'suggested' i go self-employed

mark_cycling00

Potentially the partners/directors have a very simple setup where they just split the profits each each year and do a set of accounts.

With a single employee they now have payroll software costs, pension scheme costs etc etc. For just that one person.

If you were self employed then all those costs and effort disappear. 

I'm not defending them or suggesting it's the right decision. But is this the situation? 
Did they expect to hire more staff but it hasn't happened?

[Deleted User]

mark_cycling00 said:

Potentially the partners/directors have a very simple setup where they just split the profits each each year and do a set of accounts.

With a single employee they now have payroll software costs, pension scheme costs etc etc. For just that one person.

If you were self employed then all those costs and effort disappear. 

Those costs and efforts don't disappear, they're simply moved to the newly self employed individual.
As you've pointed out, the partners/directors might have a very simple set up where they just split the profits each each year and do a set of accounts.
If OP goes self employed, they will also need to do a set of accounts (or at a very minimum deal with HMRC and self assessment), this needs to be paid for.
Either OP charges them for this (and all the other overheads they would be incurring) or effectively takes a pay cut.

Just as an observation, I rarely see employees thrive in a three-man-band, where the other two are directors/partners.
In my experience, those employees are merely a disposable tool and often taken for granted.
I fear this is the case for OP.

Marcon

Her_sister said:

My boss has suggested I become self-employed. He says the business can't sustain me as an employee. This is not what I want, but I feel a bullied into accepting this. We are a small business (2 partners) and me. 

The business 'can't sustain you' and yet 'we are too busy ' for redundancy. 

HMRC aren't likely to accept that you have miraculously become self employed in the twinkling of an eye if you're doing the same job under the same general conditions re location, control, attendance etc and only the method and rate of payment have changed. Even if you aren't an employee, you are likely to be classed as a 'worker' and qualify for benefits such as pension etc.

You are being asked to do this to save the company money; you will be worse off, they'll be better off - and able to get rid of you much more easily once the workload is under control. Do you really want to work for someone who behaves like that?

In your shoes I'd be polishing up my cv, but new jobs aren't always easy to come by. You say you 'feel bullied into accepting this', but now might be a good time to decide you aren't going to allow yourself to be bullied. That's not easy either, but why should you put up with this sort of treatment?