Choice between employed or self employed

EmmaJ07

Yes you are right it is zero hour. When we started they said we would get a minimum number of hours - so like 10 a month and if we didn't work that they would pay us it anyway but since I started nothing further has been said about that and the other staff didn't get that. It's like each new person who starts is getting offered different things.

jonnygee2

Yes you are right it is zero hour. When we started they said we would get a minimum number of hours - so like 10 a month and if we didn't work that they would pay us it anyway but since I started nothing further has been said about that and the other staff didn't get that. It's like each new person who starts is getting offered different things.

Did they say it in writing? If it's in writing then you can hold them to it, otherwise you can't.

Not uncommon for small businesses to work like this. Sounds a bit chaotic, but hopefully you'll get the hours.

ReadingTim

sangie595 wrote: »

I'd be asking serious questions about the nature of any employer who thinks it's a choice!

You'd be asking "serious questions" of an employer who gives employees the choice of tax treatment which best suits their personal circumstances?!? Then you are a fool, as I'm sure that HMRC won't give a monkey's.

sangie595

ReadingTim wrote: »

You'd be asking "serious questions" of an employer who gives employees the choice of tax treatment which best suits their personal circumstances?!? Then you are a fool, as I'm sure that HMRC won't give a monkey's.

I am not a fool, and since HMRC are the enforcing authority then I am very sure that they give a monkeys. The fact that you don't know what your are talking about doesn't make it legal!

sangie595

jonnygee2 wrote: »

While, legally speaking, you are completely correct, this is far from an abnormal proposition in the UK labour market.

Morally and legally questionable yes, but I don't think the best advice to the OP is to try and take this on.

I am aware that there are employers who operate illegally in the UK labour market. Since when did we start advising people that it was ok for employers to operate illegally? Not questionable. Illegal.

sangie595

EmmaJ07 wrote: »

Yes you are right it is zero hour. When we started they said we would get a minimum number of hours - so like 10 a month and if we didn't work that they would pay us it anyway but since I started nothing further has been said about that and the other staff didn't get that. It's like each new person who starts is getting offered different things.

Unless it is in writing, then it is not a zero hours contract - in law a zero hours contract must be in writing. Based on everything you have said here, you are an employee on a variable hours contract. I asked about substituting someone because if you can do that, it would show self-employment. Since that is not up to you, then that tends towards employed status. And zero hours are workers, not self-employed. As anyone here who knows what they are talking about would have told you. Workers are employed, and employers are responsible for properly accounting for employees, tax and NI.

Although it isn't very many hours, my concern would be that when and if HMRC catch up with this - and despite some views expressed here they often do - then you could end up involved in the investigation. And possibly owing them money, depending on the circumstances. I would strongly advise that you ask for this to all be above board. So that means either that the company issue you with a written zero hours contract, and treat you as a worker. Or you and they agree a proper contract for self employment which will meet the requirements of the law, and you take full responsibility for your own employment.

jonnygee2

I am aware that there are employers who operate illegally in the UK labour market. Since when did we start advising people that it was ok for employers to operate illegally? Not questionable. Illegal.

It's commonplace. And t's a 6 hour a week cleaning job. What money could someone on £3000 a year possibly end up owing HRMC?

Unfortunately when you work in certain industries it's not realistic to run personal campaigns against immoral practices or demand contracts be rewritten to suit your understanding of the law.

I think you have the theory right but need a massive dose of reality.

sangie595

jonnygee2 wrote: »

It's commonplace. And t's a 6 hour a week cleaning job. What money could someone on £3000 a year possibly end up owing HRMC?

Unfortunately when you work in certain industries it's not realistic to run personal campaigns against immoral practices or demand contracts be rewritten to suit your understanding of the law.

I think you have the theory right but need a massive dose of reality.

(A) You don't know that is what they earn. You know nothing about their circumstances. This could be their fifth job!
(B) It is irrelevant - the OP deserves the truth - not your dubious "moral" version of it. If they choose to participate in breaking the law, then that is their choice. But telling them to do so and not telling them that is what your are doing - now that really is immoral!
(C) With attitudes like yours we would still have slavery and children in sweat shops. Oh wait - we do. Because some people think that it's ok to operate illegally in "certain industries". It is never ok for employers to break the law. If it is ok once, it is always ok.

By the way - I deal with the realities of employers operating illegally every day. It's you who need a dose of something, and it's not reality. It's a backbone.

jonnygee2

Oh wait - we do. Because some people think that it's ok to operate illegally in "certain industries"

Who thinks that? And how do they cause modern slavery?

sangie595

jonnygee2 wrote: »

Unfortunately when you work in certain industries it's not realistic to run personal campaigns against immoral practices or demand contracts be rewritten to suit your understanding of the law.
.

jonnygee2 wrote: »

Who thinks that? And how do they cause modern slavery?

Well, you think that, for starters. According to you it's not "realistic" to object to illegal practices. You said it, not me. It's not my understanding of the law. It's the law's understanding of the law!

It is not possible to pick and choose which laws you like. If you argue that it's ok for an employer to ignore the law when it comes to employment status and employment rights attached to that status, then it's also also to ignore working time directives. If that's ok then it's ok to ignore health and safety. So then it'd be ok to pay less than the living wage. And it's then only a small and insignificant step to trafficking men, women and children to work for nothing in sweat shops and brothels. After all, it's only illegal and immoral, so it'll be " ok in certain industries".

These small and insignificant rights that you think are irrelevant "in certain industries" are things that people fought and died for. Sitting in the comfort of your living room dispensing incorrect advice and telling people that employment laws aren't relevant if you work in certain industries was not one of the rights they died for!