Sick Parcelforce couriers charged up to £250 if they can't find cover

[ECCOnoob]

I don't find it difficult to understand- I'm self employed myself.

Life's not quite so tough for those who have jobs which not only don't fine them £250 for being sick, but actually pay them while they're unable to work due to illness.

 

No im sure its not. On the flip side though, some of those employees might find it a lot tougher to live on a minimum wage rather than a nice steady income of £600 a week like their self employed counterparts.

 

Swings and roundabouts isn't it.

 

 

Self employed and working for parcel force. Self employed people not working for parcel force tend not to have to stump up £250 when they are ill.(or, to get their work, sign a contract stating that they have to pay £250 when they are ill). I certainly don't.

 

Good for you. I'm sure SOME companies dont have any such clause.

 

Parcelforce in this instance does. The good and bad points of working with a company is wholly subjective. The terms depends on the contract doesn't it.

 

Fact is simple. If they dont like it they shoudn't have signed up to it. That's good business sense. Read a contract before you sign it.

 

I'd prefer that Parcelforce cease to charge their self employed workers £250 when they are ill.

 

Why should they? The work needs doing. If their contractor fails to fulfill it, it costs them time and money.

 

Should they just absorb that costs and forget about it?

[petemcewan]

It just goes to show that the Victorian style mindset in some quarters of the world of work never really went away.

 

Absolutely spot on.

[Obelix]

Are you being deliberately obtuse.

 

 

You have to remember this is the guy who whined for 19 pages about red lights on trailers and how he cant be expected to read.

 

Its his debating style. When short of an argument he resorts to insults and outright misrepresentation of facts.

[sgtkate]

While I don't like the premise of 'charging' someone for being sick, you do have to understand that these people are operating as a business not an individual. Let's say I offer work to another company with a contract, and they fail to provide the items I want. This will in turn cost me money as now I might be running late on items to my customers as so on. Therefore, many companies do indeed have 'failure to supply' clauses in their contracts. Parcelforce is using the same tactics as failure to deliver the parcels on time might well have penalty clauses for them too. But how do they handle that when a regular employee is off sick?

 

The reason I don't like the contracts is because the larger company holds all the power. It's a similar problem with the supermarkets having horrendous terms to do business with them, smaller suppliers get screwed time and time again so many refuse to sell to the big supermarkets as a result. Yet the consumer demands cheaper, better, faster without understanding what that means for the suppliers.

 

I equally dislike the 'gig economy' where companies use self-employed companies to do work that traditionally would have been done by employees to avoid employment law and taxes etc. The clamp down on companies offering work in this way is a good thing and I hope the scope of the legislation changes is widened to cover all industries trying to 'hide' employees under a self-employed banner.

[the_bloke]

I'd prefer that Parcelforce cease to charge their self employed workers £250 when they are ill.

 

Should all businesses cease the practice of financial penalties when the contractor they are paying for a job doesn't deliver the service?

[sgtkate]

Should all businesses cease the practice of financial penalties when the contractor they are paying for a job doesn't deliver the service?

 

No, but companies should not be allowed to hire 'businesses' when the work being done is equal to that of an employee, unless they can demonstrate why that setup is appropriate.

[tinfoilhat]

No, but companies should not be allowed to hire 'businesses' when the work being done is equal to that of an employee, unless they can demonstrate why that setup is appropriate.

 

The "business" often owns the vehicle as well. But companies, and I'm looking at you Amazon, who take on other "companies" and force them to hire their vehicle - that's shocking and should be stopped.

[sgtkate]

The "business" often owns the vehicle as well. But companies, and I'm looking at you Amazon, who take on other "companies" and force them to hire their vehicle - that's shocking and should be stopped.

 

Just like ZHCs, there are times when it's totally appropriate and beneficial to both sides to use a business contract for supply of services, but when people are employed on a self-employed basis alongside employees doing the exact same job then you have to wonder what's going on...ultimately I suspect we'll ned up with a very similar discussion to the ZHCs thread, where most people agree that this shouldn't be banned as often it works great for both parties but perhaps there needs clarification of when and where you can use this type of contract and when the employer or employee (lots of IT contractors love the tax perks of being a contractor and actively avoid becoming a full-time employee, cuts both ways) are doing it for dubious accountancy reasons rather than genuine business needs to adapt to perhaps fluctuating work loads or a fixed term project.

[willman]

It could be worse anyone who is a self employed Provident agent and off ill,hospitalised or on holiday and fails to have someone available to collect their round is sacked.

 

No discussion and non negotiable.

[sgtkate]

It could be worse anyone who is a self employed Provident agent and off ill,hospitalised or on holiday and fails to have someone available to collect their round is sacked.

 

No discussion and non negotiable.

 

But they aren't sacked. They have their contract terminated, which is quite different law. Hence my point about the usage of this type of business model should be investigated and probably tightened up.