Author: Malvolio

I got more than a little annoyed in yesterday’s blog, with the FSA arbitrarily changing the rules to suit some political agenda without considering the likely impact. Then I read a piece from the Daily Telegraph’s Robert Winnett about HMRC’s latest brainwave and even my normally unflappable demeanour was sorely tested.

Tax inspectors have been given draconian powers to pursue people who have not broken current laws but may be in breach of future legislation which has yet to be drawn up by Parliament.

We have to assume that the DT’s journalists are not totally incompetent, so there has to be a grain of truth in the story. One paragraph in particular, quoting HMRC’s own words, caught my eye:

Avoidance is not defined in the Taxation Acts. One definition is ‘a situation where less tax is paid than Parliament intended, or more tax would have been paid, if Parliament turned its mind to the specific issue in question’. At a practical level the problem is then essentially one of deciding what Parliament would have intended and identifying who should be asked to decide this.”

So let’s consider what this says about the attitude of HMRC.

Firstly, avoidance is not defined in the Taxation Acts. Well there’s one fairly obvious conclusion to that, it’s that avoidance is not illegal. It is in fact entirely permissible and expected.  A former Chancellor stood in Parliament in the 80s, at the time that married couples’ taxation was being separated, and stated quite clearly that people are perfectly at liberty to arrange their affairs to minimise their tax liability. So why are HMRC worried about a legal activity not being prevented in Law?

Secondly, “One definition is a situation where less tax is paid than Parliament intended”. Excuse me? Parliament hasn’t said anything on this subject, but we think they should have done so we will pretend they did. So does that mean that if HMRC decide that people should only bank with Lloyds, as our very own nationalised bank, that everyone else should pay 15% of their income in taxes because they aren’t contributing to Lloyds profits?  Well of course it does, it’s just that Parliament hasn’t thought of it yet.

And finally, HMRC apparently intend investigating people who are breaking the rules that Parliament hasn’t yet thought of. So I hope you don’t claim your tax free allowances, because that is clearly a severe form of tax avoidance and Hector will be knocking on your door any day now.

Give me strength. When did HMRC decide they were in charge?

It seems to have occurred to someone in Whitehall that at least some of the banking crisis was caused by financial institutions lending money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back. After deep and careful analysis of the underlying causes, they’ve concluded that this was because the banks took their clients’ word that they had a solid income, and so were good for a mortgage of anything up to five times that amount.

This, clearly, was a bad idea. It turns out that some people may have been economical with the truth of their earnings. Others may have had the ability to pay until their overpaid contract ran out and they went back to normal earning levels again. The banks themselves don’t seem to have done any due diligence on any of this. So all in all, it’s a bit of a mess. Something must be done.

Tell you what. We’ll top self-certified mortgages completely. Brilliant.

Except for the minor detail that anyone who doesn’t earn a straight salary – like the 1.4 million freelance workers, or the 5 million other self employed people –  can no longer get a mortgage. Well you can if you’ve got three years full accounts to hand and can demonstrate a steady earnings profile.

Ah, but, hold on a minute. There’s an awful lot of people out of work right now, with big gaps in their earnings history. Don’t know if you ‘ve noticed, Mr Brown, but there’s a bit of a recession on. So even if they get back to work, they still can’t have a mortgage. Nor can anyone who has set up their own business in the last three years – and by your own figures, that’s quite a few people who have lost previous well paid jobs.

So in summary, you want people to go into business to provide the flexible workforce but, not content with taxing us to death under schemes that nobody understands, you’re now going to cut off our ability to change homes to be near our work. Brilliant.

Seriously, you ‘d almost think they had something against the self-employed. Or they’re totally incompetent. I wonder which it is…

I thought mine was. I said last week that I was going to take a look at it since it seemed not be generating a lot of calls from agencies, even for jobs I know I can do.

It follows the recommended format – not too long, the front page summarises my profile, skills and key achievements followed by two pages of freelance history by client. Focuses on the last five years.  Not too many buzzwords and TLAs. No great long list of languages, operating systems and platforms, educational history and pets’ names. All very professional.

And though I say it myself – mainly because nobody else will – it’s not a bad history. It’s got some fairly significant successes in there and some serious clients. Certainly it’s good enough to demonstrate I can hack it at the top of an IT department or drive a complex programme to a conclusion. So why isn’t it working?

Then it occurred to me. I’ve written the CV for the wrong audience.

Think about it. If you’re dealing with the bigger agencies, the first point of call for the CV is  with a researcher who’s looking for the skills on a list from the client. If he doesn’t see the keywords, clearly you’re not suitable. If he does, the CV goes to the “Account Manager” – aka the sales person – who repeats the process but with a bit more awareness of what the client is after. This is the guy who will call you back if he thinks your skills are a  close match for the role. Assuming he does and assuming you say the right things he’ll put you forward to the client.

At the client it goes to someone in Human Remains  HR who vets it to see if your skills match the role, which they understand pretty well. They’ll also be looking for your soft skills, are you likely to be a good fit in their organisation and do you have a solid career history. Most of that is irrelevant, of course, especially for  technical roles, but it keeps them happy.

If it passes all those hurdles, it finally  goes to the hiring manager. Who is the guy the CV was written to impress.

So the problem is to write the CV in such as way as to get through all those lower layers of filtration so that you get it in front of the guy with the chequebook.  But since to do that your CV is now full of acronyms, buzzwords and technical jargon to satisfy the needs of the box tickers, the manager is not going to be too impressed with it and you go in the reject pile…

It’s interesting to note that most of the calls I get from agencies after putting in the CV forward have been from people who have been in the game a fair while and usually work for the smaller agencies. They’re also the ones who get me the interviews, since they usually have the ear of the hiring manager and know exactly what it is the client is looking for. Sadly, in out target-driven, sales-oriented agency marketplace with a vast oversupply of candidates, they are becoming rare beasts indeed.  

Interesting challenge, isn’t it? I’m off to think about how to write a three-dimensional CV that will get to the hiring manager and still make sense when it does…

Where does the time go. Haven’t even begun to paint the shed yet…

I’ve been expanding the site over the week, including adding in some basic Google adverts (hope nobody minds this piece of blatant commercialism!).  Job for next week is to understand this whole Web 2.0 world. I mean, I’ve got a Twitter account now (MalvoliosBlog, if you want to follow it) but haven’t yet worked out how to use it in anger: a bit like the remote for the video recorder, I think you need a 10 year old to do the hard bits.

I’ve also added in some articles I’ve written on specific subjects, and will keep these up to date. They are rather more focused than my posts on here, so I hope people will find them of some use.

Had another week of not talking to agencies. Actually not strictly true, I have had a couple of emails back. Sadly they say things like “we had applicants with more closely matched skills”, which is fair enough, but why weren’t those requirements highlighted then? I may have them and not know you needed them. OK, they’re just being polite, obviously. I was talking to a mate (yes, I have one or two) who is in recruitment. He had 70 CVs from a singleapplicant last week – seems the guy got a bit optimistic on Jobserve – and routinely gets 300 per job advertised, most of which are irrelevant but still have to be read. Small wonder they don’t have time for socialising.

However, mustn’t start sympathising with agencies, that way lies madness.

So I must continue to think positive, I’m up for an interim manger role close to home for a reasonable rate, so fingers crossed. Although as She Who Must Be Obeyed keeps pointing out, if the job is in my skill set, close to home, interesting and well paid, I’m guaranteed not to get it.

Have a good weekend. I’ll be painting the shed…

Another major irritation these days is the eternal fight to prove you are who you say you are. I have an aversion to sending personal information and passport details to people I don’t really know and whose data protection processes are possibly less than perfect.

Thing is, most of the time it isn’t actually necessary to do so…

If you are opted out of the agency regulations, as I’ve said before, there is no obligation on the agency to prove your identity themselves. They  can cover their responsibilities with a written assertion from YouCo that the people they supply have been properly ID checked and their residency confirmed. I’ve done exactly that with a major Oil Company in the not too distant past and they were perfectly happy to accept it. Shame too many agencies don’t know that.

Of course, if you’re opted in – which is most of us since once again the agencies don’t understand the rules of their own business properly – then you do have to prove it.  And that’s where the fun begins.

Do you realise that a copy of a passport is not a valid proof of ID? It is only a proof if you present the original in person.  At that point the recipient can take a copy as a record of having done the check (are you listening, Baroness Scotland? This is your law we’re discussing here…). So all those copies we keep sending to assorted agencies every time we get close to a contract are utterly unnecessary and legally invalid. Still, no doubt it gives their bean counters a nice warm feeling.

So if you can’t manage to trek up to the agency’s office every time, are there other, possibly more efficient ways? How about getting a sworn affidavit from a solicitor that they have seen your proof of ID  and residency. That costs around £10, you get a form with their stamp on it and you can send copies of that around the world quite safely.

Or, of course, you opt out properly and save everyone the trouble.

Finally that’s just the initial ID and residency checking. Several regulated industries like banking have rather more stringent controls. Those are, sadly, unavoidable. But at least you shouldn’t have to send them your passport…

Been looking long and hard at my CV – or rather CVs since I have a few variations on a theme. Given the lack of response to assorted job applications that I know I can do, is there something wrong with it that means agents can’t relate what I’ve done to what they’re looking for?

I’ve followed the recommended layout as best I can. There’s a brief description of what I am (or what I think I am!), a list of key skills, a list of key achievements then a potted history of my freelance career. Three pages long, since I’ve only gone into any real detail on the last three or four roles.

You would have thought that the skills and achievements were the most important bits in terms of assessing what I can do. So why does every conversation with an agent (when you can get hold of them, that is) start with “So tell me about your last role at xxxx”. Sorry? It’s there in front of you (and me, come to that, just in case you are trying to verify how much I can remember of what I said), which bits of “Managed a full IT support team” or “Transitioned 1800 migrated servers and BCP/DR faciltites to a new datacentre” or “Rescued a £17m support contract from re-tendering” do you not understand? And if you don’t understand – and I’ve talked to a few who clearly don’t – then what the hell are you doing in recruitment in the first place?

Even worse are the ones that ask “Are you xxx qualified?” despite clear evidence I’ve actually done things successfully, to time and budget, that xxx says you only might be able to do because you’ve done a course on it.

OK, I’m a manager, primarily, I’m usually looking at roles where you need a mix of skills and experience that is often not easily quantified. Nevertheless, the application of a bit of intelligence at the agency end would be nice…

So, how to rewrite it to be more effective, I ask myself. It would be good if I could hook it to my website, which goes into a lot more detail, but the agency won’t have time to read that as well as a three-page CV these days.

Perhaps I should reduce it to one line; “I’ve done everything, I can answer all your questions, I can do this job, hire me!”.

Think that would work…?

You have to be annoyed, or at least amused, at the sheer hypocrisy of our Lords and Masters in Whitehall.

Firstly we have HMRC advising employees of the BBC to convert to using their own freelance companies so they can avoid paying taxes. Minor details like IR35 don’t seem to have entered their thinking. Nor, incidentally, does any of the BBC’s own guidance on this subject make any mention of it. On the other hand, they fired a lot of people a while back, almost all of who are now working for the BBC in their old jobs but as freelancers. Ho hum…

Then we get the expenses row. Don’t know about you, but I would dearly love to have a taxpayer funded mortgage to cover me working away from home. And have it last for more than two years. And be paid to furnish and maintain that property. And keep the profits, free of CGT, when I no longer need it.  Or even rent it to a colleague, who also gets that money reimbursed. But then I’m only a mere worker, not an MP.

Now we hear the poor dears are up in arms about being told to repay some (not all, note) expenses that have been found to be outside the rules. Or, at least, outside an interpretation of the rules that to you and me seems eminently sensible. “No”, they cry, “We were misled!We were following guidance! Befehl ist befehl!”.

Some have paid up without overt protest. Our Great Leader is one, having handed over £12,000 in excess cleaning and gardening costs. Must have some bloody good cleaners and gardeners working for him, is all I can say. And I wish I had a spare twelve grand in my back pocket anyway.

At the heart of their current bleating is that the rules have been changed retrospectively. Well there are quite a few people who have good reason to be annoyed about that.  They’re the ones who have been stitched up by a ruling usually called BN66, that is seeking to re-tax them,  with interest and possibly penalties, for income going back years since what was previously permissible no longer is. Excuse me?

Roll on next year. We hopefully get a change in government. Even if we don’t, many MPs who apparently can’t live without taking the mickey out of taxpayer funded expenses will have stood down. Good riddance, says I.  Hopefully their replacements will understand the concept of one rule for all and, not the Orwellian variant we have right now.

We can but live in hope…

I was following a discussion over the weekend about someone asking if it was OK to expense accountancy training as part of his role as a company owner.  My understanding of any expenses, including training costs, is that the expense must be wholly and exclusively in the line of your work. So clearly you can’t re-train as a driving instructor if you are working as a CAD/CAM designer: well actually you can, of course,  it’s just that it’s not a tax-deductible expense.

However some other responses made me think. Clearly someone running a company needs at least a basic working knowledge of accountancy, so why would this not be an allowable expense?  Time to visit the horror that is the HMRC website…

So an hour later (at least, it felt like an hour) I found the link. Or the beginning of the usual daisy chain of inter-related links.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/BIM42526.htm

What is says, in effect, that training is allowable if it is directly related to fee earning.  If you gain an entirely different skill, like accountancy, then it isn’t.  Which is pretty much as I thought, thankfully.

Of course, YourCo can pay you for what ever it wants. The only question is whether or not that payment is classed as a Benefit in Kind. A 22″ flat screen for your PC is fine, but not a 50″ plasma unless you are hoping to hold seminars in your living room and never watch TV. Why people find that so hard to understand is really beyond me.

Quick update on the job front from last week. Six applications sent (all for things I can actually do). Zero responses. I think I need to look at the CV again…

Not been an exciting time. Biggest and most complicated thing I did was to move this blog from WordPress’s hosting to my own domain. Since it’s years since I did anything you might  describe as even slightly technically demanding, this was approached with a degree of trepidation. After all, having got this blog up and running, it would be a bit embarrassing to delete it all again. Especially since one of my specialisms is Business Continuity planning…

Still, thanks to WordPress’s excellent software and some useful pages of guidance it all went without a hitch. Well, apart from messing up the site name, so it’s /Wordpress rather than /MalvoliosBlog as originally intended.

I even managed to add a couple of plugins. Astonishing.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, not much going on. I’m averaging one and a half job applications a day at the moment. I have managed to speak to some agents as well, so they do actually exist. Sadly, nobody was sufficiently impressed with my outstandingly good CV to offer me an interview. And, of course, two got killed immediately by a lack of SC clearance (mutter mutter…).

Mind you, some of the job requirements are quite bizarre. One was for a Transision Management role – moving a new service into live usage with no problems – which is something that needs a bit of care and a consistent, controlled approach. So why do they demand Agile and SCRUM? Or a process design  role that demands a few years technical DBA experience with SQL Server? I didn’t even bother with that one.

Still, I’m continuing to push the network of contacts. Only snag is half of them are out of work as well. Ho hum…

So, a quiet weekend ahead, then back to the fray on Monday. Wish me luck.

Interesting discussion on another forum at the moment. On the one side there are those saying work is still available, I’m getting calls from agents at much the usual frequency, rates are holding up, what’s the problem. On the other there are those who can’t find anything to apply for and if they do there’s another hundred or so people with the same idea.

So why two opposite views of the same market?

Clearly it isn’t the same market though, is it. It’s a reflection of the over supply of candidates, which means you have to apply some filters or get swamped. And the easiest filter is to look only for people already in that particular line of work. Hence, no defence work without clearance (and don’t get me started on that one again), no finance work without current experience in finance, ditto NHS work (Why? It’s an application delivery…), Local government, and so on and so on.

But, while this is understandable, it is just another symptom of the box-ticking approach to recruitment. In my case, I specialise in Service Management and have done for around 20 years. That’s something that is almost entirely industry independent – you don’t get books on “ITIL for Finance” and  “ITIL for the NHS”, do you – and my skills and experience are easily transferable across industries.  However, my last two serious roles were in manufacturing and Oil and Gas, neither of which have much work at the moment, so I’m shut off from the bulk of the work available. Which can’t be good for the clients who aren’t getting the benefit of my experience (only kidding. Well, only slightly…).

What we need is for agencies to be able to sell people directly to clients, so they get the best guy for the job, not the most available guy in that current corner of the market. I’d happily pay their margin if it meant I was getting high-quality roles and after all, they’re the sales and marketing experts.

Except you can’t do that (unless you’re in entertainment, for some reason) because the famous Agency Regs say you can’t charge work seekers for finding them work. If you could, then agencies could go to clients with zero margin offers, you could easily separate sales and back office functions, agents would actually know and understand the freelancers skills and abilities and clients would start to get the best candidates available. Wouldn’t really be worth it for the bulk skills (which are mostly getting exported anyway), but would work for most of the more specialist roles. Shame it can’t happen.

But hang on. If I’m opted out of the Agency Regs, where is the restriction on me doing exactly that…?