What would you do?

SteProud

Deleted_User wrote: »

Thank you for your advice, it's much appreciated. There was absolutely no mention of having to pay two sets of NI. I attended an assessment centre yesterday for job 1 (the contractor job) and we were told we could claim £4 per day for lunch, business atire and travel expenses (does this include petrol?) Does this sound about right? Having used an online calculator, I've worked out that employer's NI is an additional £50 per week so I'm not sure why we weren't informed about that.

It's HMRC that makes the rules on expenses not the umbrella company and as long as its a legitimate business expense you should be OK. I'm not sure how they come to the £4 figure though, it might be worth asking the question or getting a bit more detail from the umbrella.

I meant to mention before that the higher rate for the contracting role is likely to include you own holiday pay as well. Sometimes umbrella companies roll this up as part of your weekly pay so that when you do take some time off (you week abroad for example0 you don't get holiday pay as you've already had it.

Have you spoken to anyone at the umbrella or is all the info you are getting coming from the agency?

Do you mind if I ask what type of work you'll be doing?

[Deleted User]

SteProud wrote: »

It's HMRC that makes the rules on expenses not the umbrella company and as long as its a legitimate business expense you should be OK. I'm not sure how they come to the £4 figure though, it might be worth asking the question or getting a bit more detail from the umbrella.

I meant to mention before that the higher rate for the contracting role is likely to include you own holiday pay as well. Sometimes umbrella companies roll this up as part of your weekly pay so that when you do take some time off (you week abroad for example0 you don't get holiday pay as you've already had it.

Have you spoken to anyone at the umbrella or is all the info you are getting coming from the agency?

Do you mind if I ask what type of work you'll be doing?

Thank you. I was just offered the job yesterday so all the information I have so far is from the company who has employed me. They did mention that the rate of pay included things like holiday pay, so if I were to take a few days off, I'd receive nothing. The work I'll be doing is investigating/ processing PPI claims for a bank.

LittleVoice

Deleted_User wrote: »

What would you do if you were offered two jobs that were fairly similar in nature. The first is temporary (a contractor position) for 6 months, with a view to the contract being extended (but this is by no means guaranteed). Being temporary, there are no benefits such as sick pay or a pension.

The second is permanent with good benefits such as a pension, sick pay, flexi-time etc. and working hours which suit you. However, while the salary is decent, it is around HALF of that offered by the first company.

I am in this situation at the moment (or rather, I could be this time next week when I take part in the final stage of the interview process for job no. 2, but want to think about this decision just now as I have already been offered job number 1). Without the pay issue, number 2 would win hands down as the company is reputable, the contract is permanent and the job is secure and has good prospects. However, considering the fact the pay is so good in job number one and my financial situation at the moment is less than healthy, I have a dilemma on my hands. What would you do?

Forgot to mention too that I have a one week holiday abroad booked for the end of March. Job number 1 will not allow me to go because they require no holidays taken in the first two months of the assignment. The holiday has been fully paid up so I will stand to lose a few hundred pounds.

First of all, the holiday. I can understand a company not being willing to allow paid holiday during the first two months but would they not allow unpaid holiday (perhaps paying for it retrospectively after you had been there two months) or is it because of a link to end of their financial year constraints? If you were to lose the holiday (and your payment for it), that's already cost you some of the potential gain from this job.

If it were critical that you attend for the whole of the first two months of this particular assignment, they should have told you up-front, not waited till they offered you the job. It sounds as though that came out of the blue.

If you are employed rather than self-employed (even on a short-term contract), you are entitled to statutory sick pay like everyone (though this isn't much).

You've already been alerted to some additional costs in relation to 1) and I'd echo the view that you nevertheless accept that and then see if you are offered 2).

SteProud

Deleted_User wrote: »

Thank you. I was just offered the job yesterday so all the information I have so far is from the company who has employed me. They did mention that the rate of pay included things like holiday pay, so if I were to take a few days off, I'd receive nothing. The work I'll be doing is investigating/ processing PPI claims for a bank.

It's probably worth having a chat with the umbrella company as well and see what they come back with re the ins and outs of working through them.

In a nutshell, when you work via an umbrella you are legally their employee, they will invoice the bank and pay you out of the value of that invoice.

And well done on landing it anyway! I hope this doesn't come across as all doom and gloom! Just a few bits to think about and to query with your brolly.

[Deleted User]

LittleVoice wrote: »

First of all, the holiday. I can understand a company not being willing to allow paid holiday during the first two months but would they not allow unpaid holiday (perhaps paying for it retrospectively after you had been there two months) or is it because of a link to end of their financial year constraints? If you were to lose the holiday (and your payment for it), that's already cost you some of the potential gain from this job.

If it were critical that you attend for the whole of the first two months of this particular assignment, they should have told you up-front, not waited till they offered you the job. It sounds as though that came out of the blue.

If you are employed rather than self-employed (even on a short-term contract), you are entitled to statutory sick pay like everyone (though this isn't much).

You've already been alerted to some additional costs in relation to 1) and I'd echo the view that you nevertheless accept that and then see if you are offered 2).

Hi LittleVoice,

The company won't allow me to take unpaid leave to go on holiday. When I asked, they told me that they need people to commit to working every day for the first two months and if I'm not able to do that, I'd be forfeiting my position. I'm not sure if this is because the end of the financial year is looming, they just said that the first 2 months would be dealing with backlog and they plan to recruit more people in April-May so they are likely to be short-staffed until then.

You're absolutely right that they didn't tell us we had to attend every day for the first two months until the job was offered. It was quite odd actually: the assessment centre took place over Wednesday and Thursday. On Wednesday, the job was made to sound amazing, such a great opportunity and the manager was very positive, saying that we were all bright people who were obviously very enthusiastic and passionate. Yesterday, when we were told we got the job and training began, the tone changed somewhat. The manager started saying that if we didn't pull our weight, he'd have no difficulty replacing us with people who would etc. I came home feeling quite confused to be honest! I have accepted the job and begin next Wednesday. My other interview is the day before so I'm going to try and do as much work as possible for that one.

LittleVoice

Deleted_User wrote: »

Hi LittleVoice,

The company won't allow me to take unpaid leave to go on holiday. When I asked, they told me that they need people to commit to working every day for the first two months and if I'm not able to do that, I'd be forfeiting my position. I'm not sure if this is because the end of the financial year is looming, they just said that the first 2 months would be dealing with backlog and they plan to recruit more people in April-May so they are likely to be short-staffed until then.

You're absolutely right that they didn't tell us we had to attend every day for the first two months until the job was offered. It was quite odd actually: the assessment centre took place over Wednesday and Thursday. On Wednesday, the job was made to sound amazing, such a great opportunity and the manager was very positive, saying that we were all bright people who were obviously very enthusiastic and passionate. Yesterday, when we were told we got the job and training began, the tone changed somewhat. The manager started saying that if we didn't pull our weight, he'd have no difficulty replacing us with people who would etc. I came home feeling quite confused to be honest! I have accepted the job and begin next Wednesday. My other interview is the day before so I'm going to try and do as much work as possible for that one.

If there's a backlog now and they are nevertheless thinking of recruiting additional people in the early summer, the more sensible business idea would surely be to employ more now to clear the backlog earlier and then shed excess staff, by that time having a better idea of who would be most suitable for employing.

This company is playing games and, as suggested earlier, is going to try to get 200% out of you new guys. If you work at that rate, they won't need to bring in extra people!

I could be wrong but I'd certainly be hoping that I was offered 2) and could have the pleasure of not joining 1). Check the terms of the employment contract with 1) - make sure you don't have to give 3 months notice from Day 1 (especially if they only have to give statutory notice - nothing in the first month!).

[Deleted User]

LittleVoice wrote: »

If there's a backlog now and they are nevertheless thinking of recruiting additional people in the early summer, the more sensible business idea would surely be to employ more now to clear the backlog earlier and then shed excess staff, by that time having a better idea of who would be most suitable for employing.

This company is playing games and, as suggested earlier, is going to try to get 200% out of you new guys. If you work at that rate, they won't need to bring in extra people!

I could be wrong but I'd certainly be hoping that I was offered 2) and could have the pleasure of not joining 1). Check the terms of the employment contract with 1) - make sure you don't have to give 3 months notice from Day 1 (especially if they only have to give statutory notice - nothing in the first month!).

You'd think they'd employ more people now but the client only wants 9 just now and, if those 9 perform well, will recruit from that outsourcers again in the future. I am also hoping that I am offered number 2: the hours suit me better for a start, and I am guessing I'd be able to take unpaid leave to go on holiday. I haven't received any kind of employment contract with job 1 yet, I'm assuming that will happen when I begin the job. If I am offered and accept job 2, I am extremely nervous about telling my employers in job 1 as they have put a lot of pressure on us new starts to represent their company well in front of the client and not to let them down. I suppose ultimately I need to consider which option is best for my career though.

Acc72

Deleted_User wrote: »

Job one is paid by the day

The basic hours are 9-5.30pm but you're be expected to stay later if targets haven't been reached.

The way you have subsequently described job number 1, it sounds an absolute nightmare.

You have said that there is already a large backlog of work - how often do you reckon you will finish at 5:30 ?

Also, the employer could be using self employed people as they are easier to "let go" than employed (less paperwork - starters, leavers, processing P45's etc.).

Good luck with the interview with the second job !

[Deleted User]

Acc72 wrote: »

The way you have subsequently described job number 1, it sounds an absolute nightmare.

You have said that there is already a large backlog of work - how often do you reckon you will finish at 5:30 ?

Also, the employer could be using self employed people as they are easier to "let go" than employed (less paperwork - starters, leavers, processing P45's etc.).

Good luck with the interview with the second job !

Thanks Acc72. The manager of the recruitment company said we'd be expected to do at least 6 days work in 5 days so chances are, unless we are fast at doing the work, we'd be staying past 5.30pm a few days a week or at least working through lunch. I agree with what you mentioned about the benefits of hiring self-employed people. Apparently there are already many permanent members of staff on site and the manager has told us to expect them to be envious or resentful of us because we're on a higher wage and they've been there for a long time and are more experienced.

LittleVoice

Deleted_User wrote: »

You'd think they'd employ more people now but the client only wants 9 just now and, if those 9 perform well, will recruit from that outsourcers again in the future. I am also hoping that I am offered number 2: the hours suit me better for a start, and I am guessing I'd be able to take unpaid leave to go on holiday. I haven't received any kind of employment contract with job 1 yet, I'm assuming that will happen when I begin the job. If I am offered and accept job 2, I am extremely nervous about telling my employers in job 1 as they have put a lot of pressure on us new starts to represent their company well in front of the client and not to let them down. I suppose ultimately I need to consider which option is best for my career though.

A permanent employer might well allow you to take paid leave early on in your employment.