UKTC Archive

Re: Time to think - INSURANCE

Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE
From: Jim Quaife
Date: Dec 27 2003 10:33:57
Dear David,
There is no published statement to that effect.  However, I have taken some
time over the last few years to attempt to clarify the matter with the IR
and various employers (not mine!), both large and small.  I have also asked
the legal section of my local authority to pronounce forth.
The actual crux is one of reasonableness.  There are successful mavericks
who are able to wind the legal system around their litle fingers, but the
majority of mere mortals are obliged to play the game within the system.  On
that basis one has to look at the nature of how one derives income.
Anything or anybody that assists you to that effect is a "tool" of your
work.
To draw an analogy with the legal criminal system is improper, but if one
attempts to do a body swerve around responsibility and you fall foul of the
11th commandment ('Thou shall not get caught'), you are not just shown to
have avoided that responsibility, but also to have deliberately attempted to
avoid it.  The improper comparison is with the severlty of a penalty between
pleading guilty and being found guilty having protested innocence.
The bottom line is one that I would turn around from your quite reasonable
question - I would need to see a categorical statement that someone was NOT
an employee before taking the risk.
Who would gain from one being found to have an insurance responsibility and
having no insurance?
Perhaps this disaster with insurance premiums will have a greater number of
benenfits in the long term than is immediately obvious?  Will it "smarten up
the act" by forcing clarification?  One thing is for certain and that is
that it demonstrates that employment insurance is not an isolated issue, but
inextricably linked with all that we do in an effort to earn a living.
It is a cloudy issue.  Surely the primary factor is whether or not you feel
comfortable and protected?
Jim Q
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Cheshire" <davidjcheshire@xxxxxx.ca>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Time to think - INSURANCE


Dear Jim,

re "The use of a sub-contractor as part of your commercial or
gainful activity is employment" - this is the crux of the matter.
Please identify the authority for it.

Regards.

David Cheshire

Jim Quaife <jq@xxxxxx.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
The use of a sub-contractor as part of your commercial or gainful activity
is employment. It does not matter whether you are personnaly skilled at
the
particular operation, they are contributing to the profitability of your
work.


---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today!
Download Messenger Now

--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/






-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/