Towpath Fundraisers

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/half-of-canal-river-trust-s-face-to-face-fundraisers-let-go-without-notice-or-pay.html
 

I’d like to hear/read your opinions about this article if the link works. 
If it don’t work I’d be grateful if someone could make it do it’s stuff. 
 

I’m one of the fundraisers let go after working for over 2 years across the North West. 

Can’t say I’m overly fussed not working for CRT anymore but it did give me the opportunity to work and CC. 

 

 

 

[canalboat]

I have to say that it was nice to walk the usual bit of the towpath and not feel ambushed by the same guy at the same place time after time. But on the other hand, I get just as miffed at the thought of what I pay to use the canal when so many are encouraged to use the towpath with no contribution to costs at all.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I took great delight in getting cyclists to cough up. 
 

I would like to believe I was never an ‘ambusher’. Very aware there are some over zealous chuggers who would spoil someone’s day, I tried very hard not to. 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Whilst it is always sad that anyone is made redundant 'economics' plays an ever increasingly important role in all businesses.

 

I think someone at C&RT has suddenly realised that in the last 7 years they have paid salaries to fundraisers amounting to £5,500,000 more than the fundraisers have raised (C&RT Accounts)

 

C&RT would have actually been £5,500,000 better off had they undertaken no fundraising at all.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[alias]

1 hour ago, Goliath said:

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/half-of-canal-river-trust-s-face-to-face-fundraisers-let-go-without-notice-or-pay.html
 

I’d like to hear/read your opinions about this article if the link works. 
If it don’t work I’d be grateful if someone could make it do it’s stuff. 
 

I’m one of the fundraisers let go after working for over 2 years across the North West. 

Can’t say I’m overly fussed not working for CRT anymore but it did give me the opportunity to work and CC. 

 

 

 

Seems like Chaz thinks that the fund raisers have more employment rights than CRT/Inspired People do. As one of the people affected, do you have a copy of a written contract or terms and conditions that could clarify this by outlining what the process should have been for termination, notice periods etc?

[Tracy D'arth]

Inevitable I suppose in the present situation and bearing in mind that it was a lost cause, costing more than it returned. Bit of a salt tax really.

 

However if a "sub contractor" is "employed" (used) solely by one firm, does his work where and when the firm dictates then the HMRC could consider him to be in in the firm's employment and subject to employment law, national insurance payments, holiday pay, severance pay and redundancy payments. This is the view taken in the construction industry.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Tracy D'arth

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

15 minutes ago, alias said:

Seems like Chaz thinks that the fund raisers have more employment rights than CRT/Inspired People do. As one of the people affected, do you have a copy of a written contract or terms and conditions that could clarify this by outlining what the process should have been for termination, notice periods etc?

That’s the trouble 

I usually keep everything. 
But in this digital world I have let this one slip, I must have binned it. If I had been given a paper copy I’d still have it. 
And now, as far as I am aware neither CRT or Inspired people are providing any of us with any copies of the contracts

18 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

Inevitable I suppose in the present situation and bearing in mind that it was a lost cause, costing more than it returned. Bit of a salt tax really.

 

However if a "sub contractor" is "employed" (used) solely by one firm, does his work where and when the firm dictates then the HMRC could consider him to be in in the firm's employment and subject to employment law, national insurance payments, holiday pay, severance pay and redundancy payments. This is the view taken in the construction industry.

 Yes, that’s the point Chaz is putting across. 

 

I reckon if the whole Towpath Fundraising program had been ran properly then it would not have made a loss. 

 

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Whilst it is always sad that anyone is made redundant 'economics' plays an ever increasingly important role in all businesses.

 

I think someone at C&RT has suddenly realised that in the last 7 years they have paid salaries to fundraisers amounting to £500,000 more than the fundraisers have raised (C&RT Accounts)

 

C&RT would have actually been £500,000 better off had they undertaken no fundraising at all.

I’ve never been sure of these figures. 
I’ve seen totals of 3.4million for what I believe is the income from towpath fundraising and the Friends Programme. 
But I’ve never seen figures for the cost of towpath fundraising, only totals for fundraising in general. 
 

I’ve done the maths a few times on my annual wage compared to what I raised over a year and what I raised was greater than I earned. 
And of course when people sign up they generally stay for a few years and more.  
We had regular performance reports informing us of rates of attrition. 
 

 

[Tracy D'arth]

22 minutes ago, Goliath said:

That’s the trouble 

I usually keep everything. 
But in this digital world I have let this one slip, I must have binned it. If I had been given a paper copy I’d still have it. 
And now, as far as I am aware neither CRT or Inspired people are providing any of us with any copies of the contracts

 Yes, that’s the point Chaz is putting across. 

 

I reckon if the whole Towpath Fundraising program had been ran properly then it would not have made a loss. 

 

I’ve never been sure of these figures. 
I’ve seen totals of 3.4million for what I believe is the income from towpath fundraising and the Friends Programme. 
But I’ve never seen figures for the cost of towpath fundraising, only totals for fundraising in general. 
 

I’ve done the maths a few times on my annual wage compared to what I raised over a year and what I raised was greater than I earned. 
And of course when people sign up they generally stay for a few years and more.  
We had regular performance reports informing us of rates of attrition. 
 

 

But if you take into account the costs other than your wages, advertising, cost of sales expenses etc. the loss was astounding.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Tracy D'arth said:

But if you take into account the costs other than your wages, advertising, cost of sales expenses etc. the loss was astounding.

Management time, travel, insurance, office costs, etc

 

There is also a dedicated department of 'Director, Managers, Area Managers, staff, holiday pay, pensions etc' all sucking from the teat.

 

Total costs of generating the income for the last 7 years is £5,500,000 more than has been generated.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Whilst it is always sad that anyone is made redundant 'economics' plays an ever increasingly important role in all businesses.

 

I think someone at C&RT has suddenly realised that in the last 7 years they have paid salaries to fundraisers amounting to £500,000 more than the fundraisers have raised (C&RT Accounts)

 

C&RT would have actually been £500,000 better off had they undertaken no fundraising at all.

The 'individual giving'  loss is over £5m cumulative and is taken from annual reports up to and including 2017/18. The calculation can not be made for 2018/19 because the figures were presented in a different way. The calculation for 2019/2020 can not be made because CRT are two months late in producing the annual report (usually out at the end of 2019/2020).

With regard to number of Friends, CRT's stated intention was to have 100,000 after ten years. The latest figure I have seen is less than 30,000 and decreasing rapidly.

Turning to the letting go of chuggers, CRT maintains that they were employed by Inspired People not CRT. Furthermore, they claim that they encouraged IP to furlough these staff. Inspired People claim that the chuggers were 'workers'  and not employed by IP.

Edited October 2, 2020 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The 'individual giving'  figure is over £5m cumulative and is taken from annual reports up to and including 2017/18.

Thanks - I had corrected it a while ago (to £5.5m) but your quote seems to have picked up the pre edited post.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

5 minutes ago, Tracy D'arth said:

But if you take into account the costs other than your wages, advertising, cost of sales expenses etc. the loss was astounding.

Yes , of course. 
I realise it’s more than the wages  
 

But I think those figures are not for towpath fundraising alone but a combination of other fundraising activities too ? I would like to see a figure for the Friends Programme alone. 

As has been discussEd before; this fundraising was/is seen as a way of helping securethe DEFRA grant 

 

 I think the towpath fundraiser will soon disappear all together. Those fundraisers left seem to be jacking their jobs in. There’s a James Munoz in charge who is  proving to be a half wit. 
 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

14 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Turning to the letting go of chuggers, CRT maintains that they were employed by Inspired People not CRT. Furthermore, they claim that they encouraged IP to furlough these staff. Inspired People claim that the chuggers were 'workers'  and not employed by IP.

Yes that is exactly it. 
 

IP paid my wage and that was the only dealings I had with them.

We only fundraised for CRT and CRT ‘treated’ us like employees in many ways. For instance I had a ‘free of charge’ boat license, something only given to employees of CRT. 


Just to add: CRT would like to think they are to thank for our furlough, putting pressure on IP

and yet IP too say they themselves are responsible for our furlough after pressuring CRT

 

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by Goliath

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

To further add;

 

I’m not looking for sympathy and neither am I looking to rant and moan. 
Just thought the article and the three points of view might be interesting to others. 
 

 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Just now, Goliath said:

Yes , of course. 
I realise it’s more than the wages  
 

But I think those figures are not for towpath fundraising alone but a combination of other fundraising activities too ? I would like to see a figure for the Friends Programme alone. 

As has been discussEd before; this fundraising was/is seen as a way of helping securethe DEFRA grant 

 

 I think the towpath fundraiser will soon disappear all together. Those fundraisers left seem to be jacking their jobs in. There’s a James Munoz in charge who is  proving to be a half wit. 
 

The figure is for 'individual giving' which includes, as its largest part, the Friends scheme. You would need to make an information request to get a breakdown.

Many people get confused regarding donation figures produced by CRT. What they do, quite legally, is return dividends from subsidiary companies as donations to avoid tax,

 

 

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Yes that is exactly it. 
 

IP paid my wage and that was the only dealings I had with them.

We only fundraised for CRT and CRT ‘treated’ us like employees in many ways. For instance I had a ‘free of charge’ boat license, something only given to employees of CRT. 

 

 

As I said on facebook some time back, the only way that this would be resolved is via an employment tribunal.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Yes that is exactly it. 
 

IP paid my wage and that was the only dealings I had with them.

We only fundraised for CRT and CRT ‘treated’ us like employees in many ways. For instance I had a ‘free of charge’ boat license, something only given to employees of CRT. 


Just to add: CRT would like to think they are to thank for our furlough, putting pressure on IP

and yet IP too say they themselves are responsible for our furlough after pressuring CRT

 

 

 

The Governments definition of being self-employed

 

Someone is probably self-employed and shouldn’t be paid through PAYE if most of the following are true:

• they’re in business for themselves, are responsible for the success or failure of their business and can make a loss or a profit
• they can decide what work they do and when, where or how to do it
• they can hire someone else to do the work
• they’re responsible for fixing any unsatisfactory work in their own time
• their employer agrees a fixed price for their work - it doesn’t depend on how long the job takes to finish
• they use their own money to buy business assets, cover running costs, and provide tools and equipment for their work
• they can work for more than one client

Someone is probably self-employed and doesn’t have the rights of an employee if they’re exempt from PAYE and most of the following are also true:

• they put in bids or give quotes to get work
• they’re not under direct supervision when working
• they submit invoices for the work they’ve done
• they’re responsible for paying their own National Insurance and tax
• they don’t get holiday or sick pay when they’re not working
• they operate under a contract (sometimes known as a ‘contract for services’ or ‘consultancy agreement’) that uses terms like ‘self-employed’, ‘consultant’ or an ‘independent contractor’

If these are not applicable, the ones who pay your wages are your employer

 

 

 

How many of those requirements apply to you ?

[alias]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The Governments definition of being self-employed

 

Someone is probably self-employed and shouldn’t be paid through PAYE if most of the following are true:

• they’re in business for themselves, are responsible for the success or failure of their business and can make a loss or a profit
• they can decide what work they do and when, where or how to do it
• they can hire someone else to do the work
• they’re responsible for fixing any unsatisfactory work in their own time
• their employer agrees a fixed price for their work - it doesn’t depend on how long the job takes to finish
• they use their own money to buy business assets, cover running costs, and provide tools and equipment for their work
• they can work for more than one client

Someone is probably self-employed and doesn’t have the rights of an employee if they’re exempt from PAYE and most of the following are also true:

• they put in bids or give quotes to get work
• they’re not under direct supervision when working
• they submit invoices for the work they’ve done
• they’re responsible for paying their own National Insurance and tax
• they don’t get holiday or sick pay when they’re not working
• they operate under a contract (sometimes known as a ‘contract for services’ or ‘consultancy agreement’) that uses terms like ‘self-employed’, ‘consultant’ or an ‘independent contractor’

If these are not applicable, the ones who pay your wages are your employer

 

 

 

How many of those requirements apply to you ?

The article quotes IP as saying these people were "worker" status as far as HMRC are concerned (rather then employee or self employed status).  This status gives entitlement to some employment benefits, but crucially in this case not redundancy payments. (https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker

 

Workers usually aren’t entitled to:

• minimum notice periods if their employment will be ending, for example if an employer is dismissing them
• protection against unfair dismissal
• the right to request flexible working
• time off for emergencies
• Statutory Redundancy Pay

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

18 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The Governments definition of being self-employed

 

Someone is probably self-employed and shouldn’t be paid through PAYE if most of the following are true:

• they’re in business for themselves, are responsible for the success or failure of their business and can make a loss or a profit
• they can decide what work they do and when, where or how to do it
• they can hire someone else to do the work
• they’re responsible for fixing any unsatisfactory work in their own time
• their employer agrees a fixed price for their work - it doesn’t depend on how long the job takes to finish
• they use their own money to buy business assets, cover running costs, and provide tools and equipment for their work
• they can work for more than one client

Someone is probably self-employed and doesn’t have the rights of an employee if they’re exempt from PAYE and most of the following are also true:

• they put in bids or give quotes to get work
• they’re not under direct supervision when working
• they submit invoices for the work they’ve done
• they’re responsible for paying their own National Insurance and tax
• they don’t get holiday or sick pay when they’re not working
• they operate under a contract (sometimes known as a ‘contract for services’ or ‘consultancy agreement’) that uses terms like ‘self-employed’, ‘consultant’ or an ‘independent contractor’

If these are not applicable, the ones who pay your wages are your employer

 

 

 

How many of those requirements apply to you ?

Yes, I understand your point. 
 

And that’s how I have always understood it: those who pay my wage are my employers. 

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, alias said:

The article quotes IP as saying these people were "worker" status as far as HMRC are concerned (rather then employee or self employed status).  This status gives entitlement to some employment benefits, but crucially in this case not redundancy payments. (https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker

 

Workers usually aren’t entitled to:

• minimum notice periods if their employment will be ending, for example if an employer is dismissing them
• protection against unfair dismissal
• the right to request flexible working
• time off for emergencies
• Statutory Redundancy Pay

 

Pretty poor benefits in being a 'worker'.

 

Must admit to never having heard of a 'worker' before (except in the context of worker-bees)

 

"In my day" you were either employed or unemployed - are all those McDonald's "workers" (on zero hours contracts) employed or workers ?

 

Bring back the good old days !

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 minutes ago, alias said:

The article quotes IP as saying these people were "worker" status as far as HMRC are concerned (rather then employee or self employed status).  This status gives entitlement to some employment benefits, but crucially in this case not redundancy payments. (https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker

 

Workers usually aren’t entitled to:

• minimum notice periods if their employment will be ending, for example if an employer is dismissing them
• protection against unfair dismissal
• the right to request flexible working
• time off for emergencies
• Statutory Redundancy Pay

Redundancy isn’t an issue because none of us were made redundant as such. 
Just no longer required. 
 

 

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Pretty poor benefits in being a 'worker'.

 

Must admit to never having heard of a 'worker' before (except in the context of worker-bees)

 

"In my day" you were either employed or unemployed - are all those McDonald's "workers" (on zero hours contracts) employed or workers ?

 

Bring back the good old days !

Well, I’ve just signed another zero hour contract. 
 

I’m an Ice Cream Van Man now ??

 

[alias]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Pretty poor benefits in being a 'worker'.

 

Must admit to never having heard of a 'worker' before (except in the context of worker-bees)

 

"In my day" you were either employed or unemployed - are all those McDonald's "workers" (on zero hours contracts) employed or workers ?

 

Bring back the good old days !

Indeed. Over the years in several organisations I've seen a lot of colleagues jobs outsourced, or offshored to reduce costs and make a declining organisation appear to be performing better. One of the last companies in recent years took to telling contractors that they would need to take a 10% rate cut to have their annual contract renewed.  (Neatly matched by making around 10% of employees redundant at the same time.)

 

 It hasn't been a great decade or two to be in employment for lots of people.

13 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Redundancy isn’t an issue because none of us were made redundant as such. 
Just no longer required. 
 

 

Isn't that the point?  If you could demonstrate that you were actually employees then when no longer required you would have been eligible for a notice period and redundancy pay. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, alias said:

Isn't that the point?  If you could demonstrate that you were actually employees then when no longer required you would have been eligible for a notice period and redundancy pay. 

I’m not sure about any of it. 
I’ve just confused myself more by reading something about agency workers.

But yes, if we could prove we were employees we would be entitled to something. 
 

 

the status of ‘worker’ is a new one to me

 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I’m not sure about any of it. 
I’ve just confused myself more by reading something about agency workers.

But yes, if we could prove we were employees we would be entitled to something. 
 

 

the status of ‘worker’ is a new one to me

 

 

 

A bit out of context - "worker" is only part of the definition. It gets further defined so the worker is either an enployee or self employed. It means nothing by itself.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

• An employee
• A worker (someone who works on a casual basis or is an agency temp)
• Someone who is self-employed (i.e. a freelancer or contractor)

[Arthur Marshall]

12 minutes ago, Goliath said:

• An employee
• A worker (someone who works on a casual basis or is an agency temp)
• Someone who is self-employed (i.e. a freelancer or contractor)

Yes, but even working on a casual basis you are either employed or self employed. Either way, someone is responsible for sorting out your NI and tax liability. If it's you, you're self employed. If it's someone else, you're an employee.

If you're not paying tax or NI, and the Revenue doesn't know about you, you're probably a musician... OK, part of the illegal black economy! If you're not paying tax or NI, but live in a mansion, and have a million quid in the bank, you're a cabinet member...