Jump to content

Towpath Fundraisers


Featured Posts

35 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

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.

That would seem logical, wouldn't it. However it looks as though people have needed to go to court to assert this, and not always succesfully.

 

"The regulation of agency workers is affected by the interpretation by the courts of the word "employee" under s.230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. If an individual is considered to be an "employee" then all the entitlements (such as a written statement of contract, reasonable notice before dismissal, time off for parenting, etc.) under the Employment Rights Act 1996 apply. But the courts have often held that agency workers fall outside of this definition, because they lack "mutuality of obligation" in their contracts."

...

"Current authority could be said to still be ambivalent. On the one hand, the recent case of Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] IRLR 358 held that an agency worker would be the "employee" of the end-employer. But then a slightly differently constituted Court of Appeal in James v Greenwich LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 35 has held that a contract of employment only exists with the agency itself. A feature of this ongoing debate is that, despite the fact that court cases for the last five years have always found an agency worker to be an "employee" of at least someone, generally speaking, neither end-employers nor employment agencies regard themselves as the employer who is bound by the Employment Rights Act 1996."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_agency_worker_law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, alias said:

That would seem logical, wouldn't it. However it looks as though people have needed to go to court to assert this, and not always succesfully.

 

"The regulation of agency workers is affected by the interpretation by the courts of the word "employee" under s.230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. If an individual is considered to be an "employee" then all the entitlements (such as a written statement of contract, reasonable notice before dismissal, time off for parenting, etc.) under the Employment Rights Act 1996 apply. But the courts have often held that agency workers fall outside of this definition, because they lack "mutuality of obligation" in their contracts."

...

"Current authority could be said to still be ambivalent. On the one hand, the recent case of Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] IRLR 358 held that an agency worker would be the "employee" of the end-employer. But then a slightly differently constituted Court of Appeal in James v Greenwich LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 35 has held that a contract of employment only exists with the agency itself. A feature of this ongoing debate is that, despite the fact that court cases for the last five years have always found an agency worker to be an "employee" of at least someone, generally speaking, neither end-employers nor employment agencies regard themselves as the employer who is bound by the Employment Rights Act 1996."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_agency_worker_law

Yes, but all that means is that an agency worker is treated as self employed, and that depends on the exact nature of the contract.  There's no such thing as a worker who is neither employed or self employed, because by the nature of working, you are doing something for somebody.  All the rest is arguing as to who pays the tax etc, and how much.  Agencies prefer you to be self employed because it's cheaper for them, and if the contract doesn't specify that you can only work for them, and not take up other work aas well round the edges, they might get away with it. A lot of them insisted that their contractees set up limited companies (at their own expense, obviously) and acted as directors (which meant the contractee paid less tax as he paid himself in dividends rather than wages) and that caused chaos as it was essentially illegal but took years to sort out.

As usual, the law is a mess because it's written by twits with no training.  That's why lawyers are rich and the rest of us aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Yes, but all that means is that an agency worker is treated as self employed, and that depends on the exact nature of the contract.  There's no such thing as a worker who is neither employed or self employed, because by the nature of working, you are doing something for somebody.  All the rest is arguing as to who pays the tax etc, and how much.  Agencies prefer you to be self employed because it's cheaper for them, and if the contract doesn't specify that you can only work for them, and not take up other work aas well round the edges, they might get away with it. A lot of them insisted that their contractees set up limited companies (at their own expense, obviously) and acted as directors (which meant the contractee paid less tax as he paid himself in dividends rather than wages) and that caused chaos as it was essentially illegal but took years to sort out.

As usual, the law is a mess because it's written by twits with no training.  That's why lawyers are rich and the rest of us aren't.

The stuff about employee vs. self employed via own company is still not fully resolved, despite IR35 having come in over 20 years ago. A final resolution on that (by making the customer organisation accountable for justifying the selected employment status) was deferred from this April to next April due to the covid crisis. 

 

Agency workers (at least for agencies like IP) are in a slightly different situation - having employees in reality, with no dispute that the agency covers the payroll, tax and NI, yet not full employees in a legal sense since workers have some but not all of the Employment Rights granted in the 1996 Act. As you say it is almost as though the legislation was drafted to maximise the earnings from subsequent advice and litigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, alias said:

The stuff about employee vs. self employed via own company is still not fully resolved, despite IR35 having come in over 20 years ago. A final resolution on that (by making the customer organisation accountable for justifying the selected employment status) was deferred from this April to next April due to the covid crisis. 

 

Agency workers (at least for agencies like IP) are in a slightly different situation - having employees in reality, with no dispute that the agency covers the payroll, tax and NI, yet not full employees in a legal sense since workers have some but not all of the Employment Rights granted in the 1996 Act. As you say it is almost as though the legislation was drafted to maximise the earnings from subsequent advice and litigation.

Its interesting, its not an IR35 thing as that applies to the self employed (I know because although I think I am safe I do need to keep an eye on this). What I don't understand is how it works when a company uses an agency to employ their staff. Goliath only worked for CRT and thought he was working for CRT, if he was self employed then an IR35 case would most likely conclude he was working for CRT, but even that's not certain.

My first real job was a University researcher and the law was changed to say that if a uni employed researchers on multiple short term contracts then they had the same rights as a proper employee. It got me a proper job. I fear we have gone a long way backwards in terms on employee rights. 

 

.............Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dmr said:

Its interesting, its not an IR35 thing as that applies to the self employed (I know because although I think I am safe I do need to keep an eye on this). What I don't understand is how it works when a company uses an agency to employ their staff. Goliath only worked for CRT and thought he was working for CRT, if he was self employed then an IR35 case would most likely conclude he was working for CRT, but even that's not certain.

My first real job was a University researcher and the law was changed to say that if a uni employed researchers on multiple short term contracts then they had the same rights as a proper employee. It got me a proper job. I fear we have gone a long way backwards in terms on employee rights. 

 

.............Dave

IR35 is about alleged concealment of true employment through use of limited company status as that is seen as evading tax/NI.  It does not apply to anyone on a payroll with tax/NI assessed and deducted as PAYE.  IR35 views working solely for one employer as one of the tests used to judge whether a person is truly self employed.  If you are being taxed as an employee anyway (via an agency or umbrella company) and on a PAYE payroll you are paying as much tax as if you were a direct employee of your ultimate customer, so IR35 is not relevant and HMRC is not worried. That doesn't seem to mean you get full employment rights though.

 

Could CRT acquire a liability to additional employee rights through treating an agency worker as one of their own through giving employee benefits or long term continuity of work? I've no idea, and it would probably need a lot spent on lawyers to find out, and I don't think legal aid is available for employment tribunals any more.

 

Like you my first job was a fixed term university research contract, with the folklore being that you would only get a limited number of these as after 9 years you had to be treated as a permanent employee. Don't know if that was true or not, but that was the story. 

Edited by alias
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry you lost your job Goliath and I am also very intrigued by jobs that allow you to CC. It must have been a really great gig to cruise about the country and chat to locals about the canals - did you get to go where you liked or were you posted to specific locations? What was the general reaction from the public?

 

But I am rather glad CaRT have had an excuse to end this farce and I really hope that that CaRT finds more realistic ways to raise funds. I have always had a deep distaste for charity muggers. Even back when I assumed they were volunteers. When I discovered - through applying for the job with Oxfam, so I'm definitely a hypocrite here - that not only were they harassing and/or guilt tripping people on the street into volunteering to supporting the charity, they were not even doing it themselves - actually draining the charity's resources that they are appearing to promote (!) I was frankly disgusted. And when I worked out just how many signups they had to get just to cover their own wage it baffled my mind that it was even a lucrative method at all - they would have to sign 1 person up for a tenner direct debit monthly for a year before they even paid the day's wage and expenses. To be honest it turned me off the charity "industry" as a whole.

 

The fact that CaRT has lost 5.5m with this nonsense is not only a lost opportunity cost for the waterways, it is also a lost opportunity cost for the other - arguably more deserving - charities taking a slice of the public's charity pie. Not to mention of course the thousands of hours that the people involved could have spent on actually productive work, like making, growing, building or creating something.

 

Sorry if this sounds harsh but I hope that the majority of those involved will have the decency to say "well we had a good run" and not try to milk any more of the charity's resources. Really don't mean this personally, so I hope I don't offend, and I wish you well in your new job spreading joy and ice cream!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ice cream van is a better job than harassing people on street, you are your own boss. I wish you success. I have never paid to chuggers (well except that one time when a fat girl pushed me against the wall and extracted £5), they are same as any high street sales person like scottish power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember being at a meeting when the first professional fundraiser employed by CRT announced her plans and I was astounded at the millionaires budget she had managed to get them to stump up over three years, before there was any predicted income at all.  It guaranteed a job for a good few years on a huge salary and expenses without having to actually raise any money at all. Doomed to failure from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

I am sorry you lost your job Goliath and I am also very intrigued by jobs that allow you to CC. It must have been a really great gig to cruise about the country and chat to locals about the canals - did you get to go where you liked or were you posted to specific locations? What was the general reaction from the public?


I’m quite glad not to go back for a few reasons. Main one: was time to do something else instead. 
It worked like this:

Sunday evening you’d email which days a week you’d be available, and in my case I’d give my location. As long as I stayed in the North West region I could work. Over two years I chugged Leeds and Liverpool, Rochdale, Huddersfield, Macclesfield, Peak Forest, Ashton, Upper Shroppie.
 

The general public were surprisingly good with it. Many had never heard of CRT and thought the canals were council run, and didn’t know they all joined up to make a network. 
Many said they loved the canals and used them all the time with the family and would like to help but didn’t realise they could, and signed up. 

Lots of boaters signed up too. 
It was a real opener. 


But I am rather glad CaRT have had an excuse to end this farce and I really hope that that CaRT finds more realistic ways to raise funds. I have always had a deep distaste for charity muggers. Even back when I assumed they were volunteers. When I discovered - through applying for the job with Oxfam, so I'm definitely a hypocrite here - that not only were they harassing and/or guilt tripping people on the street into volunteering to supporting the charity, they were not even doing it themselves - actually draining the charity's resources that they are appearing to promote (!) I was frankly disgusted. And when I worked out just how many signups they had to get just to cover their own wage it baffled my mind that it was even a lucrative method at all - they would have to sign 1 person up for a tenner direct debit monthly for a year before they even paid the day's wage and expenses. To be honest it turned me off the charity "industry" as a whole

 

We were always on the towpath.

I never guilt tripped anyone, that’d be underhand and nasty  

 

 

 

8 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

The fact that CaRT has lost 5.5m with this nonsense is not only a lost opportunity cost for the waterways, it is also a lost opportunity cost for the other - arguably more deserving - charities taking a slice of the public's charity pie. Not to mention of course the thousands of hours that the people involved could have spent on actually productive work, like making, growing, building or creating something.

 

Sorry if this sounds harsh but I hope that the majority of those involved will have the decency to say "well we had a good run" and not try to milk any more of the charity's resources. Really don't mean this personally, so I hope I don't offend, and I wish you well in your new job spreading joy and ice cream!


It’s good to hear honest opinion.
 To say chugging has made a loss of 5.5million I think is misleading. 

The towpath fundraising/chugging/friends programme is only one part of CRT fundraising. I have never been able to find out the cost of the face to face fundraising alone. 



CRT state they spend 45million on raising monies, I’ve always wanted to see a proper break down of how

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, restlessnomad said:

ice cream van is a better job than harassing people on street, you are your own boss. I wish you success. I have never paid to chuggers (well except that one time when a fat girl pushed me against the wall and extracted £5), they are same as any high street sales person like scottish power.

Yes, Ice Cream Van is much better ?

 

Not quite my own boss though: Still a zero hour contract, no guaranteed work. But decent pay, and when you get the days you get the long hours. 

 

to add; I was never on the street, always towpath, which makes a huge difference. So instead of harassing random strangers, it was ‘engaging’ with canal users. 

 

Edited by Goliath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, Goliath said:

...........CRT state they spend 45million on raising monies, I’ve always wanted to see a proper break down of how


 

 

 

Here is a screen shot of C&RTs accounts (before they decided not to report the cost of raising voluntary giving)

 

As you can see, in that year 'Voluntary Income' was £2.5m and the cost of raising that £2.5m was £3.6m (a 'loss' of £1.1m)

"Leisure Boating" raised £42.4m and cost £17m to generate that income.

"Utilities" (abstraction licences etc) raised £26.3m and cost £2.8m to generate that income.

 

 

 

Screenshot (368)_LI.jpg

 

 

 

1004896940_Screenshot(368).png.ca720fe988370683a7bafa4c3e05cf1f.png

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Yes, Ice Cream Van is much better ?

 

Not quite my own boss though: Still a zero hour contract, no guaranteed work. But decent pay, and when you get the days you get the long hours. 

 

to add; I was never on the street, always towpath, which makes a huge difference. So instead of harassing random strangers, it was ‘engaging’ with canal users. 

 

thought you bought your own van and selling icecream... do you need licence for that or anything? I know somebody who does that (mostly for events like marriage, birthdays)... 

anyway I dont like to be 'slave' of any company, in exchange of worker's right, I would much prefer less money if I get more freedom. zero hour contract and gig economy are made for people like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ivan&alice said:

I am sorry you lost your job Goliath and I am also very intrigued by jobs that allow you to CC. It must have been a really great gig to cruise about the country and chat to locals about the canals - did you get to go where you liked or were you posted to specific locations? What was the general reaction from the public?

 

But I am rather glad CaRT have had an excuse to end this farce and I really hope that that CaRT finds more realistic ways to raise funds. I have always had a deep distaste for charity muggers. Even back when I assumed they were volunteers. When I discovered - through applying for the job with Oxfam, so I'm definitely a hypocrite here - that not only were they harassing and/or guilt tripping people on the street into volunteering to supporting the charity, they were not even doing it themselves - actually draining the charity's resources that they are appearing to promote (!) I was frankly disgusted. And when I worked out just how many signups they had to get just to cover their own wage it baffled my mind that it was even a lucrative method at all - they would have to sign 1 person up for a tenner direct debit monthly for a year before they even paid the day's wage and expenses. To be honest it turned me off the charity "industry" as a whole.

 

The fact that CaRT has lost 5.5m with this nonsense is not only a lost opportunity cost for the waterways, it is also a lost opportunity cost for the other - arguably more deserving - charities taking a slice of the public's charity pie. Not to mention of course the thousands of hours that the people involved could have spent on actually productive work, like making, growing, building or creating something.

 

Sorry if this sounds harsh but I hope that the majority of those involved will have the decency to say "well we had a good run" and not try to milk any more of the charity's resources. Really don't mean this personally, so I hope I don't offend, and I wish you well in your new job spreading joy and ice cream!

My faith in the whole charity sector has taken a beating, not because of chuggers but how little the big charities spend on their cause. Then there were scandal about executives of big charities going to 3rd world country and behaving like king with the staff their (good lifestyle, some even engaged prostitutes).

I have met two charity workers who were using money from gullible european donors to spend money on themselves (both in asian countries)

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, restlessnomad said:

thought you bought your own van and selling icecream... do you need licence for that or anything? I know somebody who does that (mostly for events like marriage, birthdays)... 

anyway I dont like to be 'slave' of any company, in exchange of worker's right, I would much prefer less money if I get more freedom. zero hour contract and gig economy are made for people like me.

No, I wish, massive money to be made. 
 

And that ‘less money for more freedom‘ is exactly what I got from fundraising. 
On average I’d do a 20hr week leaving plenty of time to boat and do may art work. 
Some weeks over winter I might get in 8hrs or on the odd occasion 0hr. So no money to be earned as such but plenty of freedom. 
 

This new job, zero hr contract, offers me long days when the weather is good and plenty of free time now the weather is turning shit. 
And I can still continuous  cruise. The factory is by the Rochdale Canal and not far to travel from the Huddersfield either. 
 

What sort of work do you get?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By 2018 the situation had improved slightly such that C&RT only made a "loss" of £500,000 in generating 'charitable donations'.

 

Generated = £3.4m

Cost to generate = £3.9m

 

By 2018 they had started to consolidate the figures and by 2019 they were not quoted at all.

 

I could go thru every years accounts package but I think the point is made.

If you want to confirm the total losses since C&RT took over from BW you can easily do so.

 

Screenshot (369)_LI.jpg

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Here is a screen shot of C&RTs accounts (before they decided not to report the cost of raising voluntary giving)

 

As you can see, in that year 'Voluntary Income' was £2.5m and the cost of raising that £2.5m was £3.6m (a 'loss' of £1.1m)

"Leisure Boating" raised £42.4m and cost £17m to generate that income.

"Utilities" (abstraction licences etc) raised £26.3m and cost £2.8m to generate that income.

 

 

 

Screenshot (368)_LI.jpg

 

 

 

1004896940_Screenshot(368).png.ca720fe988370683a7bafa4c3e05cf1f.png

I don’t think we’ll know the true losses and they’ll obviously be more than CRT would like to admit. 


But:  I’d still like to see the expenditure on the Friends Programme alone. 

 


 

 

Just crossed posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Goliath said:

I don’t think we’ll know the true losses and they’ll obviously be more than CRT would like to admit. 


But:  I’d still like to see the expenditure on the Friends Programme alone. 

 


 

 

Just crossed posts

It is in  your hands. As I have already said you would need to make an information request as a further breakdown does not exist in the public domain.

 

What does exist is CRT's stated intention to have 100,000 Friends in its first decade of operation contributing £10 million net per year.

Eight years in the figure is less than 30,000 and in decline.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I’m going pub. 
Back tomorrow 

 

?

 

On the subjects of 'signing up friends' C&RT originally put forward a totally unreasonable figure for the 1st 10 years of their operation, they were told to reduce it by a 'large' number and eventually they accepted a much reduced figure of 100,000 friends to be signed up by 2022.

 

By the end of 2018 they should have 'signed up' about 60,000 if they were to be on target.

In 2018 C&RT quoted 2 figures (wildly different) and the highest number quoted in the Annual Accounts (a legal document) stated they had signed up just 24,100

 

They still maintain they will achieve the 10 year target, but the fact is there were just four years left to recruit 76,000 Friends. Put another way, 19,000 for each of the remaining four years. Current recruitment rate is in decline and is less than 4,000 per year.

 

 

Apart from Legacies, Lottery Grants and DEFRA, C&RT are just totally incapable of generating any profitable charitable income.

 

Maybe if the focussed their efforts in one area they may succeed - currently they are neither Fish nor Fowl !!

 

C&RT are spending more on becoming a housing association that they do on 'boating'

 

Extract from the 2018 accounts.

 

2018/19: 513 residential units completed (497 forecast)

2019/20: Over 493 units under construction currently.

Over 400 units anticipated to commence construction in 2019/20.

Approximately 491 units forecast to be completed in 2019/20.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

( couldn’t resist coming back while I’m waiting for my drinking partner)

 

I can’t disagree, it’s been a shower of shyte. 

Projected figures a joke. 
And it’s getting worse. 


 

But fundamentally, I felt there was nowt wrong with getting out there and asking Jo Public to cough up some money to help maintain what some of them take for granted. (Particularly cyclists, some of ‘em would sign up for £20 a month)
 

If ran properly it would prove to be a good earner. 
 

Whatever money is raised through towpath fundraising and the friends programme no money is returned to the fundraising budget. 

100% is guaranteed to be spent on canal and waterways projects. 
Whether it’s then spent on worthy canal projects is another point. 
I understand it’s often used for matching heritage funding (such as the work done on the Marple flight) .
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Whatever money is raised through towpath fundraising and the friends programme no money is returned to the fundraising budget. 

The money raised seems to be insufficient to cover the costs of C&RT's 'fund raising office' and its 19 'fund raising' office staff, and, the cost of the Chuggers so there is non left to actually do anything beneficial for the Charity,

 

No really sure why there needs to be 19 staff to work in the 'Voluntary Income' department, and to which, on top of their salaries, is added £600,000 for admin / offices / IT / Finance / Management.

 

 

 

Screenshot (370).png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

By 2018 the situation had improved slightly such that C&RT only made a "loss" of £500,000 in generating 'charitable donations'.

 

Generated = £3.4m

Cost to generate = £3.9m

 

By 2018 they had started to consolidate the figures and by 2019 they were not quoted at all.....

I'm confused by this comment.   The figures above (£3.4m income, £3.9mcosts) appear to come from the 2018/19 accounts.   The next accounts, for 2019/20, haven't yet been published (or not to the Companies House website), so I don't see how they can be "not quoted at all ..."?

 

Since C&RT is technically a charity, I think their accounts have to show the "cost of fund raising activties".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goliath said:

( couldn’t resist coming back while I’m waiting for my drinking partner)

 

I can’t disagree, it’s been a shower of shyte. 

Projected figures a joke. 
And it’s getting worse. 


 

But fundamentally, I felt there was nowt wrong with getting out there and asking Jo Public to cough up some money to help maintain what some of them take for granted. (Particularly cyclists, some of ‘em would sign up for £20 a month)
 

If ran properly it would prove to be a good earner. 
 

Whatever money is raised through towpath fundraising and the friends programme no money is returned to the fundraising budget. 

100% is guaranteed to be spent on canal and waterways projects. 
Whether it’s then spent on worthy canal projects is another point. 
I understand it’s often used for matching heritage funding (such as the work done on the Marple flight) .
 

Joe public might argue that they are already paying for the waterways via taxation. Boaters would further argue that, as well as taxation, they are paying via licences and, in many cases, mooring fees.

You appear to have fallen for the 'golden pound' claim. Early on CRT argued that 100% of every pound raised would be spent on its charitable objectives. However, if it is costing two pounds to raise that one 'golden pound', then that is two pounds that can not be spent on charitable objectives.

CRT has always had what the marketing people call a 'poor proposition' with regard to fundraising. It has to compete with charities such as Oxfam and Guide Dogs which have a 'proposition' with great emotive appeal which people believe they can relate to.

Where CRT believes it has an advantage over its competitors is that it is recruiting Friends on its waterways rather than in the entrance to Tesco (or whatever). The fact that the punter is on the towpath means that he or she should have some interest, however slight.





 

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.