Please note that this blog article is the personal opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Parasol.
As one of the UK’s leading employment services and umbrella companies, Parasol has been completely open about AWR and how we are tackling it. It’s central to what we do and had the potential (although it’s been largely business as usual so far) to have a huge impact on our industry. Yes we have a vested interest but as a leader we also have a responsibility to the staffing industry and the workers who choose to work via an umbrella model.
We were always confident that we could help our staffing industry partners work within AWR, largely because we have always done most of what the new legislation calls for anyway. We didn’t have seismic changes to make to develop a robust Swedish Derogation model that minimised the cost and hassle for all those in the supply chain and our Match Perm Pay Model goes way beyond anything else on the market in terms of compliance.
Where we have faced objections to our models we have sought to address these in an open way, using facts, legal opinion and the legislation itself to demonstrate why we think we are right. As I said earlier, we are the industry leader so this is how we are supposed to act.
What has been frustrating for me has been the lack of substance from the anti-umbrella brigade. Making sweeping generalisations that help nobody.
A couple of weeks ago we took part in a Guardian Live Chat for freelancers and temporary workers and an ‘industry expert’ made the comment that “umbrella companies will find things sticky.”
Fair enough, why do you think that?
“Well it’s just something I’ve heard.”
Here is another one taken from a Contractor UK discussion.
“I wouldn’t want to be somebody working via an umbrella scheme trying to get a contract extension after the 12 weeks are up.”
I asked why and I never got a response. I also invited the author to post an article on this site but the author didn’t have the time and didn’t feel they knew enough about AWR anyway. It was just something they had heard. So why make comments like the one above? Why pass it off as expert advice? If it’s just conjecture then say so and let’s discuss it.
A continued frank and open debate into all things AWR will only help the industry as a whole continue to get to grips with AWR but sweeping generalisations, rumour spreading and simply making things up to suit your own agenda helps no one.
Can we stick to the AWR facts please.
Steven Proud
PR Manager, Parasol
Loading ...
Loading ...
Hi there Steven,
For someone who’s keen to stick to facts you’ve certainly misquoted me quite a bit there.
“Just something I’d heard” is a vast oversimplification of what I actually posted.
It’s certainly true to say it’s something I’ve heard, from people like Allen & Overy, who said the AWR could put 500,000 contracts at risk (including those of Umbrella Company clients). I’ve also heard from Lewina Farrell of the REC, who said the Swedish Derogation Model (used by many Umbrellas) isn’t a “miracle solution”.
I’ve also heard from Reed, who conducted a survey that found that only 30% of firms had engaged in compliance activity just six weeks before the AWR was introduced.
Given all of those factors, I’d say calling things “shaky” (Not “sticky” as you said – an important distinction) is fairly reasonable.
All the best,
Jon Norris, ‘industry expert’