Quick Poll

[fattony]

Hope you dont mind trying to settle a debate here, a colleague at work thinks that if you employ a sub contractor they shouldn't look for their own work as well, lets see how the poll turns out.

 

[corgiman]

if they only get work from you then they are not subbies and more like directly employed

I am sure that gaining work from only one source is a breach of CIS and that HMC&E can force the employer to pay holiday pay and other such employed benefits.

 

[ajstoneservices]

Why not? I employ guys on that basis all the time.

 

[fattony]

apparently there is 2 types of companies in this industry:

Company A
set up to do sub contract work and all they do is sub contract so no form of advertising, no website etc

Company B
set up to look for their own work so they have a fancy website and advertising budget.

Personally I think its a load of crap and my colleague was basically saying that he wouldnt employ a sub contractor who looked for their own work

 

[corgiman]

i would check with the tax office tony

sure that they will not allow a subbie to exclusivly work for one client for any significant lenght of time

 

[fattony]

no your right they can't, I mean moving from company to company but just sub contracting and not looking to do any work direct to a customer. Load of tosh?

 

[D_Hailsham]

no your right they can't, I mean moving from company to company but just sub contracting and not looking to do any work direct to a customer.

I think it would depend on the terms of engagement with the sub-contractor.

I can see a problem if you engage a subcontractor to, for example, carry out brickwork for a customer who then offered his services directly to your customer to do some additional brickwork. However, if the customer wants something different done, e.g plastering, but you have not been asked to quote for that and the brickwork subbie tells the customer that he can do that as well, then I can't see any problem.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You're colleague is retarded.

 

[kirkgas]

why shouldn't a subbie do work for whoever he wants, you employ a subbie to do work for a customer cause you cant do it yourself, i assume you make money from the arrangement, so if the subbie leaves a card for future work are you saying it is wrong, and if the customer wants more work done they contact you and you contact the subbie and you add something to the job, so basically you want to have control of who gets work done and want to make a profit from it, i think that is wrong. i appreciate the first company has advertising etc and a lot of people are proud of the fact they get repeat work, but in effect you want to stop your subbie doing the same.
say a customer contacts you to get more brickwork done as they were happy with the first work by your subbie, however the subbie isnt available and you get someone else who isnt as good, you get a cut so you are happy but the customer has paid more for a poorer job, but if the customer had the first subbie's number they would get the guy they wanted

 

[seco services]

like kirkgas says

i use to sub for homeserve etc and their policy was not to give your own card,number etc.

but as said thats business and i got most of my customers that way
and if the job was a worth it would often offer the customer a price on arrival if they agree phone homeserve and say customer has cancelled
when i got here and fixed himself.

it's like pub grub - tuff.