Consultation now open until May.
Click the pdf. Get involved and lets put these rats back in their box.
A lot has been said regarding the way “Agency Consultants” lie to staff for one reason or the other. The lie that springs most to mind this moment is stuff like
“They asked for you by name”
meaning
“We’ve already asked everyone else on our books, but they said no”.
of course. 
Putting my devil’s advocate hat on for a mo, I would argue now that I’ve been back in full time for these past two years that such lying is “standard management practice everywhere you go” - at least in the food transport businesses where I’ve been sent on agency in particular.
Those managers that fall over themselves to treat you with respect - tend to be the family business ones, that “treat you with respect” because the hourly rate is so damned lousy otherwise imho.
Conversely, the firms that treat you the very worst with their managers/admin staff/clerks dishing out the runs are the ones that pay a fairly decent hourly rate, nearly always in the food/supermarket business somewhere.
I’ve worked at Tescos, Sainsburys, ASDA, and Morrisons all via agency - only to be seriously subjected to bad treatment in one form or another at all four of these.
“Cancelling after I’ve already turned up”
“Insisting I went on Umbrella before I’m booked on for the first time, having turned up 10 minutes early for form-filling purposes” 90 minutes later, I’m still not booked on, and arguing with the staff that this was supposed to be a PAYE assignment!
“Not having a run for me, and offering me a milk round in a clapped-out vehicle to get their moneysworth out of me.” - Not a problem, but I spent 90 minutes practically doing a full MOT on the vehicle before going out in it - which I was then ‘not asked back’ over. OK as it happened, because at least I got paid for this one shift. 
“Not having a vehicle for me, because a full timer has turned up when on holiday, so they gave the last vehicle to them, rather than reserved it for me, and sent THEM home”
“Sending me into a place that takes over 8 hours for the round trip as standard, despite it being my 2nd run of the shift, with full timers turning it down as their first.”
“Turning up for a shift on time (17:55 for a 18:00 booking) but instead booked on and paid for a 17:30 booking, so I could be paid a right-through rate for DAYS - and then finding myself working the 15 hour shift of course”… I think this might have broken fire regulations, but I didn’t know about it until I booked off of course…
“Clipping me at both ends (turn up on the nail, but got booked on rounded up to the next 15 minutes after I’ve turned up, and booked off 15 minutes before I’ve chucked my keys in at the end of the shift” - common practice at the very highest hourly rate payers that one!
I get that a lot of this treatment is about trying to save the firm money from the admin perspective.
Not very nice though, and skirts with what is legal as well I should imagine!
Let’s get it on the record though. - It happens all over the place in the food transport business in particular, which I’d like to highlight here.
On agency assignments at general haulage/Mail Courier work - I never ever had such bother.
Winseer:
“They asked for you by name”meaning
“We’ve already asked everyone else on our books, but they said no”.
I used to love it at one agency I was at. There were two clients, Arla and Reed Boardall who would phone me direct to book me for the following week. Agency would phone up on a Friday and say what there was the following week and I’d tell them that I’d been booked by Arla/RB and the woman would say they’d not told her to which my response used to be “I’m sure they will”. When another company decided to do the same as Arla and RB that was when I decided to go self employed as a driver, cut out the agency and take a bit of the pie that they had and I did that for few years until I had to stop driving.
Conversely, the firms that treat you the very worst with their managers/admin staff/clerks dishing out the runs are the ones that pay a fairly decent hourly rate, nearly always in the food/supermarket business somewhere.
I’ve worked at Tescos, Sainsburys, ASDA, and Morrisons all via agency - only to be seriously subjected to bad treatment in one form or another at all four of these.
This is why I stay at the agency I’m with and stay at HJ. You’re treated there in some cases better than their own drivers and certainly not any different. As the majority of their drivers got their jobs there having gone through agency for a few years first there’s none of this agency vs permanent driver rubbish you get at most places. Does my agency lie? God yes, they all do every single one of them. I do know of one of the staff, a fairly young bloke up his own arse who was at the agency last year though who isn’t there any more as someone more senior than him happened to walk into him giving a right talking down to a driver who must’ve been at least twice his age along the lines of “you will go where I say you’re going to go and work when I say you’re going to work” etc. First time my missus went in with me to do a license check and saw him she said she wanted to punch him in the face, that’s how much of a ■■■■ he was.
In regards to the pay I don’t feel I’ve been stuffed. We’re actually rounded UP to the nearest 15 minutes and I’m not sure what the threshold is for nights but I’ve started at 3pm and finished at midnight and got night rate all the way through. When I’ve had a run cancelled within an hour or so of the starting time I’ve got told to put 8hrs down.
I recognise how lucky I am where I am which is why I’m staying put. I’ve worked for several agencies over the years and most of them have tried to do all the practices you’ve mentioned, especially trying to screw you over with holiday pay. If you know the law and stand your ground you come out OK but unfortunately a lot of drivers don’t know the law especially in regards to holiday pay and especially those new to agencies and driving aren’t aware of just how much of a lying bunch almost all of them are.
So called experts being paid big bucks because the current government has never done anything regarding the gig economy which affects millions of workers. The government grey areas filter down to HMRC who also don’t have definitive answers to people’s employment status. This consultation is leading towards implementation en masse of the IR35 legislation into the private sector. If this happens then millions of people operating in many industries and who are operating legally now may then fall foul of IR35 and get landed with extra NI and Tax demands.
robbo99.:
So called experts being paid big bucks because the current government has never done anything regarding the gig economy which affects millions of workers. The government grey areas filter down to HMRC who also don’t have definitive answers to people’s employment status. This consultation is leading towards implementation en masse of the IR35 legislation into the private sector. If this happens then millions of people operating in many industries and who are operating legally now may then fall foul of IR35 and get landed with extra NI and Tax demands.
I think they have been deliberately leaving it for a few years to let people avoid running up huge bills which hmrc will then send out. Most people will then be unlikely to be able to pay them (as they will also take an effective pay cut due to paying full rate) which will cause them to run up penalty charges and interest on top of the initial bill and hmrc are quids in.
Also when you say hmrc will enforce IR35 and people are operating legally now will get bills. Surely that means they are not operating legally? Just that they have not been caught yet?
kcrussell25:
robbo99.:
So called experts being paid big bucks because the current government has never done anything regarding the gig economy which affects millions of workers. The government grey areas filter down to HMRC who also don’t have definitive answers to people’s employment status. This consultation is leading towards implementation en masse of the IR35 legislation into the private sector. If this happens then millions of people operating in many industries and who are operating legally now may then fall foul of IR35 and get landed with extra NI and Tax demands.I think they have been deliberately leaving it for a few years to let people avoid running up huge bills which hmrc will then send out. Most people will then be unlikely to be able to pay them (as they will also take an effective pay cut due to paying full rate) which will cause them to run up penalty charges and interest on top of the initial bill and hmrc are quids in.
Also when you say hmrc will enforce IR35 and people are operating legally now will get bills. Surely that means they are not operating legally? Just that they have not been caught yet?
What HMRC are good at doing is turning a blind eye in regards employment status and not having a definitive on what classes as self employed and what classes as employed, bearing in mind all contracts between company and contractor are different. This consultation is supposed sort out the issues. The bills people may get if IR35 is fully enforced would I would have thought be from the point going forwards when clear definitions are set out, but again knowing HMRC even though the waters are muddy they will expect the contractor to be a Philadelphia lawyer when HMRC can’t even understand or can’t be arsed to implement legislation
robbo99.:
kcrussell25:
robbo99.:
So called experts being paid big bucks because the current government has never done anything regarding the gig economy which affects millions of workers. The government grey areas filter down to HMRC who also don’t have definitive answers to people’s employment status. This consultation is leading towards implementation en masse of the IR35 legislation into the private sector. If this happens then millions of people operating in many industries and who are operating legally now may then fall foul of IR35 and get landed with extra NI and Tax demands.I think they have been deliberately leaving it for a few years to let people avoid running up huge bills which hmrc will then send out. Most people will then be unlikely to be able to pay them (as they will also take an effective pay cut due to paying full rate) which will cause them to run up penalty charges and interest on top of the initial bill and hmrc are quids in.
Also when you say hmrc will enforce IR35 and people are operating legally now will get bills. Surely that means they are not operating legally? Just that they have not been caught yet?
What HMRC are good at doing is turning a blind eye in regards employment status and not having a definitive on what classes as self employed and what classes as employed, bearing in mind all contracts between company and contractor are different. This consultation is supposed sort out the issues. The bills people may get if IR35 is fully enforced would I would have thought be from the point going forwards when clear definitions are set out, but again knowing HMRC even though the waters are muddy they will expect the contractor to be a Philadelphia lawyer when HMRC can’t even understand or can’t be arsed to implement legislation
I would be amazed if they don’t back date the taxes. This will be a “clarification” not a rule change so they will go for everything they can get.
kcrussell25:
robbo99.:
kcrussell25:
robbo99.:
So called experts being paid big bucks because the current government has never done anything regarding the gig economy which affects millions of workers. The government grey areas filter down to HMRC who also don’t have definitive answers to people’s employment status. This consultation is leading towards implementation en masse of the IR35 legislation into the private sector. If this happens then millions of people operating in many industries and who are operating legally now may then fall foul of IR35 and get landed with extra NI and Tax demands.I think they have been deliberately leaving it for a few years to let people avoid running up huge bills which hmrc will then send out. Most people will then be unlikely to be able to pay them (as they will also take an effective pay cut due to paying full rate) which will cause them to run up penalty charges and interest on top of the initial bill and hmrc are quids in.
Also when you say hmrc will enforce IR35 and people are operating legally now will get bills. Surely that means they are not operating legally? Just that they have not been caught yet?
What HMRC are good at doing is turning a blind eye in regards employment status and not having a definitive on what classes as self employed and what classes as employed, bearing in mind all contracts between company and contractor are different. This consultation is supposed sort out the issues. The bills people may get if IR35 is fully enforced would I would have thought be from the point going forwards when clear definitions are set out, but again knowing HMRC even though the waters are muddy they will expect the contractor to be a Philadelphia lawyer when HMRC can’t even understand or can’t be arsed to implement legislation
I would be amazed if they don’t back date the taxes. This will be a “clarification” not a rule change so they will go for everything they can get.
You may be right there, HMRC certainly backdated MSC ni / tax bills to unsuspecting workers going back in some cases 4 years, this whilst they took years to interpret what turned out to be pretty straight forward legislation
I read a lot on agency posts about the fact that all agencies lie.
Having worked (some years ago admittedly) as both a consultant and as a TM, this, whilst generally true, has to be balanced against the undoubted fact that so do drivers and clients. In fact, employers lie to their full-time staff too, and none of us can state with our hand on our heart that we have never lied to our employers. The old adage about letting him who is without sin cast the first stone comes to mind.
Sidevalve:
I read a lot on agency posts about the fact that all agencies lie.Having worked (some years ago admittedly) as both a consultant and as a TM, this, whilst generally true, has to be balanced against the undoubted fact that so do drivers and clients. In fact, employers lie to their full-time staff too, and none of us can state with our hand on our heart that we have never lied to our employers. The old adage about letting him who is without sin cast the first stone comes to mind.
What lies can a driver say to an agency which is detrimental to that agency other than one where they say they’re not available when they are? Certainly saying you’ve got skills you don’t have isn’t detrimental because agencies have no problem sending in drivers into jobs they’ve never done before given the ones I was at had no problems sending me in to do things like liquid tankers, bulk powder blowers and hook lifts even though I’d said I’d never done them.
On the other hand pretty much all the BS that comes out of an agency consultant’s mouth is pretty much detrimental to the driver’s wage packet nine times out of ten and in those cases involving employment status, holiday pay and sick pay what they say is actually illegal.
Conor:
Sidevalve:
I read a lot on agency posts about the fact that all agencies lie.Having worked (some years ago admittedly) as both a consultant and as a TM, this, whilst generally true, has to be balanced against the undoubted fact that so do drivers and clients. In fact, employers lie to their full-time staff too, and none of us can state with our hand on our heart that we have never lied to our employers. The old adage about letting him who is without sin cast the first stone comes to mind.
What lies can a driver say to an agency which is detrimental to that agency other than one where they say they’re not available when they are? Certainly saying you’ve got skills you don’t have isn’t detrimental because agencies have no problem sending in drivers into jobs they’ve never done before given the ones I was at had no problems sending me in to do things like liquid tankers, bulk powder blowers and hook lifts even though I’d said I’d never done them.
On the other hand pretty much all the BS that comes out of an agency consultant’s mouth is pretty much detrimental to the driver’s wage packet nine times out of ten and in those cases involving employment status, holiday pay and sick pay what they say is actually illegal.
Worse than not being available when they are, is when they take a job, don’t turn up and either don’t bother to tell you at all or come out with some ■■■■ and bull tale about having to bury their granny at short notice. Put simply it doesn’t just cause hassle for the consultant but it can put a contract at risk and cost the agency more than just the lost booking; which of course screws it for other drivers as well. Turning up in Adidas trainers when you’d specifically told them to wear safety footwear was another one; that of course isn’t a lie in itself but I could guarantee that the driver would insist he had not been forewarned, which is.
As to skills, or more to the point qualifications; I’ve had more than a few try it on with duplicate licences, faked FLT certificates and other stuff. Much easier to check licences these days of course but I daresay it won’t stop folk trying. I had one candidate for 7.5 tonne work who presented me with a perfectly clean driving licence; so far so good but something didn’t ring true with his references. I checked back with his previous employer, who’d given him a good reference but specifically did not mention driving and found that he’d been nicked for DR10, but presumably applied for a duplicate licence before sentencing (can’t do that now) handed that in to the court then went for a job with the old, superficially “clean” one. If I hadn’t bothered to check in depth, or if I’d taken the references as gospel, and he’d either been nicked or had a smash, could have been very dodgy indeed. Hence my long-running mantra that what a reference does NOT say can tell you far more than it actually does.
Similar with not declaring unspent convictions and the like; before the days of CRB background checks this was a real nightmare in some parts of the agency business.
I’m not having a dig at all drivers Conor, and your comments on this thread are sensible and balanced; nor would I ever imply that agencies are squeaky clean, I too have been shafted in the past. Just observing that honesty and trust is a two way street and it’s not always the agency that’s culpable.
I am currently building my responses to the consultation.
On the ‘Key Facts document’ I will be suggesting that a standard template be used and this document is to be received by email prior to commencement of any assignment.
This will of course require every agency worker to provide an email address at registration.
Sidevalve:
I read a lot on agency posts about the fact that all agencies lie.Having worked (some years ago admittedly) as both a consultant and as a TM, this, whilst generally true, has to be balanced against the undoubted fact that so do drivers and clients. In fact, employers lie to their full-time staff too, and none of us can state with our hand on our heart that we have never lied to our employers. The old adage about letting him who is without sin cast the first stone comes to mind.
Yeh, but there’s a big difference between being told
by TM
“Can you come in on Saturday, and we’ll pay you some overtime for your trouble”
which you do, but then don’t get paid compared to the “lie” the other way, which is likely to be the answer to TM’s
"Which of you hairy arsed barstewards had the last Bourbon Biscuit I left in the mess room cupboard last night?"
One will lob a lazy, and the other will lob a brick.
Just gotta find a Scania to throw it at now. 