Exploitation in the Irish construction industry

nelbot

Since the REA was struck down in 2013, worker exploitation in the construction sector has become rampant. There has been a huge increase in 'non-independent' self-employment (i.e. being paid on the C45 tax system). This means no holiday pay, no public liability insurance, no overtime rates, no travel time and the restrictions on social welfare if your boss has no work. If you are not a tradesman you have only got access to general unions such as SIPTU, which have zero interest in these issues. I want to set up a union for construction workers who are not trade accredited. Any feedback here is welcome. I have worked abroad on construction projects, overtime is voluntary, no one is breaking their bodies bulling into things, why can't we have this here?

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Since the REA was struck down in 2013, worker exploitation in the construction sector has become rampant. There has been a huge increase in 'non-independent' self-employment (i.e. being paid on the C45 tax system). This means no holiday pay, no public liability insurance, no overtime rates, no travel time and the restrictions on social welfare if your boss has no work. If you are not a tradesman you have only got access to general unions such as SIPTU, which have zero interest in these issues. I want to set up a union for construction workers who are not trade accredited. Any feedback here is welcome. I have worked abroad on construction projects, overtime is voluntary, no one is breaking their bodies bulling into things, why can't we have this here?

Is any of what you claim is happening illegal and are the workers being paid above minimum wage?

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

Is any of what you claim is happening illegal and are the workers being paid above minimum wage?

It is a grey area. There is currently no legislation covering these activities. But some aspects of it are illegal. For example, a sub-contractor advertises for shuttering carpenters who he means to pay on the C45 tax system. Under employment legislation, he is supposed to set out terms and conditions of employment, under the C45 system no such rules are in place. But the 'employee' often may not even be aware of the situation until first pay day comes around. These positions are advertised as jobs, not as available work for independent operators, if you do not ask what tax you will be paying, you are unlikely to be told until you do ask. Np other industry operates in this way. As to the minimum wage, I do not know the answer to this as there are many foreign workers on site, a lot of whom can't speak english, who knows what they are being paid?

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

It is a grey area. There is currently no legislation covering these activities. But some aspects of it are illegal. For example, a sub-contractor advertises for shuttering carpenters who he means to pay on the C45 tax system. Under employment legislation, he is supposed to set out terms and conditions of employment, under the C45 system no such rules are in place. But the 'employee' often may not even be aware of the situation until first pay day comes around. These positions are advertised as jobs, not as available work for independent operators, if you do not ask what tax you will be paying, you are unlikely to be told until you do ask. Np other industry operates in this way. As to the minimum wage, I do not know the answer to this as there are many foreign workers on site, a lot of whom can't speak english, who knows what they are being paid?

Yes other sectors do something similar, fixed term self employed contractors are not entitled to paid leave, job security (permanency, unless contracts exceed 4 years) and are responsible for paying their own tax and are not entitled to welfare benefit when not working. These are very common in all industries including IT, health care, public services etc.

If the worker is paid above minimum wage and the employer is not breaking the law, no matter how grey you think it is, they are not being exploited, they are free to quit and work somewhere else.

This is the distinction between an "employee" and a self employed "contractor" and to be fair, both are "jobs", it is really up to the worker to seek clarification before he/she starts work, that is the same in all sectors. I don't work in construction but it only took me a couple of minutes to read articles about RCT and C45, surely it is up to sub contractors to read up on it and know their rights?

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

Yes other sectors do, fixed term self employed contractors are not entitled to paid leave, job security (permanency, unless contracts exceed 4 years) and are responsible for paying their own tax and are not entitled to welfare benefit when not working. These are very common in all industries including IT, health care, public services etc.

If the worker is paid above minimum wage and the employer is not breaking the law, no matter how grey you think it is, they are not being exploited, they are free to quit and work somewhere else.

Wrong, there is no minimum wage when you are self-employed, the point is that these workers are not actually self employed and have no fixed term conditions. They gain employment under a false premise. They are not offered a fixed term contract. In my own experience, I answered an ad for work under the assumption I would be an employee. I had no idea I was paying into C45 until I received documentation from revenue. I was paid by cheque and received no payslip. The conditions were not explained until I asked, and this same scenario played out in 4 of the last 5 jobs I worked in. You say the worker is not exploited and can leave when they want, but if they can't get social welfare then this freedom you allude to is purely technical detail and not realistic in practice.

CIARAN_BOYLE

One major blackhole is workers being told they are on rct scheme but deductions not being properly paid over to revenue.

A goal of your union/self employed persons organisation should be campaigning that subcontractors have access to real time information about whether rct has been paid on their behalf by principle contractors.

nelbot

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

One major blackhole is workers being told they are on rct scheme but deductions not being properly paid over to revenue.

A goal of your union/self employed persons organisation should be campaigning that subcontractors have access to real time information about whether rct has been paid on their behalf by principle contractors.

This is not my intention, the idea of this union is to win back 'normal' worker conditions for involuntary 'self-employed'. There were industry-wide strikes in 2000 so we could just have the same rights as every other worker, we won these rights but have now lost them again since 2013 when the supreme court struck down the REA as unconstitutional. I am not looking to help subbies with their issues, I am looking to get employee rights for employees. The issue is with sub-contractors hiring people as workers but paying them as independent contractors. Technically, they are self-employed, in reality they are employees with a boss. When the REA fell it left a loophole in the legislation which a big number of subbies are taking advantage of.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Wrong, there is no minimum wage when you are self-employed, the point is that these workers are not actually self employed and have no fixed term conditions. They gain employment under a false premise. They are not offered a fixed term contract. In my own experience, I answered an ad for work under the assumption I would be an employee. I had no idea I was paying into C45 until I received documentation from revenue. I was paid by cheque and received no payslip. The conditions were not explained until I asked, and this same scenario played out in 4 of the last 5 jobs I worked in. You say the worker is not exploited and can leave when they want, but if they can't get social welfare then this freedom you allude to is purely technical detail and not realistic in practice.

I'm afraid you are wrong there, there is a minimum hourly rate, €9:15 for all experienced adult workers including self employed subcontractors in receipt of a wage. Construction workers are often employed under casual contracts, it was up to you as it is with all employees request precise terms and conditions before you start.

A fixed term contract can also relate to a specific task being completed, eg when the shuttering job is completed, your job and employment is finished.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

I'm afraid you are wrong there, there is a minimum hourly rate, €9:15 for all experienced adult workers including self employed subcontractors in receipt of a wage. Construction workers are often employed under casual contracts, it was up to you as it is with all employees request precise terms and conditions before you start.

Once again you are failing to look at this from a realistic perspective. We do not receive casual contracts, we do not want to work on the C45, we do not have a choice as this is what is on offer, and before you say it, the majority of workers in this position can't just go and do something else as employment opportunities in most sectors are still few and far between. We can't all be chemical engineers or coding ninjas. The fact is this is an abuse of the system, you are arguing about technicalities, I am about winning rights that these technicalities have destroyed.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Once again you are failing to look at this from a realistic perspective. We do not receive casual contracts, we do not want to work on the C45, we do not have a choice as this is what is on offer, and before you say it, the majority of workers in this position can't just go and do something else as employment opportunities in most sectors are still few and far between. We can't all be chemical engineers or coding ninjas. The fact is this is an abuse of the system, you are arguing about technicalities, I am about winning rights that these technicalities have destroyed.

The "technicalities" are the laws laid down in employment legislation. As long as the employer acts within the law, your only recourse is to change the law. That is the reality of the situation.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

The "technicalities" are the laws laid down in employment legislation. As long as the employer acts within the law, your only recourse is to change the law. That is the reality of the situation.

Yes, that is the aim. There was an article in the Irish Examiner on on Friday 17/06/2016 highlighting this issue, titled 'Bogus contract status of workers revealed'. I can't post a link yet until I have passed the 25 post mark, but I will when I can.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Yes, that is the aim. There was an article in the Irish Examiner on on Friday 17/06/2016 highlighting this issue, titled 'Bogus contract status of workers revealed'. I can't post a link yet until I have passed the 25 post mark, but I will when I can.

Surely that is up to the TEEU to lobby for legislative change.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

Surely that is up to the TEEU to lobby for legislative change.

The TEEU represents accredited trades and engineering (grade A). There are 3 grades of operative that have no industry specific union representation, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled operatives have to join SIPTU, SIPTU have no interest in these issues. I have called them several times over regulation breaches, as have many others I know, they don't care. We need a union to win back our rights. No one else is going to do it, not one politician is talking about this.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

The TEEU represents accredited trades and engineering (grade A). There are 3 grades of operative that have no industry specific union representation, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled operatives have to join SIPTU, SIPTU have no interest in these issues. I have called them several times over regulation breaches, as have many others I know, they don't care. We need a union to win back our rights. No one else is going to do it, not one politician is talking about this.

Surely the way of addressing this is for the worker to ask before taking the job "Am I gong to be employed as a PRSI worker or as a self employed contractor?" If it's the latter, then pass on the job, nobody is forcing you to take the job, somebody else might be happy to take it.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

Surely the way of addressing this is for the worker to ask before taking the job "Am I gong to be employed as a PRSI worker or as a self employed contractor?" If it's the latter, then pass on the job, nobody is forcing you to take the job, somebody else might be happy to take it.

See you are missing the point here. Before 2000, C45 was the status quo, after the strikes only actual self-employed people were under this system. After the financial collapse, tens of thousands of construction workers became unemployed. Due to the recent uptake in the sector, many have returned to work. The problem is, many of us were unaware the REA had been struck down. On all the sites I have worked on in the last 12 months, all of them had several guys that have fallen into this 'self employed trap', i.e. they answered ads for jobs, assuming with no reason to not assume, that they would be PAYE workers as everybody was before 2013, and here now is the problem, once they went into the C45 system, they are stuck there. They can't get welfare so they have no bargaining position, you might have a choice between three or four jobs, but all are paying C45. You can't refuse the work because then you have no income.

nelbot

Here is a quote from The Examiner article.
'That is according to a report that will be published today at the annual conference of the think-tank Tasc in Croke Park, Dublin.

The report examines the quality and quantity of jobs here and focuses on the hospitality, construction, financial services and ICT sectors.

In the construction sector, it finds that many employers have reduced direct employment and outsourced as much work as possible.

“In their turn, sub-contractors outsourced work so that sub-contracting chains lengthened,” the authors of the report James Wickham and Alicja Bobek said.

“There has been a dramatic growth in the proportion of craft workers who are self-employed. Many of these are ‘bogus self-employed’: they have been compelled by their employer to declare themselves self-employed. This saves the employer wages and taxes, but the self-employed lose some social welfare entitlements.”

Mr Wickham said the tax system seems to facilitate ‘employers’ designate the recipients of contracts as self-employed with no consultation. “In 2006, just under 25% of construction workers were self-employed, in 2015, it was 38%, and many of them are what are termed ‘bogus self-employed’. They are like any other employee: they are working under someone else’s direction, they don’t have their own equipment and don’t supply materials, they certainly don’t employ anyone else. However, thanks to the Revenue’s Relevant Contracts Tax, they magically become their own bosses.

“The Revenue’s online system allows employers to become principal contractors, and employees to become subcontractors literally at the click of a mouse. Providing the principal has the subcontractor’s name and tax number, no active consent from the subcontractor is even necessary.”'

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

See you are missing the point here. Before 2000, C45 was the status quo, after the strikes only actual self-employed people were under this system. After the financial collapse, tens of thousands of construction workers became unemployed. Due to the recent uptake in the sector, many have returned to work. The problem is, many of us were unaware the REA had been struck down. On all the sites I have worked on in the last 12 months, all of them had several guys that have fallen into this 'self employed trap', i.e. they answered ads for jobs, assuming with no reason to not assume, that they would be PAYE workers as everybody was before 2013, and here now is the problem, once they went into the C45 system, they are stuck there. They can't get welfare so they have no bargaining position, you might have a choice between three or four jobs, but all are paying C45. You can't refuse the work because then you have no income.

But ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law. It is up to you to update yourself on current legislation and employment rights. If the employer is operating within the law, you can't say "well I didn't know about the changes in that law". If it is legal, then you can either work or not, your choice.

Stheno

davo10 wrote: »

But ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law. It is up to you to update yourself on current legislation. If the employer is operating within the law, you can't say "well I didn't know about the changes in the law".

I agree with this tbh.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

But ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law. It is up to you to update yourself on current legislation. If the employer is operating within the law, you can't say "well I didn't know about the changes in the law".

Defence in the eyes of the law?? LOL are we in court Matlock? The aim is to win rights here, not to jail people...

Stheno

nelbot wrote: »

Defence in the eyes of the law?? LOL are we in court Matlock? The aim is to win rights here, not to jail people...

So you want the c45 system abolished?

nelbot

Stheno wrote: »

So you want the c45 system abolished?

No, I want my job to go back to being PAYE job as I am an employee with a boss and not an independent contractor.

Stheno

nelbot wrote: »

No, I want my job to go back to being PAYE job as I am an employee with a boss and not an independent contractor.

Which is the same as wanting the c 45 scheme to be abolished tbh.

nelbot

Stheno wrote: »

Which is the same as wanting the c 45 scheme to be abolished tbh.

No it isn't, actual self employed sub-contractors use the C45, please explain how wanting my own status as an employee to be classified under employee taxation, equates to wanting to abolish the C45 system?

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Defence in the eyes of the law?? LOL are we in court Matlock? The aim is to win rights here, not to jail people...

No, your aim is to get legislative change because right now the situation you are highlighting is legal. And to say the situation is "wrong" because people like you were unaware of legislative changes is in effect admitting that you are ignorant of the law, that is not a defence. Please don't think that I am saying you are ignorant, the term is a legal one that means that not knowing whether something is legal or illegal is a valid excuse.

Stheno

nelbot wrote: »

No it isn't, actual self employed sub-contractors use the C45, please explain how wanting my own status as an employee to be classified under employee taxation, equates to wanting to abolish the C45 system?

You want it removed as an option for employers to use and avoid e.g. paying employer prsi, holidays etc?

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

No, your aim is to get legislative change because right now the situation you are highlighting is legal. And to say the situation is "wrong" because people like you were unaware of legislative changes is in effect admitting that you are ignorant of the law, that is not a defence. Please don't think that I am saying you are ignorant, the term is a legal one that means that not knowing whether something is legal or illegal is a valid excuse.

Once again you are arguing technicalities. I don't understand why you keep referring to ignorance being no defence in a legal scenario. I am not accusing anyone of breaking employment laws, maybe false advertisement at a stretch. I am suggesting getting organised to try get legislation introduced.

nelbot

Stheno wrote: »

You want it removed as an option for employers to use and avoid e.g. paying employer prsi, holidays etc?

Yes, but this still doesn't mean abolishing it, it just means paying employees PAYE and self employed C45...not sure why you think paying workers as workers means abolishing self employed taxation...

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Once again you are arguing technicalities. I don't understand why you keep referring to ignorance being no defence in a legal scenario. I am not accusing anyone of breaking employment laws, maybe false advertisement at a stretch. I am suggesting getting organised to try get legislation introduced.

Because if the employer is acting within the law, not knowing/understanding your status before you start a job seems unusual to most.

The construction sector has always had casual employment because different trades/labourers are taken on to do specific tasks and when those tasks are completed the job ends. At different phases of build the workforce increases and declines depending on need so it would not practicle for contractors/developers to employ people full time as PRSI workers. I suspect this would increase construction costs even further at a time when one off home owners/developers are saying building costs are too expensive.

In relation to the job advertisement, did is specifically say you would be a PRSI employee or did it just advertise a labouring job?

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

Because if the employer is acting within the law, not knowing/understanding your status before you start a job seems unusual to most.

The construction sector has always had casual employment because different trades/labourers are taken on to do specific tasks and when those tasks are completed the job ends. At different phases of build the workforce increases and declines depending on need so it would not practicle for contractors/developers to employ people full time as PRSI workers. I suspect this would increase construction costs even further at a time when one off home owners/developers are saying building costs are too expensive.

It may seem unusual to most, but it isn't unusual to those of us who experience it. Costs notwithstanding, why should construction workers not be entitled to legal protection just like the vast majority of employees? The very issue you use to justify your stance is a double edged sword i.e. 'At different phases of build the workforce increases and declines depending on need', from the workers perspective, this directly translates into having work or not during upturns and downturns in the industry. It is for this exact reason I am seeking to be reclassified as a PAYE worker, so in the case of being unable to find work, I can get welfare...it cuts both ways.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

Because if the employer is acting within the law, not knowing/understanding your status before you start a job seems unusual to most.

The construction sector has always had casual employment because different trades/labourers are taken on to do specific tasks and when those tasks are completed the job ends. At different phases of build the workforce increases and declines depending on need so it would not practicle for contractors/developers to employ people full time as PRSI workers. I suspect this would increase construction costs even further at a time when one off home owners/developers are saying building costs are too expensive.

It may seem unusual to most, but it isn't unusual to those of us who experience it. Costs notwithstanding, why should construction workers not be entitled to legal protection just like the vast majority of employees? The very issue you use to justify your stance is a double edged sword i.e. 'At different phases of build the workforce increases and declines depending on need', from the workers perspective, this directly translates into having work or not during upturns and downturns in the industry. It is for this exact reason I am seeking to be reclassified as a PAYE worker, so in the case of being unable to find work, I can get welfare...it cuts both ways.
And no, the ads I responded to did not specify tax system, and I'm not a labourer either.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

It may seem unusual to most, but it isn't unusual to those of us who experience it. Costs notwithstanding, why should construction workers not be entitled to legal protection just like the vast majority of employees?

They are entitled to legal protection, and the employer is operating within the law, it's just not the protection you want.

In relation to the ad, it is not false advertising, it's just that you didn't know about changes to legislation and didn't ask the terms of your employment.

If you are employed as a self employed contractor, you cannot then demand to be classified as a PRSI employee because it suits you better. If the type of status you are unhappy with is now the norm, you were wrong to assume otherwise based on legislation that was amended 3 years ago.

Irrespective of either of our views, if it is that big of an issue to most, your Union needs to stand up for your rights.

You said you are not a labourer so presumably you have a trade qualification. I always thought it benefited electricians/plasterers/shutterers to be vat registered and self employed, they could then price for jobs.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

They are entitled to legal protection, and the employer is operating within the law, it's just not the protection you want.

In relation to the ad, it is not false advertising, it's just that you didn't know about changes to legislation and didn't ask the terms of your employment.

If you are employed as a self employed contractor, you cannot then demand to be classified as a PRSI employee because it suits you better. If the type of status you are unhappy with is now the norm, you were wrong to assume otherwise based on legislation that was amended 3 years ago.

Irrespective of either of our views, if it is that big of an issue to most, your Union needs to stand up for your rights.

You said you are not a labourer so presumably you have a trade qualification. I always thought it benefited electricians/plasterers/shutterers to be vat registered and self employed, they could then price for jobs.

No, I am a steel fixer which is not a recognised trade in Ireland, it falls under the skilled operative grade like scaffolders and machine drivers. You keep referring to fixed term contracts and minimum wage. Can you not read when I tell you we receive no contracts? I'll try again, we receive no contracts.....fixed term or otherwise, no contracts of employment or self employment, no records of hours worked or productivity, no proof of anything other than what the actual sub-contractor send in to revenue. And, yes I can demand to be a PAYE worker because it suits me better, that is exactly what I intend to do. There is more than enough anger out there over this to get something up and running. Your arguments over the legal position have no bearing on the reality on the ground.

Stheno

nelbot wrote: »

Your arguments over the legal position have no bearing on the reality on the ground.

Well they do if the main contractors are operating within the laws of the c45 scheme you've no real come back. Wanting or demanding to be a paye worker won't mean much when it will add to their costs tbh

nelbot

Stheno wrote: »

Well they do if the main contractors are operating within the laws of the c45 scheme you've no real come back. Wanting or demanding to be a paye worker won't mean much when it will add to their costs tbh

I see, no real comeback eh? I bet there was a lot of people like you saying the same kind of thing before 2000, we won it then, we can win it again...tbh...

Stheno

nelbot wrote: »

I see, no real comeback eh? I bet there was a lot of people like you saying the same kind of thing before 2000, we won it then, we can win it again...tbh...

I'm not suggesting you can't but with a housing shortage and a focus on reducing the cost of building, I can't see the changes you want happening

nelbot

Stheno wrote: »

I'm not suggesting you can't but with a housing shortage and a focus on reducing the cost of building, I can't see the changes you want happening

Your ability to see it or otherwise has no bearing on the situation. I wonder how expensive houses will get if there is no one to build them?

micks

Its a simple matter of supply and demand
While there is people willing to work under these conditions they will continue

Its one of many ways that employers have used in the last few years to bring their costs and obligations down

Same as companies that reduced rates of pay and travelling expenses - all of a sudden many are reversing these changes to try hold onto staff as things improve

in reality you need those working under the conditions you describe to leave and go to better companies - then there may be improvements

Hooleyo

Nelbot. From my understanding in order to start a union you need a trade union licence. And these are very difficult to get and extremely expensive.

As unions go, id say talk to the Independent Workers Union. They would be interested and open to your ideas.

I'm not connected to that union myself, but I know of it.

jcon1913

davo10 wrote: »

But ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law. It is up to you to update yourself on current legislation and employment rights. If the employer is operating within the law, you can't say "well I didn't know about the changes in that law". If it is legal, then you can either work or not, your choice.

Ive read a few if your responses here, "ignorance if the law is no defence", thats first year legal studies. This is Ireland, not the US. We dont want to live in a dog-eat-dog society. Workers need protection from this sort of exploitation. Requiring them to actively consent to being subcontractors would be a start.

nelbot

jcon1913 wrote: »

Ive read a few if your responses here, "ignorance if the law is no defence", thats first year legal studies. This is Ireland, not the US. We dont want to live in a dog-eat-dog society. Workers need protection from this sort of exploitation. Requiring them to actively consent to being subcontractors would be a start.

Thanks, although I wasn't unaware of the filibuster tactic on show with these irrelevant arguments i.e. constantly making a long winded point about legalities and deliberately attempting to steer the conversation away from the actual topic, I was also aware that these guys were keeping my topic near the top and so were unintentionally helping me.

nelbot

Hooleyo wrote: »

Nelbot. From my understanding in order to start a union you need a trade union licence. And these are very difficult to get and extremely expensive.

As unions go, id say talk to the Independent Workers Union. They would be interested and open to your ideas.

I'm not connected to that union myself, but I know of it.

Thank you, I will have a look.

Avatar MIA

nelbot wrote: »

Thank you, I will have a look.

Also, Revenue may be your friend here. Are these really employees. Revenue may decide they are if they are aware.

nelbot

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Also, Revenue may be your friend here. Are these really employees. Revenue may decide they are if they are aware.

When revenue became aware of this issue, they started clamping down on the employees. Revenue staff have no interest in how we got into the position, they are only concerned with the collecting of taxes. Like most civil servants, they operate within parameters, this falls under the remit of the department of enterprise trade and employment. When this department became aware of it, instead of making any attempt to intervene, they simply referred the matter to revenue...

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

Yes other sectors do something similar, fixed term self employed contractors are not entitled to paid leave, job security (permanency, unless contracts exceed 4 years) and are responsible for paying their own tax and are not entitled to welfare benefit when not working. These are very common in all industries including IT, health care, public services etc.

If the worker is paid above minimum wage and the employer is not breaking the law, no matter how grey you think it is, they are not being exploited, they are free to quit and work somewhere else.

Sorry, but I call bs on this argument.

When a person works in an employers site, under the supervision of the employer, during hours specified by the employer, using tools and materials supplied by the employer, then they should be a PAYE employee with employment rights.

Some of these are on fixed term or casual contracts, for sure, but these are usually as PAYE employees not independent contractors.

Some high skilled IT workers don't work on that basis and are happy not to. But I'm not aware of other industries where it's common: Revenue even forced GP's to pay their locums as employees a few years ago.

nelbot

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Sorry, but I call bs on this argument.

When a person works in an employers site, under the supervision of the employer, during hours specified by the employer, using tools and materials supplied by the employer, then they should be a PAYE employee with employment rights.

Some of these are on fixed term contracts, for sure, but these are usually as PAYE employees not indecent contractors.

Some high skilled IT workers don't work on that basis and are happy not to. But I'm not aware of other industries where it's common: Revenue even forced GP's to pay their locums as employees a few years ago.

Well said, the germane point here being a question of consent. We are self employed without consent and in many cases, initially unaware of the status until it is too late to make the choice. It may not be illegal, but it is certainly unethical.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

............

Some high skilled IT workers don't work on that basis and are happy not to. But I'm not aware of other industries where it's common: Revenue even forced GP's to pay their locums as employees a few years ago.

Med device, pharma, bio pharma & construction.

The likes of PM & Jacobs have huge numbers of engineers of various disciplines who are self employed and are paid on an hourly basis, some of these are based in the office.

Anything with an hourly rate at the following link would be on a self employed basis, some may opt to go PAYE under an umbrella company admittedly, this would be a minority

http://www.jobcontax.com/jobs-in-dublin

.....some may opt to go PAYE under an umbrella company ......

Would this be an option for you and your colleagues OP?

Stheno

Augeo wrote: »

Would this be an option for you and your colleagues OP?

No reason why not but they would have to pay employers prsi at 10%

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

No reason why not but they would have to pay employers prsi at 10%

I suspect that wouldn't be favourable

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Sorry, but I call bs on this argument.

When a person works in an employers site, under the supervision of the employer, during hours specified by the employer, using tools and materials supplied by the employer, then they should be a PAYE employee with employment rights.

Oh right, how many IT contractors have to bring their own chair, desk, telephone, and computers to work?

You are not going to win an argument about GPs pay with me.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Well said, the germane point here being a question of consent. We are self employed without consent and in many cases, initially unaware of the status until it is too late to make the choice. It may not be illegal, but it is certainly unethical.

Consent? It's a job offer, ask the conditions you are employed under and if you don't like them, don't consent to them, it's what everyone else does at interview.