I’d wager the number is self employed drivers allowing themselves enough leeway to cover holidays, pensions, sickness, insurances etc and still coming out better off than an employed driver is negligible.
As soon as an “employer” sees the way forward is to use self employed people for “flexibility” then you can be sure it’s a con at the workers expense. The only way a truck driver should be self employed is if they own the truck!
syva:
Hi,Does anyone know where I can find vehicle use and driver responsibilities forms - I am specifically after the form where it will say that if a driver will make any accident or damage the vehicle because of their negligence, they will be the one who will be paying for it and not my company. All my drivers are working on self employed or ltd. Thanks,
I think everything in that post, shows what is fundamentally wrong with workers employment rights in this Country. 
You own the company, you take the rewards when it goes well, this means you also take the risks.
Ok some drivers really do seem to do more damage than other, but then you have systems to deal with that and as they’re self employed or ltd company it’s even easier to get rid of them. So why haven’t you done that?
I should imagine it’s because you can’t get driver to replace them.
Why can’t you employ them as full-time workers, with all the rights gives a worker?
If it’s because you can’t afford it, then your business model is wrong
Or because you want to cream off as much profit as possible ans undercut proper hauliers who do the job properly.
It’s not something I’d normally wish on any business but you deserve to fail.
Munchkin:
I’d wager the number is self employed drivers allowing themselves enough leeway to cover holidays, pensions, sickness, insurances etc and still coming out better off than an employed driver is negligible.
As soon as an “employer” sees the way forward is to use self employed people for “flexibility” then you can be sure it’s a con at the workers expense. The only way a truck driver should be self employed is if they own the truck!
Which is HMRCs view, though they do precious little to shut down those types of operations that provide a truck to a self-employed worker.
The other thing with being employed directly is the cover for quiet times. Our work peaks and troughs somewhat randomly - February was pretty hideous in terms of turnover, now I’m struggling to cover everything with the drivers available. However, I keep my drivers on and pay them for 40 hours even if they only work ten of those ( we always make it clear the nature of our work when someone gets taken on); with the OPs business model, the drivers don’t work,t hey won’t even have a basic pay coming in.
As above. And treat drivers poorly, you won’t attract and retain good ones, hence more vehicle damage and… But you’ve discovered that already.
Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk
One of the best examples of a bad firm… I’d parcel your form and show you exactly what to do with it before happily telling you what to do with your work.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pay for damage employed as self employed when it sounds as if they work there all the time.
No wonder so little new blood is coming in to the industury.
Where I work we have a weekly bonus that we loose if we have a at fault accident seems a much fairer way of doing it.
Mind you this chancer sums haulage up full stop.