for the most part). > That is class politics dressed up as “compliance”. No, it's just about tax law. I don't know why you needed to write 6 paragraphs when a simple "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about" would have been much quicker for you to write and for me to read.

by scott_w 8mo ago

nickdothutton 8mo ago

Non-compete or any kind of limitation on who a zero hours contract person can work for, has been specifically and explicitly illegal since 2016 in the UK. In practice it has been unenforceable since more or less forever. [1] [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/zero-hours-contracts-guidance-for-employers/zero-hours-contracts-guidance-for-employers https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/zero-hours-contra... (last para.)

scott_w 8mo ago
Thanks for the info. I left retail work in 2011, when I definitely did have it in my contract, so things have changed a little bit since then.

varispeed 8mo ago

> as you have disguised employees. That's such a classist term. Surely little working class person cannot have its own business, it's disguised employment! It's like micro agency with resource of 1. But somehow we don't say agencies run "disguised employment", because the profits are going to the rich shareholders instead of filthy unwashed pleb.

scott_w 8mo ago
What on earth are you waffling on about? Disguised employee is the term used when a person fits into the legal definition of an employee but are contracted, as opposed to being employed. HMRC sets out the conditions it uses to determine this for tax purposes, which you can find on their website. > But somehow we don't say agencies run "disguised employment", No, they're not "disguised employment" because the contract terms and working conditions differ to that of an employment contract. It's nothing to do with class. Plumbers, electricians and joiners will typically run self-employed or private limited companies for their work. We don't call them disguised employees because they're not, they're independent contractors. Because "disguised employee" is nothing to do with class.
- varispeed 8mo ago
  It is classist. The rule set was sharpened the moment skilled workers realised the agency / consultancy was charging £2k a day for their labour while paying them £60k a year, and decided to leave on Friday and invoice on Monday. Same desk. Same client. Same work. The only difference was that the margin stayed with the person producing the value instead of flowing to partners and shareholders. That is when it became “disguised employment”. When a multinational intermediary inserts itself and captures the spread, that is respectable commerce. When a one-person company does the same and keeps the surplus, it is suddenly suspicious and requires a special anti-avoidance regime. You can hide behind control tests and contractual nuances, but the economic reality is identical. The variable that changes is who captures profit. If a rule only becomes urgent when labour tries to behave like capital, that is not some sterile legal tidying exercise. That is class politics dressed up as “compliance”.
  - scott_w 8mo ago
    > The rule set was sharpened the moment skilled workers realised the agency / consultancy was charging £2k a day for their labour while paying them £60k a year, and decided to leave on Friday and invoice on Monday. Same desk. Same client. Same work. The only difference was that the margin stayed with the person producing the value instead of flowing to partners and shareholders. Right, so you're talking about IR35 specifically. This has nothing to do with "Uberisation" at all because the working arrangement and contract structure are completely different. It's also got fuck all to do with "classism" because it's 100% about tax. First off, IR35 does not apply to self-employed workers, it only applies to a worker contracting via a limited company. Second, it looks at how many "clients" you have. A limited company of 1 contracting to multiple clients is outside the scope of IR35 because, like your plumber, they are a business and not an employee trying to reduce the amount of tax they pay. Thirdly, IR35 companies are allowed but they must operate in a specific way (that makes them not worth the hassle for the most part). > That is class politics dressed up as “compliance”. No, it's just about tax law. I don't know why you needed to write 6 paragraphs when a simple "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about" would have been much quicker for you to write and for me to read.