Exploitation in the Irish construction industry

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

Your not an employee if your a c45 tax payer, that's the whole point.

What you want is to be an employee and get all the benefits off same.
However the contract you took up was not that of an employee but of a sub contractor.

If you want to best change the system mobilise your fellow subbies to not take up these contracts......

I am a PAYE woreker, I left my last job because I felt exploited under C45, "If you want to best change the system mobilise your fellow subbies to not take up these contracts", like the way a union does or something...?

CIARAN_BOYLE

nelbot wrote: »

They are aware of it. We have been ripped off, according to revenues own conditions of employment status, this should never have happened.

Why do you say this? You seem to misunderstand their conditions of employment.

Its a balance between the employee list and the self employed list. You seem to think that one condition fitting the employee list should make you an employee.

Speedwell

I must be missing something. "You don't get welfare, but feel free to not take the job" sounds a hell of a lot like "let them eat cake".

sydthebeat

nelbot wrote: »

I am a PAYE woreker, I left my last job because I felt exploited under C45, "If you want to best change the system mobilise your fellow subbies to not take up these contracts", like the way a union does or something...?

Unions work for "employees"

http://www.unionconnect.ie/rights/6/

Please read this and get yourself informed.

And after a huge amount of tooth pulling we find out that, shock horror, you left your c45 job to take up an employee position.

'Cake and eating it' comes to mind with me too....

Speedwell

sydthebeat wrote: »

Unions work for "employees"

http://www.unionconnect.ie/rights/6/

Please read this and get yourself informed.

And after a huge amount of tooth pulling we find out that, shock horror, you left your c45 job to take up an employee position.

'Cake and eating it' comes to mind with me too....

Not what I meant at all. Are you really now castigating the OP for having found a real job as an employee? Is that, you know, a problem or something?

sydthebeat

Speedwell wrote: »

Not what I meant at all. Are you really now castigating the OP for having found a real job as an employee? Is that, you know, a problem or something?

I'm not castigating the op at all.

I'm pointing him(?) to the fact that unions work for employees not contractors, and to the fact that he is advocating for contractors, who are free to take up or refuse the contracts offered. That is the paradox in this whole thread.

The fact that the op left his c45 job to take up an employee position is simply proof that the choice exists.

Advocating for workers rights is highly commendable, however it's very hard to have sympathy for workers who took up these c2 contracts of their own free will and accord. They are then simply self employed and must organise themselves properly in a business like manner. The very first of which is understanding the contract they are entering into.

It's very difficult to have any sympathy for the whole "any chance of a start" argument in this day and age....

Also the whole "you don't get welfare" is a red herring as that applies to all self employed. The op should know that.

davo10

Op, given that Employers/contractors will not want to pay a gross outlay higher than already exists under the c45 employment status, are you concerned at all that if this employment status is removed in favour of PAYE status only, the contractors will duduct the 10.75% employers PRSI contribution from the gross offered to the employee? In effect their gross wage may be 10% lower because the employer will have to pay that extra amount to Revenue.

Before anyone jumps in and says that you can't deduct that from an employee's wages or that wages cannot be lowered without agreement of employee, those currently on c45 are not employees, they are currently self employed.

In effect op, if you get your way, you might b responsible for depressing the wages of the workers you are trying to aid. No contractor is going to voluntarily increase their labour costs by 10% to pay employers PRSI, if they are offering a paye job, they will factor in this additional cost and offer a lower wage. And as long as it's above minimum wage, it will be perfectly legal.

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

Unions work for "employees"

http://www.unionconnect.ie/rights/6/

Please read this and get yourself informed.

And after a huge amount of tooth pulling we find out that, shock horror, you left your c45 job to take up an employee position.

'Cake and eating it' comes to mind with me too....

My current status has nothing to do with my desire to try to do something about a blatant abuse of the system. I don't believe we should just have to accept injustice. If our rights are eroded, what is wrong with attempting to win them back?

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

Op, given that Employers/contractors will not want to pay a gross outlay higher than already exists under the c45 employment status, are you concerned at all that if this employment status is removed in favour of PAYE status only, the contractors will duduct the 10.75% employers PRSI contribution from the gross offered to the employee? In effect their gross wage may be 10% lower because the employer will have to pay that extra amount to Revenue.

Before anyone jumps in and says that you can't deduct that from an employee's wages or that wages cannot be lowered without agreement of employee, those currently on c45 are not employees, they are currently self employed.

In effect op, if you get your way, you might b responsible for depressing the wages of the workers you are trying to aid. No contractor is going to voluntarily increase their labour costs by 10% to pay employers PRSI, if they are offering a paye job, they will factor in this additional cost and offer a lower wage. And as long as it's above minimum wage, it will be perfectly legal.

This is a possibility, but if I am successful these decisions will not be mine alone. I personally would prefer to work for less take home pay per shift but keep my rights. Not a single Irish worker I have talked to on a number of sites is not furious that this C45 is being used for employees again.

nelbot

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Why do you say this? You seem to misunderstand their conditions of employment.

Its a balance between the employee list and the self employed list. You seem to think that one condition fitting the employee list should make you an employee.

No, in my last position as an employee but wrongly being paid as self employed, I fulfilled all of the employee conditions bar two and none of the self employed conditions.

gctest50

nelbot wrote: »

No, in my last position as an employee but wrongly being paid as self employed, I fulfilled all of the employee conditions bar two and none of the self employed conditions.

The main problem is if you set up another union, you will have helped the employers win the age-old game of "divide and conquer"

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

This is a possibility, but if I am successful these decisions will not be mine alone. I personally would prefer to work for less take home pay per shift but keep my rights. Not a single Irish worker I have talked to on a number of sites is not furious that this C45 is being used for employees again.

It depends on how you frame the question: if you ask them if they are unhappy about C45 and would they like to be employees, of course they would say yes, their lot would improve. On the other hand, if you ask them if they would like to be employees and would they accept an almost 11% dip in wages to do so, you might get a very different response.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

No, in my last position as an employee but wrongly being paid as self employed, I fulfilled all of the employee conditions bar two and none of the self employed conditions.

I'm sorry, but you just seem to be putting your hands over your ears and going "lalalalalalalala" to what is blatantly obvious to us all. You didn't ask what your employment status was, the job by your own admission was not advertised as a paye position, C45 is a recognised and legal status under which you could be employed and the employer did nothing untoward . Just because you didn't like to doesn't make it wrong.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

It depends on how you frame the question: if you ask them if they are unhappy about C45 and would they like to be employees, of course they would say yes, their lot would improve. On the other hand, if you ask them if they would like to be employees and would they accept an almost 11% dip in wages to do so, you might get a very different response.

This is an option for people, it is possible but unlikely. The bigger companies and agencies are paying a much higher rate and on PAYE. Since I moved company my take home has increased, I get holiday pay and over time rates. There is a huge demand for Irish construction workers in the industry. I get job offers every day. This is the ideal time to organise and attempt to wipe out this practice of wrongly classifying employees as self-employed.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you just seem to be putting your hands over your ears and going "lalalalalalalala" to what is blatantly obvious to us all. You didn't ask what your employment status was, the job by your own admission was not advertised as a paye position, C45 is a recognised and legal status under which you could be employed and the employer did nothing untoward . Just because you didn't like to doesn't make it wrong.

Oh really? So revenue's own terms are to be ignored? He/she is an employee if some or all of the following apply:

Is under the control of another person who directs as to how, when and where the work is to be carried out - true
Works set hours or a given number of hours per week or month
Does not supply materials for the job - true
Does not provide equipment other than the small tools of the trade - true
Is not exposed to personal financial risk in carrying out the work - true
Receives a fixed hourly/weekly/monthly wage - true
Is entitled to extra pay or time off for overtime - flase
Is entitled to sick pay - false
Receives expense payments to cover subsistence and/or travel expenses - flase
Supplies labour only - true
Cannot subcontact the work - true
Does not assume any responsibility for investment and management in the business - true
Does not have the opportunity to profit from sound management in the scheduling of engagements or in the performance of tasks arising from the engagements - true
Will normally be covered under the employer’s public liability insurance - false
Works for one person or for one business - true

sydthebeat

Who is wrongly classifying them?

Themselves?

nelbot

nelbot wrote: »

Oh really? So revenue's own terms are to be ignored? He/she is an employee if some or all of the following apply:

Is under the control of another person who directs as to how, when and where the work is to be carried out - true
Works set hours or a given number of hours per week or month
Does not supply materials for the job - true
Does not provide equipment other than the small tools of the trade - true
Is not exposed to personal financial risk in carrying out the work - true
Receives a fixed hourly/weekly/monthly wage - true
Is entitled to extra pay or time off for overtime - flase
Is entitled to sick pay - false
Receives expense payments to cover subsistence and/or travel expenses - flase
Supplies labour only - true
Cannot subcontact the work - true
Does not assume any responsibility for investment and management in the business - true
Does not have the opportunity to profit from sound management in the scheduling of engagements or in the performance of tasks arising from the engagements - true
Will normally be covered under the employer’s public liability insurance - false
Works for one person or for one business - true

And the self employed condidtion
He/she is self-employed if some or all of the following apply:

Has control over what is done, how it is done, when and where it is done and whether he or she does it personally - false
(In the construction sector for health and safety reasons, all individuals are under the direction of the site foreman/overseer. The self-employed individual controls the method to be employed in carrying out the work.) - false
Controls the hours of work in fulfilling the obligations of the contract - false
Provides the materials for the job - false
Provides equipment and machinery necessary for the job, other than the small tools of the trade - false
Is exposed to financial risk, by having to bear the cost of making good faulty or substandard work carried out under the contract - false
Costs and agrees a price for the job - false
Receives an agreed contract payment(s) without entitlement to pay for overtime, holidays, country money, travel and subsistence or other expense payments - false
Is free to hire other people, on his or her terms, to do the work which has been agreed to be undertaken - false
Assumes responsibility for investment and management in the enterprise
Has the opportunity to profit from sound management in the scheduling and performance of engagements and tasks - false
Provides his or her own insurance cover as appropriate e.g. public liability insurance, etc - false
Owns his or her own business - false
Can provide the same services to more than one person or business at the same time - false

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

Who is wrongly classifying them?

Themselves?

The employers...click of a mouse turns people into sub-contractors without consent.

sydthebeat

nelbot wrote: »

The employers...click of a mouse turns people into sub-contractors without consent.

No it doesn't

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

No it doesn't

Whatever, you don't recognise the abuse of the system, fair enough, but revenue does, the workers do and the subbies that are doing it do also.

nelbot

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/bogus-self-employment-encouraged-by-tax-system-tasc-says-1.2688141

nelbot

nelbot wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/bogus-self-employment-encouraged-by-tax-system-tasc-says-1.2688141

It seems there have been many complaints to revenue about it, I myself have complained and was told by revenue that the number of complaints grows on a daily basis.

sydthebeat

nelbot wrote: »

Whatever, you don't recognise the abuse of the system, fair enough, but revenue does, the workers do and the subbies that are doing it do also.

You cannot change an employee employment status to a c2 with a click of a mouse.

Revenue would be informed, redundancy would be paid, p45 would be issued.
New c2 contact would be put in place.

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

You cannot change an employee employment status to a c2 with a click of a mouse.

Revenue would be informed, redundancy would be paid, p45 would be issued.
New c2 contact would be put in place.

Beside the point, people are being employed as an employee under revenue regulations, and being registered as self-employed. They aren't called bogus self-employed for no reason.

sydthebeat

It's not beside the point, it completely disproves your "a click if a mouse" comment.

If your going to start a union, don't get in the habit of hyperbole.

nelbot

sydthebeat wrote: »

It's not beside the point, it completely disproves your "a click if a mouse" comment.

If your going to start a union, don't get in the habit of hyperbole.

This isn't just my opinion, it is a finding by TASC, it is recognised by revenue. While you can argue that my opinion is not valid, your argument is a waste of time when revenue themselves agree with the position. You are talking about current employees having their status changed without consent. I am talking about new employees being registered as self-employed. 'Consent' here is subjective, the category you are describing are in theory being given a 'choice', but in many cases the reality is accept the conditions or leave. In this case, if they don't want the change in status and so must leave, and cannot prove their situation, they may not be entitled to welfare. In the case I am describing, people are starting 'jobs' and being registered as self-employed without even being aware of the status.

davo10

nelbot wrote: »

This isn't just my opinion, it is a finding by TASC, it is recognised by revenue. While you can argue that my opinion is not valid, your argument is a waste of time when revenue themselves agree with the position. You are talking about current employees having their status changed without consent. I am talking about new employees being registered as self-employed. 'Consent' here is subjective, the category you are describing are in theory being given a 'choice', but in many cases the reality is accept the conditions or leave. In this case, if they don't want the change in status and so must leave, and cannot prove their situation, they may not be entitled to welfare. In the case I am describing, people are starting 'jobs' and being registered as self-employed without even being aware of the status.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, again, they are not being employed as contractors without their consent, the job being offered is a contractor job, the job obviously isn't being advertised as a paye one and then they at employed as per c45. They have a choice, take the job or don't, same as everyone else. It was "recognised" by the person at Revenue who you spoke to you on the phone, did you recieve anything in writing from them or is it possible that the person form Rvenue realised it was easier to agree with you and end the call rather than argue with you?

Don't be acting the fool, every employee asks the conditions and pay for every new job, anyone who doesn't is asking to be taken advantage of.

nelbot

davo10 wrote: »

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, again, they are not being employed as contractors without their consent, the job being offered is a contractor job, the job obviously isn't being advertised as a paye one and then they at employed as per c45. They have a choice, take the job or don't, same as everyone else. It was "recognised" by the person at Revenue who you spoke to you on the phone, did you recieve anything in writing from them or is it possible that the person form Rvenue realised it was easier to agree with you and end the call rather than argue with you?

Don't be acting the fool, every employee asks the conditions and pay for every new job, anyone who doesn't is asking to be taken advantage of.

'Anyone who doesn't is asking to be taken advantage of', so no onus on the employer to layout any conditions without being asked? The jobs are advertised in 'job sections' of job sites and newspapers. They do not have any reference to self employment or contract work. Despite your opinion on the subject, those of us who are experiencing this will have it changed. The person from revenue didn't 'agree' with me, when I explained my own position they informed me they are getting more and more people complaining of the situation all the time. I didn't ask them. If you think I am playing the fool for attempting to achieve workers rights for workers, that is fine by me. We will see who the fool is when we get this fixed.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Hi op,if I was your employer it would be a p45 you would be getting instead of a c45.
You have spent the last two days arguing your point with everyone here during construction working hours.
In fact the only time you don't seem to post is during the construction industries tea breaks.
I think a life as a union leader would suit you down to the ground.

nelbot

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Hi op,if I was your employer it would be a p45 you would be getting instead of a c45.
You have spent the last two days arguing your point with everyone here during construction working hours.
In fact the only time you don't seem to post is during the construction industries tea breaks.
I think a life as a union leader would suit you down to the ground.

Very observant, Wednesday and today we are unable to access our section due to work being carried out by other contractors. FYI regarding your snarky p45 comment, despite only being employed by this company for three weeks, I have already received a raise of 30% due to my employer placing a high value on my skills, and he agrees with me both about the setting up of a union and on my attempt to stamp out the bogus self-employed status.
P.S. I am being nicely paid for this down time too!