Insolvency system favours investors

Loughton_Monkey

stator wrote: »

Unless they were technically sub-contractors, in which case they may have lost thousands. That's one of the points raised in the article the OP posted. Many companies are forcing people onto sub-contractor type contracts, which give no redundancy pay. It's certainly worth taking a look at.

Is that right?

Where's the "force"?

What have sub-contractors "lost"?

Apart from a few incredibly stupid people, surely people know whether they are being employed as an official "employee", or just being hired on a sub-contract basis? Brickies, Plasterers, and Joiners have done this for years.

It is my understanding that some of these people relish the idea. Up to a point, they can enjoy significant flexibility as to the hours they work [some preferring, say, 10:00 to 19:00 rather than 07:00 to 16:00], and the way they do it. For reasons I can't imagine, some may value 'cash in hand' as opposed to a payslip and bank transfer less tax/NI.

Whilst I have sympathy for any contractor who enjoys the job, and has relied on it for a few years, who gets the shove at a minute's notice, I do not believe extra State Nannying will solve the problem.

I can, however, believe that there were two types of 'casualty' here. Some of them would scream blue murder (fine), go home, and spend the next week whinging about it. Others of them will scream just as loud for a minute, and then realise that somebody must be delivering the parcels that City Link will not now be delivering, and therefore that 'somebody' might have to hire a few more drivers. They would then be very busy knocking on doors and using their phones......

stator

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Is that right?

Where's the "force"?

What have sub-contractors "lost"?

Apart from a few incredibly stupid people, surely people know whether they are being employed as an official "employee", or just being hired on a sub-contract basis? Brickies, Plasterers, and Joiners have done this for years.

It is my understanding that some of these people relish the idea. Up to a point, they can enjoy significant flexibility as to the hours they work [some preferring, say, 10:00 to 19:00 rather than 07:00 to 16:00], and the way they do it. For reasons I can't imagine, some may value 'cash in hand' as opposed to a payslip and bank transfer less tax/NI.

Whilst I have sympathy for any contractor who enjoys the job, and has relied on it for a few years, who gets the shove at a minute's notice, I do not believe extra State Nannying will solve the problem.

I can, however, believe that there were two types of 'casualty' here. Some of them would scream blue murder (fine), go home, and spend the next week whinging about it. Others of them will scream just as loud for a minute, and then realise that somebody must be delivering the parcels that City Link will not now be delivering, and therefore that 'somebody' might have to hire a few more drivers. They would then be very busy knocking on doors and using their phones......

Yes, force is the right word. Many companies give employee's a 'choice' of becoming a sub-contractors or no longer working. The same way many employees are given the 'choice' of zero hours contracts. Or give then 'choice' of new contracts that allow them to be laid off with no compensation. I believe the phrase is "Hobson's choice".
It is my understanding that Yodal operate an exclusively contractor based delivery system, allowing them to avoid all kinds of pesky things like employee rights. Perhaps that's why CityLink couldn't compete, because they actually had some employees. I've heard a lot of bad things about how contractors are treated by Yodel, so I wouldn't want to work there.

wotsthat

stator wrote: »

Unless they were technically sub-contractors, in which case they may have lost thousands. That's one of the points raised in the article the OP posted. Many companies are forcing people onto sub-contractor type contracts, which give no redundancy pay. It's certainly worth taking a look at.

It's moot.If they were technically sub-contractors then they weren't employees. They invested to service a contract for City Link and it didn't work out - the OP suggests investors are favoured but they've all lost money.

No actions have been suggested. It's simply election time and investors are being categorised from asset stripping snakes to salt of the earth hard working one man bands. At one extreme more than £20m has gone down the tube and at the other some people have lost the ability to manage their benefit payments via the medium of self employment.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

They invested to service a contract

Good grief.

"Invested to service a contract"?!

These people just wanted a job. They are paid lower than minimum wage half the time. And you twist that into "investing to service a contract".

You must be sweating putting that much energy into trying to polish a turd.

Theres a thread in Discussion Time discussing couriers "employed" under this sub contracted heading. I suggest you give it a read. It's got real life experience of just how bad it is for some of these drivers. They get sacked...then immediately employed again, so long as they do it under self employment. They have to pay when they are off sick. They have to pay when their van breaks down. Some work 6am - 8pm for £40. I doubt you would do the same and happily console yourself with your words here.

So let's not wrap it up into positive sales speech nonsense.

Radiantsoul

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Whilst I have sympathy for any contractor who enjoys the job, and has relied on it for a few years, who gets the shove at a minute's notice, I do not believe extra State Nannying will solve the problem.

It is not really state nannying though, the balance between suppliers/customers/workers/customers and secured creditors is a matter of law and public policy and has shifted over time.

It is not uncommon for companies to enter into administation, disclaim their onerous leases, wipe out existing employment contracts and creditors and re-emerge phoenix like often under private ownership(Comet, Game Digital, Sofas UK). Often the management structures are essentially unchanged, so there is a transfer of wealth from one group of stakeholders to another that may not be desirable.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Theres a thread in Discussion Time discussing couriers "employed" under this sub contracted heading. I suggest you give it a read. It's got real life experience of just how bad it is for some of these drivers. They get sacked...then immediately employed again, so long as they do it under self employment. They have to pay when they are off sick. They have to pay when their van breaks down. Some work 6am - 8pm for £40. I doubt you would do the same and happily console yourself with your words here.

14 hour days for £2.86/ hour - sounds like you're getting angry about your usual sample size of zero. You're right, I wouldn't do it but then again I've progressed to walking on my hind legs these days.

In the real world there's no need to accept this level of pay and the conditions that go with it. I work with packing houses all the time - always looking for new people - minimum wage plus rate bonuses plus overtime with employed status.

Loughton_Monkey

Radiantsoul wrote: »

It is not really state nannying though, the balance between suppliers/customers/workers/customers and secured creditors is a matter of law and public policy and has shifted over time....

I agree it's a matter of opinion.

But specifically in my mind was things like the very long standing, and very clear distinction between an employee and a contractor. There are pros and cons to each form of work, but it seems to me that the minute one of the 'cons' arises [no pun intended], we get hoards of do-gooders wanting to change the law to eliminate the downside.

I believe there are generally adequate laws covering the responsibility and behaviour of company directors. Before introducing any more, I wish they would enforce the ones that exist.

One MD who I worked for many years ago [Insurance] was banged up for 7 years for financial 'hanky panky'. Quite right, but what annoys me is that many, many directors in the banks have done far worse, with far worse financial consequences, and they have never been charged or brought to book. They're more likely to get a knighthood!

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good grief.

"Invested to service a contract"?!

These people just wanted a job. They are paid lower than minimum wage half the time. And you twist that into "investing to service a contract".

....

Err, did you actually read that BBC report that you linked to in your OP? Had you done so, you might have noticed this paragraph;

Irfan Khan was a subcontractor for City Link and lost at least £80,000 from the firm's collapse. He told Radio 5 live's Wake Up to Money that he had no idea that City Link was in difficulty and that he had invested in five new vehicles before Christmas.

Isn't that an example of investing to service a contract?:)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32014025

wotsthat

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

But specifically in my mind was things like the very long standing, and very clear distinction between an employee and a contractor. There are pros and cons to each form of work, but it seems to me that the minute one of the 'cons' arises [no pun intended], we get hoards of do-gooders wanting to change the law to eliminate the downside.

If I win the election I promise there will only be upside...to everything...all of the time.

Loughton_Monkey

wotsthat wrote: »

If I win the election I promise there will only be upside...to everything...all of the time.

A statement like that qualifies you 100% to be a politician.

If, on the other hand, you aspire to be a Corporate PR Director, you should say something like....

"We take the protection of our employees, contractors, and suppliers very seriously. City Link has always striven to comply wholeheartedly with the law and uphold our high values. In fact we have gone out of our way to underline this in the retraining of all our staff. This report is most welcome and, as always, we will be happy to learn of any more we can do to enhance the very high standards we already uphold."