Contract Worker Rights

paddyrg

GM4L has a cracking suggestion if the reasoning is purely financial, however there may be other, bigger reasons.

You say you're a contractor and therefore not an employee. The employer may be paying you a very different way (eg on invoice, you pay your own taxes and NI) and almost certainly a different rate because of that. If that's the case, not only can they not offer you employee benefits, they must not.

I used to work for a huge company as contractor, around a third of all staff were, and we worked shoulder to shoulder with our permie colleagues. One contractor, despite all common sense, got selfish and started demanding a pension, having been in his role for so long. Naturally, the company declined, but he was able to demonstrate to the court that he was a de facto employee, because he was able to take advantage of the the same benefits as the company provided for employees (health centre, discounted products, subsidised canteen, that kind of thing). This cost the company dearly in a settlement, so they immediately got things absolutely clear, that contractors did not have access to any of the benefits that bona fide employees were offered, to prevent it theyening again.

Could be something similar. But if you want to lease a car, there are plenty of other providers, try Ling for instance.

Darksparkle

paddyrg wrote: »

GM4L has a cracking suggestion if the reasoning is purely financial, however there may be other, bigger reasons.

You say you're a contractor and therefore not an employee. The employer may be paying you a very different way (eg on invoice, you pay your own taxes and NI) and almost certainly a different rate because of that. If that's the case, not only can they not offer you employee benefits, they must not.

I used to work for a huge company as contractor, around a third of all staff were, and we worked shoulder to shoulder with our permie colleagues. One contractor, despite all common sense, got selfish and started demanding a pension, having been in his role for so long. Naturally, the company declined, but he was able to demonstrate to the court that he was a de facto employee, because he was able to take advantage of the the same benefits as the company provided for employees (health centre, discounted products, subsidised canteen, that kind of thing). This cost the company dearly in a settlement, so they immediately got things absolutely clear, that contractors did not have access to any of the benefits that bona fide employees were offered, to prevent it theyening again.

Could be something similar. But if you want to lease a car, there are plenty of other providers, try Ling for instance.

The OP is on a fixed term contract, they aren't a contractor.

https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contracts/what-counts-as-a-fixedterm-contract

Guest101

getmore4less wrote: »

So the obvious route is to suggest that fixed term staff get considered for those leases that need to be taken over, they will be shorter leases so may fit into the timeframes of some contracts .

Less car choice, but you might get lucky.

Hiya,


That's a good point and I'll mention that. Thanks

FBaby

it doesn't sound like you were excluded purely on the basis of being on a fixed term, but the fact that the terms of the fixed term set you at less than 24 months and they must have considered that the cost of the shorter term wasn't financially viable or the car leasing doesn't offer less than 24 months.

There are leasing companies around that do very good deals too, certainly competitive to what you can get from this deal.

Guest101

FBaby wrote: »

it doesn't sound like you were excluded purely on the basis of being on a fixed term, but the fact that the terms of the fixed term set you at less than 24 months and they must have considered that the cost of the shorter term wasn't financially viable or the car leasing doesn't offer less than 24 months.

There are leasing companies around that do very good deals too, certainly competitive to what you can get from this deal.

Sorry to correct you, but this is the as written policy:


The scheme will also be unsuitable for employees who are on a fixed term contract or near to retirement age as the employee may incur an early termination penalty. The employee needs to consider the effect the salary sacrifice would have on their pension benefits.


Clearly excluding all fixed term workers.


I spoke directly to the lease company who were happy to quote for 24 months (and did so)


If it was a question of financial viability, this should surely have been discussed with myself. As far as my employer would know, I could be living at home, paying nothing towards costs


is this not reasonable?