Travel lodge destroyed over missing wages (600 quid)

[Old Prestonian]

Ha ha

You'll be shouting at the wrong shops next. Watch out JD Sports.

 

[Yankee Mackem]

Turns out it was a banking error and the money turned up in his account that day

Probably not far off.

 

[stapler]

on the topic, the set up of 'sub-contracted' labour throughout the construction industry is a disgrace. pretty much the same as zero-hour contracts. most of them have no idea if they are going to have a wage next week, and thats the way it is all year round. theres not many on the books anymore

It's not though is it? It's one of the few sectors where large-scale self employment makes sense. Even HMRC agrees that one.

 

[Goat Eyes]

Ha ha

Goodnight guarantee.

 

[tunstallhill]

It's not though is it? It's one of the few sectors where large-scale self employment makes sense. Even HMRC agrees that one.

How does it make sense ? Maybe for the small contractors it makes sense. The lads generally get no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pension, don't get paid if the job gets stopped due to weather or other factors. There's very little job security.

I'm interested in whay HMRC have to say about it, can you expand on that?

There was a foreman on one of the jobs I go to threatening a joiner with getting finished on the spot in the week before Xmas because he dared to question a decision that the foreman made. The foreman said 'you don't want to be losing your wage with xmas next week'. Not sure how that environment is beneficial for regular tradesmen.

Although a lot of them do get a better hourly rate

 

[obrienobrien]

You'll be shouting at the wrong shops next. Watch out JD Sports.

quite funny that like

 

[safcforever]

How does it make sense ? Maybe for the small contractors it makes sense. The lads generally get no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pension, don't get paid if the job gets stopped due to weather or other factors. There's very little job security.

I'm interested in whay HMRC have to say about it, can you expand on that?

There was a foreman on one of the jobs I go to threatening a joiner with getting finished on the spot in the week before Xmas because he dared to question a decision that the foreman made. The foreman said 'you don't want to be losing your wage with xmas next week'. Not sure how that environment is beneficial for regular tradesmen.

Although a lot of them do get a better hourly rate

You see the same in the trucking industry. Lads have set up their own company and invoice the agency. They don’t have a pension or any holiday pay. They make more money but most don’t have a pension plan. Give it 30 years and most will be fucked

 

[Butcher's Coat]

How does it make sense ? Maybe for the small contractors it makes sense. The lads generally get no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pension, don't get paid if the job gets stopped due to weather or other factors. There's very little job security.

I'm interested in whay HMRC have to say about it, can you expand on that?

There was a foreman on one of the jobs I go to threatening a joiner with getting finished on the spot in the week before Xmas because he dared to question a decision that the foreman made. The foreman said 'you don't want to be losing your wage with xmas next week'. Not sure how that environment is beneficial for regular tradesmen.

Although a lot of them do get a better hourly rate

You see the same in the trucking industry. Lads have set up their own company and invoice the agency. They don’t have a pension or any holiday pay. They make more money but most don’t have a pension plan. Give it 30 years and most will be fucked

Two examples of the "hire and fire at will" job market that has sadly crept into our job market.
Employers love it, and have been looked after by the Tories over the last 8 years to allow such unscrupulous behaviour.

It's not though is it? It's one of the few sectors where large-scale self employment makes sense. Even HMRC agrees that one.

Oh dear me

 

[safcforever]

Two examples of the "hire and fire at will" job market that has sadly crept into our job market.
Employers love it, and have been looked after by the Tories over the last 8 years to allow such unscrupulous behaviour.



Oh dear me

It’s sad mate.
I would use an agency pretty much every day because I couldn’t get full time staff.
I would get the regular 3 drivers but come the winter our work would drop off and I’d have no work for them. These 3 would go back to not knowing if they had work again or not.


1 had the cheek to moan at me because i didn’t have work for him even though I offered all 3 permanent contracts

 

[b1gals]

Bet Lenny Henry went feckin mental after seeing this

Only because there was no BAME workers used during filming

 

[stapler]

How does it make sense ? Maybe for the small contractors it makes sense. The lads generally get no holiday pay, no sick pay, no pension, don't get paid if the job gets stopped due to weather or other factors. There's very little job security.

I'm interested in whay HMRC have to say about it, can you expand on that?

There was a foreman on one of the jobs I go to threatening a joiner with getting finished on the spot in the week before Xmas because he dared to question a decision that the foreman made. The foreman said 'you don't want to be losing your wage with xmas next week'. Not sure how that environment is beneficial for regular tradesmen.

Although a lot of them do get a better hourly rate

It makes sense because construction projects tend to need lots of labour for relatively short periods of time. It isn't possible to do them with permanent employees without the companies going bust between projects.

We can tell HMRC agrees that it is legitimate self employment because they have implemented the CIS scheme to stop contractors disappearing before paying their tax. If HMRC thought that subbies were disguised employees they wouldn't have bothered, they'd have just assessed all the main contractors for PAYE and let them sort it out.

There is nothing inherently wrong with proper self employment. It has its advantages and disadvantages for both sides of the transaction.

The example of abuse you give happens to proper employees as well.

Employees have no more job security than the self employed. If anything they have less, because when the employer swings the axe they haven't got a network of contacts to sort out a new role quickly.

Two examples of the "hire and fire at will" job market that has sadly crept into our job market.
Employers love it, and have been looked after by the Tories over the last 8 years to allow such unscrupulous behaviour.



Oh dear me

But it does make sense. If you need a fuck-ton of brickies for 6 weeks, you aren't employing them.

The idea that contractors in construction is a recent Tory innovation is absolute horseplop. It has been that way since the medieval guilds. The blacklist ran from the early 70s to 2009; contractor mistreatment happens under all forms of government.

 

[tunstallhill]

It makes sense because construction projects tend to need lots of labour for relatively short periods of time. It isn't possible to do them with permanent employees without the companies going bust between projects. i wouldnt employ a 'shit ton of cladders' when the cladding needs to be put on a building, so why do people think 'brikkies' can be treated differently?

We can tell HMRC agrees that it is legitimate self employment because they have implemented the CIS scheme to stop contractors disappearing before paying their tax. If HMRC thought that subbies were disguised employees they wouldn't have bothered, they'd have just assessed all the main contractors for PAYE and let them sort it out.

There is nothing inherently wrong with proper self employment. It has its advantages and disadvantages for both sides of the transaction.

The example of abuse you give happens to proper employees as well.

Employees have no more job security than the self employed. If anything they have less, because when the employer swings the axe they haven't got a network of contacts to sort out a new role quickly.



But it does make sense. If you need a fuck-ton of brickies for 6 weeks, you aren't employing them.

The idea that contractors in construction is a recent Tory innovation is absolute horseplop. It has been that way since the medieval guilds. The blacklist ran from the early 70s to 2009; contractor mistreatment happens under all forms of government.

interesting. but i think its fundementally wrong. unethical. what every you want to call it. but i guess that is just my political leanings. the example you give isnt really accurate, as if you needed a 'fuck-ton of brickies for 6 weeks' , you would, and should give the contract to a brick laying subcontractor, who has brikkies on the books, and wins work with main contractors to keep the business going.

when i first started in the industry (2001 ish) the main contractor i worked for had 100's of lads on the books, every trade and discipline. only specialist works were subcontracted. there is rarely a lad on the tools on the books now, in my experience in civils and buildings anyway.

i think the points you make are fair enough, if you can understand how tax laws work and have the ability / knowledge to work it to your advantage. but take into consideration that a massive percentage of lads - groundworkers, joiners, machine drivers, drainage squads etc.. - a lot of them lads can barely read and write to any high level, they don't understand employment law and tax. they just want to work, and therefore get exploited to a degree. its all well and good being self employed if you are smart enough to work it your advantage. thats the problem for me, the rules are made by people who understand them, not for people who understand them.

also, surely someone who is employed direct, on the books, with a proper contract, can't be told today that they have no job tomorrow. i don't know the ins and outs of employment law, but i'm sure that is illegal.

 

[stapler]

interesting. but i think its fundementally wrong. unethical. what every you want to call it. but i guess that is just my political leanings. the example you give isnt really accurate, as if you needed a 'fuck-ton of brickies for 6 weeks' , you would, and should give the contract to a brick laying subcontractor, who has brikkies on the books, and wins work with main contractors to keep the business going.

when i first started in the industry (2001 ish) the main contractor i worked for had 100's of lads on the books, every trade and discipline. only specialist works were subcontracted. there is rarely a lad on the tools on the books now, in my experience in civils and buildings anyway.

i think the points you make are fair enough, if you can understand how tax laws work and have the ability / knowledge to work it to your advantage. but take into consideration that a massive percentage of lads - groundworkers, joiners, machine drivers, drainage squads etc.. - a lot of them lads can barely read and write to any high level, they don't understand employment law and tax. they just want to work, and therefore get exploited to a degree. its all well and good being self employed if you are smart enough to work it your advantage. thats the problem for me, the rules are made by people who understand them, not for people who understand them.

also, surely someone who is employed direct, on the books, with a proper contract, can't be told today that they have no job tomorrow. i don't know the ins and outs of employment law, but i'm sure that is illegal.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are plenty of areas where the use of self employed folk is nonsense. For warehouse workers, for example, it's a load of crap. But I don't agree for the building trades, because of the resource demands.

You are right, you could organise it in the way you propose - you come to "brickies-R-us" or "chippies galore" when you need certain trades. But that is just another layer of administrators taking their fat cut which either (a) making things more expensive for the end customers; or (b) cutting rates for the trades. Employer's NI gets layered on top as well, and you can be damn sure it won't be any of the contracting companies who pay that, it will be the end customer or the trades.

You might make the argument that the end customer should pay for those things, but the fruits of construction (i.e. property) are already expensive enough. By making it more expensive, you make life harder for ordinary people.

Self-employment, like anything, has its advantages and disadvantages. It depends how it is used. There are plenty of good companies who understand the value of good people and consequently treat their contractors very well. There are some indifferent ones and some rogues. (You could replace the word "contractors" with "employees" in the last 2 sentences and they would still be true.) There are also plenty of tradesmen who like the flexibility and the money that contracting gives them, and couldn't give two hoots about holiday pay, sick pay and the illusion of job security.

An employee can be sacked with only notice pay on a whim with up to 2 years service (subject to limited exceptions such as unlawful discrimination). After 2 years, it becomes marginally harder. Do you think a capricious or rogue employer is likely to collect employees with more than 2 years service or will they be handing out cards on 23 months?

 

[Goat Eyes]

Don't get me wrong, I think there are plenty of areas where the use of self employed folk is nonsense. For warehouse workers, for example, it's a load of crap. But I don't agree for the building trades, because of the resource demands.

You are right, you could organise it in the way you propose - you come to "brickies-R-us" or "chippies galore" when you need certain trades. But that is just another layer of administrators taking their fat cut which either (a) making things more expensive for the end customers; or (b) cutting rates for the trades. Employer's NI gets layered on top as well, and you can be damn sure it won't be any of the contracting companies who pay that, it will be the end customer or the trades.

You might make the argument that the end customer should pay for those things, but the fruits of construction (i.e. property) are already expensive enough. By making it more expensive, you make life harder for ordinary people.

Self-employment, like anything, has its advantages and disadvantages. It depends how it is used. There are plenty of good companies who understand the value of good people and consequently treat their contractors very well. There are some indifferent ones and some rogues. (You could replace the word "contractors" with "employees" in the last 2 sentences and they would still be true.) There are also plenty of tradesmen who like the flexibility and the money that contracting gives them, and couldn't give two hoots about holiday pay, sick pay and the illusion of job security.

An employee can be sacked with only notice pay on a whim with up to 2 years service (subject to limited exceptions such as unlawful discrimination). After 2 years, it becomes marginally harder. Do you think a capricious or rogue employer is likely to collect employees with more than 2 years service or will they be handing out cards on 23 months?

The only sentence I’d correct is the one about warehouse staff as where there is seasonality and periods of high and low demand you’ll need contractors of some description.

This type of work has been around forever in various forms (agencies, fixed term contracts, contractors etc.).

I do however believe that companies should be bound to have a certain percentage of works at all levels employed and on the books.

 

[Butcher's Coat]

An employee can be sacked with only notice pay on a whim with up to 2 years service (subject to limited exceptions such as unlawful discrimination). After 2 years, it becomes marginally harder. Do you think a capricious or rogue employer is likely to collect employees with more than 2 years service or will they be handing out cards on 23 months?

You've answered the question yourself.

Disgusting the way some firms treat people.
But Cameron allowed things like the "unfair dismissal" process to be made even harder for an employee to bring against an employer, consultation process for redundancy reduced, encouraging a "hire and fire at will" train of thought (similar to the American way) and also tougher restrictions on unions strike action ballots. And more that has been swept away under the media's noses.

He sided with businesses to the detriment of the working man bringing back to the Victorian employment practices IMHO.

In this day and age, it seems to be an accepted norm that companies have now done away with their "personnel departments" who would hire workers direct. Firms will now just get an agency to fill in any gaps and these agency workers are over a barrel with employment rights, and terms and conditions.Even though the agency will charge a premium for the task of placing a person onto the job.
There is a common train of thought that if a worker is hired via an agency on a self employed basis that the worker is happy with that.
Some might be, but working with the knowledge that you can be fired (or "let go") with little or no notice is not best conducive for a happy and productive workforce.
Ask any lad on a job if he would prefer to be "on the books" - and he would bite your hand off, knowing full well that being on the books brings with it regular pay, terms and conditions like holiday pay, sick pay, pension schemes etc.

 

[tunstallhill]

Don't get me wrong, I think there are plenty of areas where the use of self employed folk is nonsense. For warehouse workers, for example, it's a load of crap. But I don't agree for the building trades, because of the resource demands.

You are right, you could organise it in the way you propose - you come to "brickies-R-us" or "chippies galore" when you need certain trades. But that is just another layer of administrators taking their fat cut which either (a) making things more expensive for the end customers; or (b) cutting rates for the trades. Employer's NI gets layered on top as well, and you can be damn sure it won't be any of the contracting companies who pay that, it will be the end customer or the trades.

You might make the argument that the end customer should pay for those things, but the fruits of construction (i.e. property) are already expensive enough. By making it more expensive, you make life harder for ordinary people.

Self-employment, like anything, has its advantages and disadvantages. It depends how it is used. There are plenty of good companies who understand the value of good people and consequently treat their contractors very well. There are some indifferent ones and some rogues. (You could replace the word "contractors" with "employees" in the last 2 sentences and they would still be true.) There are also plenty of tradesmen who like the flexibility and the money that contracting gives them, and couldn't give two hoots about holiday pay, sick pay and the illusion of job security.

An employee can be sacked with only notice pay on a whim with up to 2 years service (subject to limited exceptions such as unlawful discrimination). After 2 years, it becomes marginally harder. Do you think a capricious or rogue employer is likely to collect employees with more than 2 years service or will they be handing out cards on 23 months?

fair enough, i take your points and they make sense. i can only form opinions on what i see, and hear, on sites and in bait cabins. and there are a lot of lads who don't like it one bit. who have no job security, don't want the flexibility, don't want to be millionaires, they just want to know that they have a steady wage coming in so they can live a normal life - save up, buy a car, buy a house, go on holiday etc without worrying that tomorrow they could be bankrupt.

you are clearly talking from the perspective of a contractor, or small business owner.

and as for your first example, you have missed the point. the lads i am talking about, brickies for instance, do work for 'brikkies are us' - local bricklaying companies who price jobs for large contractors, based on rates, win the job, then bring in their men to do it. their men being lads who are 'sub-contracted' to the sub-contractor. they come in, do the job, and if their subby doesnt have anywhere for them to go next week, then they potentially dont have a wage. then the following week when they are needed, they are asked to work again. the flexibility lies with the small-to-medium sized subcontractors, not the brikkies

 

[tunstallhill]

You've answered the question yourself.

Disgusting the way some firms treat people.
But Cameron allowed things like the "unfair dismissal" process to be made even harder for an employee to bring against an employer, consultation process for redundancy reduced, encouraging a "hire and fire at will" train of thought (similar to the American way) and also tougher restrictions on unions strike action ballots. And more that has been swept away under the media's noses.

He sided with businesses to the detriment of the working man bringing back to the Victorian employment practices IMHO.

In this day and age, it seems to be an accepted norm that companies have now done away with their "personnel departments" who would hire workers direct. Firms will now just get an agency to fill in any gaps and these agency workers are over a barrel with employment rights, and terms and conditions.Even though the agency will charge a premium for the task of placing a person onto the job.
There is a common train of thought that if a worker is hired via an agency on a self employed basis that the worker is happy with that.
Some might be, but working with the knowledge that you can be fired (or "let go") with little or no notice is not best conducive for a happy and productive workforce.
Ask any lad on a job if he would prefer to be "on the books" - and he would bite your hand off, knowing full well that being on the books brings with it regular pay, terms and conditions like holiday pay, sick pay, pension schemes etc.

exactly my points, however that isnt beneficial to businesses, for which the people making decisions only care about.

 

[Butcher's Coat]

exactly my points, however that isnt beneficial to businesses, for which the people making decisions only care about.

Agree.
But if said businesses had any idea about PLANNING their work properly, then a balanced workforce could easily be held and maintained throughout the year - which in the long term would be beneficial to them.

 

[tunstallhill]

Agree.
But if said businesses had any idea about PLANNING their work properly, then a balanced workforce could easily be held and maintained throughout the year - which in the long term would be beneficial to them.

or if the government decided to look after the working class man, instead of having victorian attitudes towards employment rights, they could enforce businesses of certain size, that use a certain type of employee more than 80% of the year, to give those men paid holidays and guaranteed minimum working hours per month, nor per day.

i dread to think what the tories are going to do to us after brexit

 

[Butcher's Coat]

or if the government decided to look after the working class man, instead of having victorian attitudes towards employment rights, they could enforce businesses of certain size, that use a certain type of employee more than 80% of the year, to give those men paid holidays and guaranteed minimum working hours per month, nor per day.

i dread to think what the tories are going to do to us after brexit

Bringing back the workhouse could be on the cards.
It's been going that way.