Exploitation in the Irish construction industry

Mellor

nelbot wrote: »

In my own experience, I answered an ad for work under the assumption I would be an employee.

That's a a bit of a silly assumption.

In all of my previous jobs this was one of the main questions I'dwant to know about the position.
How much am I paid.
Am I an employee or a contractor
Permanent, Fixed term, or casual

nelbot wrote: »

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.

Paying people under that system isn't illegal.
Just because it isn't your preferred working conditions, doesn't make it illegal. The fact you can't dictate what is on offer isn't a unique issue.

Mellor

nelbot wrote: »

Once again, none of this changes the facts, i.e. some of our rights have been removed and we want them back.

What rights were removed? Be specific.

To be clear, you are saying you had these rights with this employer and now you no longer do.

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

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.

In IT:

People who really should be classified as contractors do indeed use their own chair, desk, telephone and computer - in their own office. Sometime they will visit the client site and hot-desk there for a day, for sure, but as contractors they are in charge of their own work.

There are some people employed as "contractors", even though a quick glance at how they operate shows that they don't really meet Revenue's tests for whether or not they're contractors. I've even sat next to such people, doing exactly the same work, but getting less money because I was a temporary employee who was taken on when the job market wasn't good, while they were taken on when there was more demand for skills. Revenue only rarely enforce in this area - I suspect because they themselves need to use skilled IT staff who want to work as contractors.


Outside of IT:
I don't know much about the pharmaceutical industry and how engineers in get away with being "contractors"

Re GP's pay, there is no argument. Revenue made things very clear here: http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/tax-briefing/archive/82/




Re specific rights that the OP has lost, the most glaring is Class A PRSI contributions, which would give them access to Job Seeker's Benefit during periods when there was no work.

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

In IT:

People who really should be classified as contractors do indeed use their own chair, desk, telephone and computer - in their own office. Sometime they will visit the client site and hot-desk there for a day, for sure, but as contractors they are in charge of their own work.

There are some people employed as "contractors", even though a quick glance at how they operate shows that they don't really meet Revenue's tests for whether or not they're contractors. I've even sat next to such people, doing exactly the same work, but getting less money because I was a temporary employee who was taken on when the job market wasn't good, while they were taken on when there was more demand for skills. Revenue only rarely enforce in this area - I suspect because they themselves need to use skilled IT staff who want to work as contractors.


Outside of IT:
I don't know much about the pharmaceutical industry and how engineers in get away with being "contractors"

Re GP's pay, there is no argument. Revenue made things very clear here: http://www.revenue.ie/en/practitioner/tax-briefing/archive/82/




Re specific rights that the OP has lost, the most glaring is Class A PRSI contributions, which would give them access to Job Seeker's Benefit during periods when there was no work.

So you have heard of contractors in the industry you work in and know damn all about others (there is s specific reason by the way that that link only applies to locums and it has absolutely no similarity to the situation the op is in nor any other industry, as I work in that particular industry and know a shed load more about it than you do I really don't want to write a long post outlining how you are wrong to use it as an example).

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

...........


Outside of IT:
I don't know much about the pharmaceutical industry and how engineers in get away with being "contractors"..............

Many are taken on for a project, paid out of a capital budget and hired for a short period. Most of these folk are happy, well paid and change sites/projects annually or frequently enough, 6/7 sites over 10 years. they are "getting away" with nothing, they are self employed consultants essentially.

You have others taken on as a fixed term contractor, PAYE but often let go prior to the arrangement being made permanent. Most of these folk aren't happy and are seeking full time permanent employment.

Nothing untoward going on in either scenario, there is a whiff of tough sh1t off the second one alright.

Revenue get there pound of flesh either way. No/little expenses being claimed last few years.

nelbot

Mellor wrote: »

What rights were removed? Be specific.

To be clear, you are saying you had these rights with this employer and now you no longer do.

We lost employee rights such as holiday pay, p.r.s.i. contribution, overtime rates to name a few.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

No thanks, just because someone does not agree with you does not mean you can abuse them. if you are to negotiate with Unions/Departments, leave it to your more level headed collegues.

Agree? Agree with what? You didn't disagree with me. Your points would have to be relevant to disagree. I have already been offered support from a number of public organisations. I didn't abuse you, unless you think that pointing out the truth is abusive.

Stheno

MOD everyone, calm down, improve the general tone of your posts and cut out the personal swipes.

If it continues there will be cards

nelbot

Mellor wrote: »

That's a a bit of a silly assumption.

In all of my previous jobs this was one of the main questions I'dwant to know about the position.
How much am I paid.
Am I an employee or a contractor
Permanent, Fixed term, or casual



Paying people under that system isn't illegal.
Just because it isn't your preferred working conditions, doesn't make it illegal. The fact you can't dictate what is on offer isn't a unique issue.

It may be a silly assumption in some sectors, but given that this situation was a major source of contention in the past, and was successfully dealt with, and so there was no reason to have to ask the question about self employment status, why would it be asked? It was not common practice. In the vast majority of jobs, there is no reason to ask about this status.
Regardless of mistaken assumptions or whatever, this thread is about making an attempt to organise the workers and try to win back normal employee status. It is not a thread about legal positions or practices in other sectors, or even practices in this sector.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

We lost employee rights such as holiday pay, p.r.s.i. contribution, overtime rates to name a few.

No you didn't, those rights are still there for employees. They are simply not there for self employed contractors. Why don't you just ask which type of job is being offered and refuse it you don't want it. You are being employed legally as a contractor if that is the job being offered. God almighty it isn't difficult to grasp, if it's a self employed contract job, don't take it if you don't want it, it is the way every other sector works.

You want your job to have certain entitlements, they are not being offered by the employer because they don't have to be. Ce la vie.

HoggyRS

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The other option is 188 a week

I know what I would prefer

Pointless snarky comment. And this is the mentality they try to force on people in construction these days, that you have it so good to have a job at all that you can't seek better conditions or speak up when you're being wronged.

Mellor

nelbot wrote: »

We lost employee rights such as holiday pay, p.r.s.i. contribution, overtime rates to name a few.

Wait, are you saying that you were an employee initially, but your employer moved you to a self employed contract. That would be illegal, if you had a contract for the initial employment.

However, if you were never an employee for this employer, then you didn't lose any rights. And they aren't rights in your case. They are the rights of a employee, but nobody has the right to be an employee.

These things aren't just taken away for free however, a contractor would typically be paid a higher rate than an employee to offset the fact they don't get sick pay, annual leave, etc. For example, If I was to employee casuals, they wouldn't get sick pay, annual pay leave, but they'd get +25% per hour.

There's a vast difference in paying minimum wage (€9.15) to a contractor as a means to avoid ing cost. And paying €19 to a skilled worked as a contractors rate.

nelbot wrote: »

It may be a silly assumption in some sectors, but given that this situation was a major source of contention in the past, and was successfully dealt with, and so there was no reason to have to ask the question about self employment status, why would it be asked? It was not common practice.

It depends on your point of reference, for me it's more common in construction than other industries, but I'm not living in Ireland now either.

Mrs OBumble

Mellor wrote: »

Wait, are you saying that you were an employee initially, but your employer moved you to a self employed contract. That would be illegal, if you had a contract for the initial employment.

These things aren't just taken away for free however, a contractor would typically be paid a higher rate than an employee to offset the fact they don't get sick pay, annual leave, etc. For example, If I was to employee casuals, they wouldn't get sick pay, annual pay leave, but they'd get +25% per hour.

There's a vast difference in paying minimum wage (€9.15) to a contractor as a means to avoid ing cost. And paying €19 to a skilled worked as a contractors rate.

The OP is talking about changes in the industry as a whole, not a specific job that s/he is in. Not sure why everyone is finding this so difficult to grasp, or is so down on him/her wanting to make things better for workers in this industry.

A 25% premium on contract rates over wage rates is not nearly enough to make up the difference:

• Annual leave is 8%
• Public holidays (when most contractors are unlikely to be allowed to work even if they want to) - approx 4%
• Employer PRSI is 10.75% - if the worker wants to maintain their social welfare rights, they have to operate thru an umbrella company and pay this from their contract rate.

So that's 22.75% before you even think about liability insurance, sick leave, training, payroll admininstration, etc.

In IT, a rough rule of thumb is that the contract rate needs to be 50% higher for it to be worth contracting vs being an employee. And I suspect the cost of liability insurance is a lower for an it worker than a construction worker.

mcneil

Mellor wrote: »

There's a vast difference in paying minimum wage (€9.15) to a contractor as a means to avoid ing cost. And paying €19 to a skilled worked as a contractors rate.

€19 an hour for skilled workers! Any tradesmen I know are only getting above minimum wage and have been for years. Up at 5 every morning, work at 7.30 untill 5 and only getting 100 aday

Mellor

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The OP is talking about changes in the industry as a whole, not a specific job that s/he is in. Not sure why everyone is finding this so difficult to grasp, or is so down on him/her wanting to make things better for workers in this industry.

But what has changed? Contracted work always existed. If his previous job was as an employee, and now it is as a contractor, it's disingenuous to present it as losing rights.

A 25% premium on contract rates over wage rates is not nearly enough to make up the difference:

• Annual leave is 8%
• Public holidays (when most contractors are unlikely to be allowed to work even if they want to) - approx 4%
• Employer PRSI is 10.75% - if the worker wants to maintain their social welfare rights, they have to operate thru an umbrella company and pay this from their contract rate.

So that's 22.75% before you even think about liability insurance, sick leave, training, payroll admininstration, etc.

I think you misread my post. 25% is casual loading, not contractually. So your calculations are off by a long way.

25% loading means that you can miss 1 day per week, and earn the same. So that's worth 52 days per year. Annual leave plus public holidays comes to 29 days. Even including for sick pay (which is not guaranteed) working full time on a casual contract will earn more.
None of the rest applies.

In IT, a rough rule of thumb is that the contract rate needs to be 50% higher for it to be worth contracting vs being an employee. And I suspect the cost of liability insurance is a lower for an it worker than a construction worker.

Id imagine the OP is covered by the main contractors insurance, but depends on the specifics.

nelbot

Mellor wrote: »

But what has changed? Contracted work always existed. If his previous job was as an employee, and now it is as a contractor, it's disingenuous to present it as losing rights.

Maybe you could read all of the posts on this thread before making a comment like this. We are made self employed without consent, why is this so hard for you to grasp? We have been forced BACK into a position of work as self employed or dont work and have 0 income. This WAS a common and unethical practice before the year 2000. The industry went on strike and we won normal employee rights for normal employees, as we are. We did lose rights and many more continue to do so. Five minutes on google searching for 'bogus self-employed' will give a multitude of reports on the subject if you could be bothered.
My suspicion is that those here who seem so fervently opposed to us having rights are either employers who think workers have too many rights or they are simply looking to argue for nothing.

nelbot

Mellor wrote: »

These things aren't just taken away for free however, a contractor would typically be paid a higher rate than an employee to offset the fact they don't get sick pay, annual leave, etc. For example, If I was to employee casuals, they wouldn't get sick pay, annual pay leave, but they'd get +25% per hour.

There's a vast difference in paying minimum wage (€9.15) to a contractor as a means to avoid ing cost. And paying €19 to a skilled worked as a contractors rate.


It depends on your point of reference, for me it's more common in construction than other industries, but I'm not living in Ireland now either.

We actually get paid less per hour, Average take home pay per shift is roughly the same on both tax systems, but since the drop in the 'stopped' portion, from 35% to 20%, coupled with the loss of holiday pay and travel allowance, the bogus self employed on the same daily rate receive a lot less than the PAYE workers. This is simply a money saving device for employers, the problem being that honest sub-contractors who prefer to do the right thing, can not compete against those who are blatantly taking advantage of a loophole in the system.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

No you didn't, those rights are still there for employees. They are simply not there for self employed contractors. Why don't you just ask which type of job is being offered and refuse it you don't want it. You are being employed legally as a contractor if that is the job being offered. God almighty it isn't difficult to grasp, if it's a self employed contract job, don't take it if you don't want it, it is the way every other sector works.

You want your job to have certain entitlements, they are not being offered by the employer because they don't have to be. Ce la vie.

Dont take my word for it, google 'bogus self employed', there are a large number of articles from all media sources dating back to mid-2015. I was unaware of the changes to the system when I started back working after 4 years of college. The day I started I became trapped in the self-employed system. There are many hundreds if not thousands of people who have found themselves in the same position.

nelbot

Mellor wrote: »

But what has changed? Contracted work always existed. If his previous job was as an employee, and now it is as a contractor, it's disingenuous to present it as losing rights.

Sigh, once AGAIN...WE DO NOT GET CONTRACTS!!!!!

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

Sigh, once AGAIN...WE DO NOT GET CONTRACTS!!!!!

I think the reasons you are not getting as much sympathy and support you obviously feel you deserve are:

• The option to employ workers as employees or self employed contractors exists in other industries including the public service, these self employed contractors also do not recieve the SW benefits PAYE employees are entitled to, it is not particular to construction.
• If a working arrangement is perfectly legal, under both employment legislation and in the eyes of Revenue, it cannot accurately be described as "bogus", just because you and a couple of journos don't like it. If it was illegal the courts would be full of complaints about "bogus" practices and the Unions would be all over it.
• Like everyone else, in every other job, no one is forcing you to take it.
• It seems anathema to most, that someone like yourself would take a job without first asking details of the pay and conditions. I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously when you then start bleating about exploitation without having first asked the question. I don't think you were exploited, I think you were naive and the employer paid you the lowest rate he could.

Mellor

mcneil wrote: »

€19 an hour for skilled workers! Any tradesmen I know are only getting above minimum wage and have been for years. Up at 5 every morning, work at 7.30 untill 5 and only getting 100 aday

Like I said, I was pointing out a situation where it's completely difference to min wage

nelbot wrote: »

Maybe you could read all of the posts on this thread before making a comment like this. We are made self employed without consent, why is this so hard for you to grasp?

:rolleyes:

Nobody is failing to grasp anything. You are the one dodge simple questions.
I'll ask again;

Where you working for this employer as an PAYE/PRSI employee. Then one day you were made self-employed.

Or were you self-employed on this job from the from the start.

Two very different situations. Presenting it as losing right, being made self employee without consent etc. Makes sense in the case of the first, and is disingenuous in the latter.

We actually get paid less per hour, Average take home pay per shift is roughly the same on both tax systems,

I've no idea what you get get paid. I'm talking about casuals get made with me. Take home would be 25% higher on a 5 day week week. And about 10% high over a longer period taking days off into account.

A contractor's rate would be 40-50% higher.

If you are getting screwed on wages, the problem is the fact you are being underpaid. There is nothing inherently wrong with the sub-contractor system. THe issue is with your boss.

nelbot wrote: »

Sigh, once AGAIN...WE DO NOT GET CONTRACTS!!!!!

Of course you do. A contract is not limited to a piece of paper you sign.
Assuming you didn't just turn and start working one day. At some point, you were asked to work or told you have the job. A verbal contract is binding, this is a good thing, it protects you.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

I think the reasons you are not getting as much sympathy and support you obviously feel you deserve are:

• The option to employ workers as employees or self employed contractors exists in other industries including the public service, these self employed contractors also do not recieve the SW benefits PAYE employees are entitled to, it is not particular to construction.
• If a working arrangement is perfectly legal, under both employment legislation and in the eyes of Revenue, it cannot accurately be described as "bogus", just because you and a couple of journos don't like it. If it was illegal the courts would be full of complaints about "bogus" practices and the Unions would be all over it.
• Like everyone else, in every other job, no one is forcing you to take it.
• It seems anathema to most, that someone like yourself would take a job without first asking details of the pay and conditions. I'm sorry, I can't take you seriously when you then start bleating about exploitation without having first asked the question. I don't think you were exploited, I think you were naive and the employer paid you the lowest rate he could.

Ok, this guy is an employer for sure. I will make this attempt and this will be changed tyvm.

nelbot

Mellor wrote: »

Where you working for this employer as an PAYE/PRSI employee. Then one day you were made self-employed.

Or were you self-employed on this job from the from the start.

Two very different situations. Presenting it as losing right, being made self employee without consent etc. Makes sense in the case of the first, and is disingenuous in the latter.





If you are getting screwed on wages, the problem is the fact you are being underpaid. There is nothing inherently wrong with the sub-contractor system. THe issue is with your boss.


Of course you do. A contract is not limited to a piece of paper you sign.
Assuming you didn't just turn and start working one day. At some point, you were asked to work or told you have the job. A verbal contract is binding, this is a good thing, it protects you.

No, this didn't happen to me but has to others, it is an overall issue of the industry reverting to this tax system. There are cases of employees who have been given the choice of going on self employed or leaving.
And there is plenty wrong with the sub-contractor system when you can make someone into one without asking them if they want to be one. Surely there is some onus on the employer to explain some conditions regardless of being asked.
There is also plenty wrong using it in an industry that can upturn or downturn in a very short space of time. People can find themselves regularly unemployed then can get no state assistance.

mcneil

mcneil wrote: »

€19 an hour for skilled workers! Any tradesmen I know are only getting above minimum wage and have been for years. Up at 5 every morning, work at 7.30 untill 5 and only getting 100 aday

100/day after tax?
Also, what's the up at 5am for a 7.30am start about. I know loads of tradesmen who have local work.

sydthebeat

People choose to take up these c45 jobs at the rate offered by the main contractors.

If the rate is too low as to not offset against the "rights" afforded to employees then the contracts shouldn't be taken up. If the contracts are taken up then someone is deciding the rate is fair with them. No body is being forced to do anything here.
Labourers on building sites need to set their own market value, and not simply complain at the rate offered.
If you don't like the rate don't do the job.
If the main contractors can't full the position at the rate offered, The market will then dictate that the rate rises until the contract becomes attractive. Simple economics.

If they do not ask pertinent questions during the interview well that's just stupidly of the highest order.

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

People choose to take up these c45 jobs at the rate offered by the main contractors.

If the rate is too low as to not offset against the "rights" afforded to employees then the contracts shouldn't be taken up. If the contracts are taken up then someone is deciding the rate is fair with them. No body is being forced to do anything here.
Labourers on building sites need to set their own market value, and not simply complain at the rate offered.
If you don't like the rate don't do the job.
If the main contractors can't full the position at the rate offered, The market will then dictate that the rate rises until the contract becomes attractive. Simple economics.

If they do not ask pertinent questions during the interview well that's just stupidly of the highest order.

These aren't main contractors, they are sub-contractors who turn their employees into sub-contractors.

sydthebeat

nelbot wrote: »

These aren't main contractors, they are sub-contractors who turn their employees into sub-contractors.

If they are a contractor and they "sub contract" they become a main contractor.

That's only semantics anyway.

But like I said, the market should decide the rate, and if labourers take up the contract then they are deciding it's fair.

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

If they are a contractor and they "sub contract" they become a main contractor.

That's only semantics anyway.

But like I said, the market should decide the rate, and if labourers take up the contract then they are deciding it's fair.

Yeah, because there are a million jobs out there and we can all decide on a whim which industry or profession we want to work in...

sydthebeat

nelbot wrote: »

Yeah, because there are a million jobs out there and we can all decide on a whim which industry or profession we want to work in...

If you take up the job that's offered, you're complicit in the exploitation

Make sure you grasp that reality !!

PMBC

sydthebeat wrote: »

If you take up the job that's offered, you're complicit in the exploitation

Make sure you grasp that reality !!

OP you are not getting a lot of support and people are arguing technicalities on things that are not the main issue. I don't have a personal issue on the post but I support you in your ideal. Current behaviours in businesses have shown why workers need to be organised, notwithstanding a lot of mistakes made on the unions side.