Macron is really miffed

[GerryT]

Why when Britain was a member of the EU was it difficult to find a British Prime Minister in group photographs?

They seldom showed up

[GerryT]

I gave you 3 links that you just said were fantasy, that's your choice. Answer me 2 questions Gerry.

1).  If Germany quit the EU and started free trading with the rest of the world the same as the U.K., how long would the EU last?

2).  Why are Merkel and Macron always front and centre of every EU picture?

The answer to those 2 questions will tell you who is pulling the strings in the EU.

You said Germany ruled the EU because of a picture  then you said it ruled the EU because it was the country with the biggest market  . You were asked to show how Germany controls the EU, run's the show. That has never been done, it can't be, because its nonsense. A bit like your contract nonsense.

Where have you demonstrated that Germany controls the EU, how does it do this ? How does it do this ?

1) If Germany quit the EU would continue, the EU is approx 15T common market, Germany is 3.3T. The EU would continue as a approx 12T market. The EU budget is about 150b, only 7% goes to the running of the EU, that's 10.5b. That works out at 0.07% of each countries GDP. That's easily managed. That would cut out development programmes but very easily done. I reality countries could keep payments at the current rate and development programmes would continue, just not at the same rate.
2) Their not. But what does that prove, larger countries get to have central position in a photo. Or maybe a nicer cushion on their chair or a bronze name plate rather than steel. What I'm talking about is how the EU functions, the direction it takes, how these decisions are made. I've explained to you how that happens, you ignore that.

Can you explain how the decisions that are made are controlled by Germany. Explain that.

[GerryT]

It's only taken you 48 hours to come round to now arguing what I've been telling you, an employment contract is different than a task based contract. Christ sake Gerry you're now telling me!!

No I haven't, Who does tasks, people, people doing a task for a person is employer/employee. The employee can be directly employed or employed through a contract, like your company. Employment contracts can change and as I pointed out this can be verbal, it doesn't have to be written, but it does have to be by agreement. That applies to both direct employees and companies like mine or yours being employed--to do tasks.

And NO... HMRC don't measure employment based on any kind of standard. It's based on simple criteria.
Do you have control over your finances? IE you pay your own expenses and claim them back either via an invoice or they are built into the contract price.
Do you have control of your own time and place of work? Are you told when and where to work? At the moment I'm working at LCY so have little choice but to do the work there but I choose my own times when I work.

I said revenue, not HMRC. And your splitting hairs standard/criteia, the same thing. Revenue will determine if the contract for employment is direct or not. I know people in jobs that choose their own times when to work, their employer doesn't care one bit once they get their job done. Their written contract might say 9-5, but they might do 2-10 or 4 to 6, that is now their contract because they both agree.

And the big one Gerry (drumroll), which you you will never have had in any employment contract in the history of ever is ' the right to substitute'. In my contract it specifically states I can substitute any worker with another, you can't. "Sorry boss, can't make it today but I'll send our Maud in, she's a quick learner."
I assume you now know the difference and don't want to argue employment law V contract law any more?

My son works for a supermarket, part time, he's allowed to substitute. My Daughter does coaching, she can substitute. She has a friend in a coffee shop who constantly substitutes. I on the other hand can't as the people I work for want me and won't accept other people. Total opposite to your silly point.

As for the highlighted bit, your lack of understanding amazes me (actually doesn't).

Your employment contract outlines your job and will most likely have clauses in it like, we reserve the right to make changes to your contract from time to time, it's all about what employment law deems reasonable. As your employer I have every right to ask you to stand on your head in a corner if I wish, You of course have the right to refuse. It's up to someone to decide whether what I asked you to do was unreasonable. Same with overtime: your contract will state that you may be asked to do a reasonable amount of overtime. Again it's up to someone to decide what is a reasonable amount. This is easy cause the DTI states that it is 2 hours per week.

Your clueless, you can't even keep up.
Most of those clauses hold no weight, try getting an accountant to sweep the floor or spend the day photocopying and you'll have an constructive dismissal case very fast. Maybe in the UK things are different, are people actually treated that bad.
The overtime is also unworkable, the employee only has to say they have a dependant at home and that's the end of that request.

So now we've established the above, do you still maintain that all contracts are employment contracts?
No you don't, and don't even try to come back at me in your 180 degree turn.

You've established nothing. I never said all contracts are employment contracts. I said all employment are contracts. Point out where I said that.
Employers have a duty of care to their employees. IF a contract company is on the premises then the employer has a duty of care to those people as well as they are seen as employees. If an employer has a contract company working off site, the employer has a duty of care to those people, he can't walk away.

[Nick]

Except that I can't see Macron in that picture.

He's bent down tying his shoes.

[Nick]

Why when Britain was a member of the EU was it difficult to find a British Prime Minister in group photographs?

What bit of group picture with all leaders in did you not understand?

Most likely the bit where you didn't say it.

It's amazing how important a photo of the leaders is now isn't it! You're the one who brought the U.K. into this thread, not me.

[papasmurf]

An exception to what? The other 50 million photos I found.

What bit of group picture with all leaders in did you not understand?

[Barry]

2nd picture on google image search "EU leaders".  😂
Oh and blow me, look where they where. Merkel, Cameron and Macron slap bang in the middle.

Except that I can't see Macron in that picture.

[Nick]

That is an exception.

An exception to what? The other 50 million photos I found.

I would have posted more but I set a limit of 4 pics per post.

[papasmurf]

2nd picture on google image search "EU leaders".  😂
Oh and blow me, look where they where. Merkel, Cameron and Macron slap bang in the middle.

That is an exception.

[Nick]

Exactly the point I was making when it was drawn onto [HIGHLIGHT]silly employment terms.[/HIGHLIGHT] Is France that upset about being left out. UK media seems to think so, do the French care as much as the UK seems to think they do.
France seems mostly upset over the SUB's contract

Oh look who first equated it to "silly employment terms". You did 😂

This will be a contractual matter then, if its spelt out where the 'resources' come from then the French are in trouble, if not it could be the AUS. [HIGHLIGHT]A simplistic way of looking at it but there will be 2 sides to this. But employers have a very high burden of proof to sack an employee, which is what we are looking at.[/HIGHLIGHT]

[Nick]

Why when Britain was a member of the EU was it difficult to find a British Prime Minister in group photographs?

2nd picture on google image search "EU leaders".  😂
Oh and blow me, look where they where. Merkel, Cameron and slap bang in the middle.

[papasmurf]

2).  Why are Merkel and Macron always front and centre of every EU picture?

Why when Britain was a member of the EU was it difficult to find a British Prime Minister in group photographs?

[Nick]

Simple question, a photo doesn't cut the mustard, any improvement on that Nick ?

I gave you 3 links that you just said were fantasy, that's your choice. Answer me 2 questions Gerry.

1).  If Germany quit the EU and started free trading with the rest of the world the same as the U.K., how long would the EU last?

2).  Why are Merkel and Macron always front and centre of every EU picture?

The answer to those 2 questions will tell you who is pulling the strings in the EU.

[Nick]

What is a contract without an employer and employee. An employee has a contract of employment. All very confusing for you Nick

Have you got that proof you were looking to dig up, where Germany rules the EU, you know, an example of how Germany tells the other 26 countries what to do. How does Germany tell the other members what to do so that Germany controls the EU ?
Simple question, a photo doesn't cut the mustard, any improvement on that Nick ?

[HIGHLIGHT]Irrespective of what the contract says, as you know, your employment contract has little to do with what the contract says you have to do, your employment contract us what you actually do.[/HIGHLIGHT] Now if that meets the standard set by Revenue, which measures a permanent employee standard, then Revenue will set aside the contract and treat you as an employee.

While saying a contract can be terminated using any of the clauses in the contract, employment contracts can differ.

It's only taken you 48 hours to come round to now arguing what I've been telling you, an employment contract is different than a task based contract. Christ sake Gerry you're now telling me!!

And NO... HMRC don't measure employment based on any kind of standard. It's based on simple criteria.

Do you have control over your finances? IE you pay your own expenses and claim them back either via an invoice or they are built into the contract price.

Do you have control of your own time and place of work? Are you told when and where to work? At the moment I'm working at LCY so have little choice but to do the work there but I choose my own times when I work.

And the big one Gerry (drumroll), which you you will never have had in any employment contract in the history of ever is ' the right to substitute'. In my contract it specifically states I can substitute any worker with another, you can't. "Sorry boss, can't make it today but I'll send our Maud in, she's a quick learner."

I assume you now know the difference and don't want to argue employment law V contract law any more?

As for the highlighted bit, your lack of understanding amazes me (actually doesn't).

Your employment contract outlines your job and will most likely have clauses in it like, we reserve the right to make changes to your contract from time to time, it's all about what employment law deems reasonable. As your employer I have every right to ask you to stand on your head in a corner if I wish, You of course have the right to refuse. It's up to someone to decide whether what I asked you to do was unreasonable. Same with overtime: your contract will state that you may be asked to do a reasonable amount of overtime. Again it's up to someone to decide what is a reasonable amount. This is easy cause the DTI states that it is 2 hours per week.

So now we've established the above, do you still maintain that all contracts are employment contracts?
No you don't, and don't even try to come back at me in your 180 degree turn.

[GerryT]

If you have a contractor for any time you can terminate using any of the clauses in the contract. If they want to claim redundancy then they have been working under disguised employment and HMRC will hammer you for PAYE.

Irrespective of what the contract says, as you know, your employment contract has little to do with what the contract says you have to do, your employment contract us what you actually do. Now if that meets the standard set by Revenue, which measures a permanent employee standard, then Revenue will set aside the contract and treat you as an employee.

While saying a contract can be terminated using any of the clauses in the contract, employment contracts can differ.