New system aimed primarily at matching newer sellers with buyers
So now it seems I have to wait two hours before I can bid for a job. This is extremely unfair. Not only do experienced creatives/designers have to compete with an unfair playing field, ie people offered to do a job for £10 when it is clearly worth £100, we are now not allowed to bid for jobs as soon as they appear on PPH. What kind of system is this?!
Awful. Unfair. Unprofessional. Discriminatory.
Regards
C. Howe
-
Paul makes an important point. Calling this feature 'payroll' is the very worst name PPH could have chosen for it because payroll immediately reinforces the view that it's an employer/employee relationship. In the UK, if an employee is on the payroll it means he is on the books and the employer is paying national contributions, PAYE tax etc. It's worrying, the way PPH totally ignores legislation in every area - employment legislation, copyright legislation, internet/spam/website information legislation - but especially when it's the clients, both buyers and sellers, that will end up in trouble with the taxman.
WHY can't PPH just introduce sellers to buyers and not try to run the relationship?
-
In the UK there's a thing called IR35 where the taxman looked at freelancer-client relationships and whether they were an indirect form of employment for tax purposes. The issue is probably not one of concern for PPH but could be for anyone using it. The taxman will be interested in the buyer-seller relationship.
Michael, what did the UK taxman say when PPH discussed this scheme with them?
-
@David, completely with you on this one!
Having read and re-read this several times I cannot see, as usual, anything at all that will benefit me or the majority of freelancers who choose to learn a living through diversity and challenge rather than 'gainful employment'.
This is one massive can of worms that I personally have no intention of taking a tin opener within a mile of...
-
The payroll innovation is an interesting thing.
PPH sees it as a good thing.
The people on Christos' blog are overwhelmingly positive.
..and here on the forum, I've led the charge of the doubters.
I find it bizarre just how this splits so often.
I've asked Christos on the blog about HMRC.
-
Survey. It says nothing about how the data will be used.
-
The survey asks very intrusive questions. I'm sure PPH would like to know the answers, so would a lot of other people. WHat really concerns me is that these questions are not anonimised and so the survey results identify trends, user categories and individual identity. I don't think people really understand what they are giving away and how it can be used by PPH and beyond. It's very personal information, going beyond what is really required for the subject.
-
I actually started doing it, was starting to get uncomfortable with the questions, so was quite glad when it became clear that it only applied to UK-based freelancers at which point I scrapped it. Why doesn't it say that at the beginning that it's UK only, so people don't waste their time? Or maybe it did and I missed it?
PPH is untouchable, it can do what it likes and doesn't have to worry about stupid laws, we know that by now.
-
@Paul : I hope HMRC are sufficiently competent to decide whether people are employees or not on the basis of the facts rather than what a component of the payment system is called. It depends on your agreement with the client, and has nothing to do with PPH (unless they have been careless enough to get classified as an employment agency, which I doubt)
For everyone else who thinks it is a problem:
- Read this: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employment-status/#1 Every freelance should read it anyway to know what to avoid doing.
- It is useful for people who want to provide services like maintenance contracts at fixed price. Not something I do right now, but something I am starting to do (the only client I have paying me a regular amount is paying annually and is not a PPH client - on the other hand not every one will trust me enough to pay annually in advance!)
- I am fairly sure there are already people providing a recurring service for fixed regular payments. It is also likely that some of those are or should be classified as employees.
- If you are free to do the work at home, on your own equipment, at hours to suit you, and without affecting your right to work for other clients, you have not lost any of your freelance freedom.
-
To answer Davids question somewhere in the comments, the forum will not change and the communication will remain the same. Sorry if I didn't explain it correctly. I am just looking to possibly upgrade our current Zendesk version, as the newer one allows us some more visual on the community, but all posts and layouts will remain exactly as is.
-
@ Graeme
(unless they have been careless enough to get classified as an employment agency, which I doubt)
I completed this survey late one night after being at the pub. Not big and not clever and I haven't a fecking clue what I put tbh, my own fault entirely. However, an hour ago I received a completely random email from a guy in Spain offering me some kind of job that Google Translate is having problems with. One thing it did translate is, I quote "I got your email address from a reputable employment agency". I give my email address to nobody, one helluva coincidence or......
-
@Deb, I did not fill in the survey!
I would be inclined to say coincidence. There is a lot of job offer spam (mostly scams or attempts to confirm your email address is valid). I assume you do not mean "I give my email address to nobody" literally, (unless you mean that you have a separate address for PPH or just for this survey?).
Spammers have a lot of ways of getting email addresses (viruses that copy address books for example) and spammers also sometimes just guess addresses (random combinations of common names, sales@..., info@... etc.). Also someone who got your details from PPH would surely have known to spam you in English.
-
That's great Michael. But for goodness sake, PPH shouldn't be relying on its users to tell it what's permitted and what is not permitted. It's supposed to be a business for goodness sake, it has to find out what its responsibilites are and take them a bit seriously. Same with the spam issue, you can't just spam people at will without getting their permission first, it's illegal. Same with the cookies law, has anyone ever seen the obligatory statement come up on their screen that PPH uses cookies (which obviously it does) and requesting them to give permission? Same with the legal obligation to have the company address and contact details on the website. Same with - well, is there any point going on?
-
@ Graeme, I know you weren't daft enough to fill in the survey I just picked up on your line re the employment agency :)
I think I may now have the record for the quickest ever response from customer service as well, apologising for any inconvenience and reiterating what Michael said earlier that the survey had now been pulled and all details erased.
-
Re PPH's other big foot in mouth of the week, and having been recently assured that the spam is sent out by real people, I see that Christos' explanation of the abusive spam is:
" Our email curator chose the first phrase that came to mind including the word “rubbish”. This was because the image of the first Hourlie in the email was to do with cleaning."
Is an 'email curator' a real person? Or does it refer to a computer program? Just asking... because it's hard to believe that a real person would make this 'mistake', whereas a program might easily.
Either that, or PPH has some seriously hacked off staff.
-
Pie, cut the Jessica some slack. I suspect she's had enough grief from PPH already.
We all make mistakes and as it goes, that one isn't worth fussing about.
I wish Michael had handled it better. Apology, OK, explanation better left alone.
I think there may be a cultural issue with how the comment was perceived. I found it a bit cheeky and daring, but not really offensive and that might be part of the Britsh sense of humour (whatever that is), but not everyone can see that it's meant in a humorous, tongue-in-cheek manner.
Jessica - it was a bit too far perhaps, but actually funny. I really hope PPH didn't give you a hard time.
There's a pharmacy near us with miserable staff. There's another further away where the pharmacist dishes out mild insults to the customers and gets them back in return. I don't go to the local one anymore.
-
@Paul - I don't think we want to know about that..... :)
Just to clear things up, as Jessica's name has been mentioned, I was actually having a laugh/making a comment with regards to the email I received, as I found the email title funny. After all, it's the only thing I'm allowed to do on PPH at present, (due to me being 'blocked' due to not being considered a 'serious freelancer' (shakes his head in disgust) ).
I don't know the girl, but I'm sure she hasn't been reprimanded. Unless Michael thought I was being serious?
-
And I thought Michael was being funny with his response. I knew it wasn't a personal thing, i.e. whoever else received the email (cos I won't have been the only one?), it was full of cheap hourlies. And again, I couldn't see the relationship between the hourlies and the title. So, I thought I'd say something funny.
Well, Jessica, if you do read these forums now and again..... and you're reading this..... then maybe it might be an idea to be careful what titles you write..... however ..... I'm sorry if you did get it in the neck, I was just being funny. (should have perhaps put a smiley after it :) )
Post is closed for further comments because the limit of comments per post has been reached.
Comments
1902 comments