Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimnotgym | Hacker News Reader

I came here to say the same. In the UK you can't be made redundant if there is other work you could do at the company.

Also in the UK contractors are paid a lot more than full time staff!

Are you sure about that? My understanding was that the role is made redundant, not the person; that you can't hire someone else to do what a made-redundant person was just doing (of course it pretty much happens, but on paper/in theory it needs to be different). I don't really see how it makes sense for both to be true.

And in your scenario, wouldn't voluntary redundancy get really weird? 'Denied - because you're qualified for a job in a different department. So keep doing your current one or resign.'

When a role is made redundant (in the UK) an employer has a series of steps they have to make. One of which is, if there is another role the employee could do then they have to be offered it. They can refuse of course. In your voluntary redundancy scenario the employee is waving their rights...voluntarily.

Have to be offered it, or just have to be considered for it? As in, if there's a better qualified person available at the same price (or for that matter you're making two roles redundant and either of those people could do this one other role you have open, but you don't need both) do you really have to give it to the otherwise redundant person?

> Also in the UK contractors are paid a lot more than full time staff!

low level staff maybe

the big earners in UK finance are employees

contractors don't get a bonus

Certainly industry dependent. OP is about 'big tech' though, not finance (proper fintech aside I suppose).

I think 'contractors are paid more' generally (and in fairness somewhat necessarily) ignores that it's to compensate for other employee benefits. But it's ultimately a kind of pointness/trivial truth - 'the value of holiday and sick leave and job security and life assurance and pension contributions and [...] is non-zero!' - yes, of course it would be.

It’s also true in general tech once you get to director or senior manager grade your short and long term incentive plans can be 50% of your BP and your BP isn’t going to be too shabby either.

Contractors do get paid more but they don’t earn more at least not anymore after IR35 since they have a tax rate that is over 50% as they are also liable for the 15.5% employer national insurance contributions now.

Overall contractors are far cheaper in the UK even at day rates of over £1000 and replacing people that earn high 5 to low six figures.

They aren’t paid any bonus, there is no pension contribution there are no benefits and there is no liability for redundancy.

All good points but it really does depend on the industry and the level.

I have seen mid level jobs where the contractor is paid twice what the full time staff are, no bonus on either side.

Your point about long term incentives is very dependent on company. I wish I had a scheme like that!

Long term incentives are pretty much stock options plus a bonus “top up” where X% of your bonus for the current year is paid to you again after Y years (usually 2 or 3).

Stock options are usually available at most large traded companies, bonus top ups are usually for directors+ or senior managers in FAANG or other large US companies that tend to have more grades than UK ones.

Then there are ofc various retention bonuses and allowances, but these tend to be pretty much just a pay increase without the social contributions liabilities to the employer.

You can contract outside IR-35 still, no? At least there were some advertised on LinkedIn last time I looked. If the contract is outside IR-35 then you can still claim expenses and pay corporate tax instead of (most) income tax.

Does anyone advertise 'inside' IR35? I get tonnes too, but it'd be at my risk not the, err, employer's.

I haven’t seen any company that will take contractors outside of IR35 at least in London for more than a year now.

The risk falls completely on the company these days. IR35 is a very nasty piece of legislation it’s difficult to even hire remote contractors outside of the UK with it without going through an established firm.

Shorter than a year suits me. My goal with contracting is to have time off between contracts to have more energy and time to bootstrap some business ideas. It is a shame this legislation passed, I understand the concern about hidden employees/tax dodging but it seems they overshot a bit.

I think GP meant not noticed any such listings in the last 12 months, not that they were advertising a post with a duration less than a year.

I didn't think he was advertising, but I did misinterpret it as him saying only shorter term contracts were available outside IR35.

Ha, sorry, 'they' there meant the listings, not GP. Isn't English wonderful.

You aren’t getting outside of IR35 contracts in tech anymore even short fixed term ones (as short as 1-2 months), especially with any company that can afford to pay rates that make it worth while.

If HMRC catches you in violation of IR35 they can open the book and inspect any contracts over the past 10 years and retroactively penalize you. And by you I mean the “employer” in this case as in the company that hired you under contract.

No one is taking the risk today.

Almost no company will take on that risk these days. You can still claim expenses within IR35 too the only difference is that you have to use an umbrella company for PAYE to cover the NIC liability.

I think it depends. Certainly as a banking PM what I earnt as a contractor (outside ir35) is more than I earn as a permanent employee, even with a bonus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com