Work hours.

[jettion]

I currently work as a sales consultant selling mobile phone contracts.
two days a go my boss said to me due to lack of sales through the whole team he would have to cut hours.
He then game me two options:
1.
Work only eight hours a week at £6.25 per hour getting £200 per month and if targets are hit hours can be increased.
2.
Work for free until I make £1200 GP and then I will get full £6.25 wage for all hours work, but if I don't make that I only get £200 which I've worked out (going by current full time hours) will work out at £1.12 per hour.

Is there anything I can legally do?
I have tried contacting CAB but their lines always come back as busy.

Addition info:
I do not have a written contract although I have requested one on more than one occasion.

[Eloise01]

Re: Work hours.

How long have you worked there? Are you actually employed by the company, or are you self-employed?

[jettion]

Re: Work hours.

How long have you worked there? Are you actually employed by the company, or are you self-employed?

This will be my 9th month in this job and I am employed by the company yes.

[Eloise01]

Re: Work hours.

You require two years employment to claim unfair dismissal. You are therefore not in a position to argue I am afraid. Option three, which they did not explain to you is that they will dismiss you.

I am guessing at this, but I think that your option 2 involves self-employment as a contractor. If so, then I am afraid that it would be quite legal as you would no longer be an employee and the national minimum wage would not apply to you. This is not an uncommon arrangement in some lines of work and I have certainly come across it in some fields of "sales consultant" roles. The company would no longer employ you or tell you what hours to work - you work whatever hours you wish to, obviously with the "incentive" that the more hours you work then the more sales you can make. It isn't an option I would recommend. But then you don't have a lot of options here anyway. I believe option 4 - get another job quickly - would be the preferred one. Sorry.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Work hours.

Perhaps it is time to look for an honest job?

[jettion]

Re: Work hours.

You require two years employment to claim unfair dismissal. You are therefore not in a position to argue I am afraid. Option three, which they did not explain to you is that they will dismiss you.

I am guessing at this, but I think that your option 2 involves self-employment as a contractor. If so, then I am afraid that it would be quite legal as you would no longer be an employee and the national minimum wage would not apply to you. This is not an uncommon arrangement in some lines of work and I have certainly come across it in some fields of "sales consultant" roles. The company would no longer employ you or tell you what hours to work - you work whatever hours you wish to, obviously with the "incentive" that the more hours you work then the more sales you can make. It isn't an option I would recommend. But then you don't have a lot of options here anyway. I believe option 4 - get another job quickly - would be the preferred one. Sorry.

Surely he can't just "make" me self employed?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Work hours.

Surely he can't just "make" me self employed?

No.

But he can just make you unemployed.

[TUTTSI]

Re: Work hours.

Elo, I always thought that to be self employed you had to have more than one client or contract?

[Eloise01]

Re: Work hours.

Surely he can't just "make" me self employed?

No - but you can agree to it! You have NO employment protection!

[Eloise01]

Re: Work hours.

Elo, I always thought that to be self employed you had to have more than one client or contract?

No that isn't correct. You must be able to have - whether you do or not is up to you. The essential test is control - whether you can turn up when you want, assign work etc. Many self-employed people actually only work for one client.

[TUTTSI]

Re: Work hours.

IR35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
IR35 is the United Kingdom tax legislation designed to tax "disguised employment" at a rate similar to employment. In this context, "disguised employees" means workers who receive payments from a client via an intermediary and whose relationship with their client is such that had they been paid directly they would be employees of the client.
Before IR35 was introduced workers who owned their own companies were allowed to receive payments from clients direct to the company and to use the company revenue as would any small company. Company profits could be distributed as dividends, which are not subject to National Insurance payments. Workers could also save tax by splitting ownership of the company with family members in order to place income in lower tax bands. (This latter practice was recommended by government publications advising on setting up family businesses, but attacked as tax fraud by other government departments, notably the Treasury. It came under separate, ultimately unsuccessful attack in 2007, see S660A.)
On 20 May 2010 the new Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition Government's Programme for Government announced a commitment to "review IR 35, as part of a wholesale review of all small business taxation, and seek to replace it with simpler measures that prevent tax avoidance but do not place undue administrative burdens or uncertainty on the self-employed, or restrict labour market flexibility."^[1] On 10 Mar 2011 the Office of Tax Simplification recommended that the treasury should suspend IR35 or compel HM Revenue & Customs to make changes to its implementation until wider structural reform to integrate Income Tax and NIC is introduced. After that, the Chancellor announced the Government would keep IR35 'as is' during Budget 2011, but with changes to HMRC administration and to create a new IR35 Forum. Also, taken from HMRC website: When do the new IR35 tax rules apply? New IR35 rules apply for tax purposes from 6 April 2013 where a worker provides their personal services to a client via an intermediary to fulfil the duties of an office and the income for those services has not already been subject to PAYE/NICs as employment income.
For NICs purposes, the IR35 rules have always applied to office-holders whose services are supplied to clients via an intermediary. This is because office-holders are regarded as 'employed earners' for the purposes of IR35 NICs legislation. This continues to be the case.
However, prior to 6 April 2013 the IR35 tax legislation only applied to office-holders when a worker would also have been regarded as an employee if engaged directly by the client. Therefore if the worker’s only relationship with a client was as an office-holder, then the IR35 tax rules do not apply for any services performed before 6 April 2013.
The IR35 tax legislation has now changed and office-holders are brought within IR35 for tax purposes for services performed on or after 6 April 2013 undertaking the duties of an office. The amendment changes sub-section 49(1)(c) in Part 2, Chapter 8 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 for the tax year 2013-14 and subsequent tax years.

[Eloise01]

Re: Work hours.

IR35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
IR35 is the United Kingdom tax legislation designed to tax "disguised employment" at a rate similar to employment. In this context, "disguised employees" means workers who receive payments from a client via an intermediary and whose relationship with their client is such that had they been paid directly they would be employees of the client.
Before IR35 was introduced workers who owned their own companies were allowed to receive payments from clients direct to the company and to use the company revenue as would any small company. Company profits could be distributed as dividends, which are not subject to National Insurance payments. Workers could also save tax by splitting ownership of the company with family members in order to place income in lower tax bands. (This latter practice was recommended by government publications advising on setting up family businesses, but attacked as tax fraud by other government departments, notably the Treasury. It came under separate, ultimately unsuccessful attack in 2007, see S660A.)
On 20 May 2010 the new Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition Government's Programme for Government announced a commitment to "review IR 35, as part of a wholesale review of all small business taxation, and seek to replace it with simpler measures that prevent tax avoidance but do not place undue administrative burdens or uncertainty on the self-employed, or restrict labour market flexibility."^[1] On 10 Mar 2011 the Office of Tax Simplification recommended that the treasury should suspend IR35 or compel HM Revenue & Customs to make changes to its implementation until wider structural reform to integrate Income Tax and NIC is introduced. After that, the Chancellor announced the Government would keep IR35 'as is' during Budget 2011, but with changes to HMRC administration and to create a new IR35 Forum.

But that doesn't say what you said! Yes, there are specific tests of real self-employment. I can't apply those (and the tax tests are actually different from employment law tests - close but not the same!) because I don't have details. But the fact remains that a self-employed person can contract to a single client. And there is nothing in the OP's post that indicates, if this is what is being suggested, that they must contract to a single client either.

[TUTTSI]

Re: Work hours.

If a person is going to be self employed they must inform the HMRC. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/selfemployed/...er-selfemp.htm

[Eloise01]

Re: Work hours.

They must, yes. But I did say that I was guessing at the implications of the second option, based on experience. That doesn't make it real self- employment, but it also doesn't make it not - this sort of arrangement is not uncommon, and done correctly, is lawful. None of which makes option 4 the worst option!