We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Freelance contract but full time

Last November I began working for a media company on a freelance contract basis, but the contract states 5 days a week and 37hours. Two days a week in the office. Essentially a full-time role. We initially agreed a 3 month contract, which was then extended by 3 months, and this has been on repeat.

The initial promise was that this would extend to a permanent contract once targets were hit, and both parties were happy with the work. I would argue that this has now been achieved, but there is no sign of a permament contract or job offer.

Obviously I am missing out on regular beneifts such as annual leave and pension contributions. I appreciate many businesses are reducing staff hire where possible. But is this a clear case of being unfairly treated and exploitation, or is the business completely within their rights?

Comments

  • Wonka_2
    Wonka_2 Posts: 967 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Was there nothing in the contract you negotiated that agreed what the objectives were and on what basis you’d then become ‘employed’ 

    if not then now’s the time to get your negotiating head on - but can you afford to go it if their net outlay is to remain the same whilst they’re paying your benefits/holidays etc ? 
  • Jimeji
    Jimeji Posts: 64 Forumite
    Fifth Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 18 November at 8:56PM
    Wonka_2 said:
    Was there nothing in the contract you negotiated that agreed what the objectives were and on what basis you’d then become ‘employed’ 

    if not then now’s the time to get your negotiating head on - but can you afford to go it if their net outlay is to remain the same whilst they’re paying your benefits/holidays etc ? 
    No, nothing in the contract about moving to a permanent contract. That was all verbal. 

    My question is, is the company acting lawfully? I've heard that HMRC can look unfavourably at this style of agreement.
  • flaneurs_lobster
    flaneurs_lobster Posts: 7,882 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Jimeji said:

    My question is, is the company acting lawfully? I've heard that HMRC can look unfavourably at this style of agreement.
    The fairly obvious danger here is that if you were to start making suggestions like this one you might find that the company might not be requiring your services further - on any basis.
  • SiliconChip
    SiliconChip Posts: 1,952 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper
    The legal position is that after 4 years on fixed term contracts the position becomes permanent unless the employer can show there is a good business reason not to do so. As you have another 3 years to wait for that to happen you might want to consider asking nicely if they will consider a permanent position.
  • penners324
    penners324 Posts: 3,570 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    The legal position is that after 4 years on fixed term contracts the position becomes permanent unless the employer can show there is a good business reason not to do so. As you have another 3 years to wait for that to happen you might want to consider asking nicely if they will consider a permanent position.
    Which applies to employed contracts not freelance contracts.

    Freelance contracts like this will fall within IR35. Ie the company has to resolve this asap or hmrc will come down hard in them
  • Grumpy_chap
    Grumpy_chap Posts: 19,061 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Jimeji said:
    Last November I began working for a media company on a freelance contract basis, but the contract states 5 days a week and 37hours. Two days a week in the office. Essentially a full-time role. We initially agreed a 3 month contract, which was then extended by 3 months, and this has been on repeat.

    The initial promise was that this would extend to a permanent contract once targets were hit, and both parties were happy with the work. I would argue that this has now been achieved, but there is no sign of a permament contract or job offer.

    Obviously I am missing out on regular beneifts such as annual leave and pension contributions. I appreciate many businesses are reducing staff hire where possible. But is this a clear case of being unfairly treated and exploitation, or is the business completely within their rights?
    What sort of salary would you get if the job went permanent?

    How does your day-rate as a freelancer compare? 
  • Undervalued
    Undervalued Posts: 9,795 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Jimeji said:
    Last November I began working for a media company on a freelance contract basis, but the contract states 5 days a week and 37hours. Two days a week in the office. Essentially a full-time role. We initially agreed a 3 month contract, which was then extended by 3 months, and this has been on repeat.

    The initial promise was that this would extend to a permanent contract once targets were hit, and both parties were happy with the work. I would argue that this has now been achieved, but there is no sign of a permament contract or job offer.

    Obviously I am missing out on regular beneifts such as annual leave and pension contributions. I appreciate many businesses are reducing staff hire where possible. But is this a clear case of being unfairly treated and exploitation, or is the business completely within their rights?
    Are you?

    In a proper sensibly negotiated freelance contract the lack of those employment benefits would be reflected in the daily rate of pay which would need to be significantly higher than an employee's wage.
  • monkey-fingers
    monkey-fingers Posts: 57 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    The legal position is that after 4 years on fixed term contracts the position becomes permanent unless the employer can show there is a good business reason not to do so. As you have another 3 years to wait for that to happen you might want to consider asking nicely if they will consider a permanent position.
    Which applies to employed contracts not freelance contracts.

    Freelance contracts like this will fall within IR35. Ie the company has to resolve this asap or hmrc will come down hard in them
    Even less reason then to offer perm if inside. My old company used to have people from Manpower on contracts for years. Nothing was ever said.

    If you're inside, you're entitled to annual leave an so on. You have to pay for it yourself, of course. But you have 2 choices with your umbrella. Either take the time off or take the money. Because people are used to the salary, they take the money.
  • Marcon
    Marcon Posts: 15,193 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited Today at 10:42AM
    The legal position is that after 4 years on fixed term contracts the position becomes permanent unless the employer can show there is a good business reason not to do so. As you have another 3 years to wait for that to happen you might want to consider asking nicely if they will consider a permanent position.
    Which applies to employed contracts not freelance contracts.

    Freelance contracts like this will fall within IR35. Ie the company has to resolve this asap or hmrc will come down hard in them
    Only if the contractor is working via an intermediary - and looking at OP's other posts, they are self employed, so IR35 doesn't apply.

    What is highly likely to apply is the status of 'worker', which would entitle OP to things like pension contributions - or (possibly even more likely) 'employee', since nothing in their post suggests they are truly self employed.

    However, although the theory is all well and good, the reality may well be that the company suddenly finds OP's services aren't required if they rock the boat.

    Jimeji said:


    Obviously I am missing out on regular beneifts such as annual leave and pension contributions. I appreciate many businesses are reducing staff hire where possible. But is this a clear case of being unfairly treated and exploitation, or is the business completely within their rights?
    Fairness doesn't come into it - life isn't fair. As for being exploited - you can always leave if you don't like the terms and don't have the negotiating skills/clout to agree something you find more palatable.
    Googling on your question might have been both quicker and easier, if you're only after simple facts rather than opinions!  
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.6K Life & Family
  • 259.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.