The first pertinent question on @bogusselfemployment was from @PaulMcauliffe. Paul asked about the Eversheds Sutherland report which had found 157 'contractors' out of 433
@PaulMcauliffe were misclassified as 'Self-employed'. That's a very high rate of misclassification, slightly over 36%.
Paul specifically asked if @RTE had robustly responded and if @rte was correctly complying with Revenue guidelines.
@RTE's HR director confirmed the results of the Eversheds
@PaulMcauliffe@rte Sutherland report and stated that reviews and meetings with managers had taken place to ensure compliance 'Going Forward'
But that doesn't exactly answer the question Paul asked, the true factual position is that @RTE was NOT compliant with regulations and not compliant spanning
@RTE's HR director also claimed that the Eversheds Sutherland review was 'inclusive and transparent' but it wasn't, we'll come back to that.
@CathMurphyTD was the next up and Catherine got right to the nub of the issue straight away. Catherine pointed out
@PaulMcauliffe@rte@CathMurphyTD that the ES review didn't result in any of the high earning contractors being deemed more akin to employees and asked if those who had been misclassified were likely to have been misclassified from the start of their employment.
@PaulMcauliffe@rte@CathMurphyTD claiming that the circumstances of the workers 'changed' over the years thus resulting in the workers being employees and not self-employed.
This approach from @RTE is a damage limitation ploy. RTE is attempting to limit any liability to Revenue and SW. This cannot be up to
@PaulMcauliffe@rte@CathMurphyTD@RTE to decide for themselves, it is not fact, it is conjecture and until a full investigation is carried out, the full liability of @RTE cannot be known.
Catherine then raised the key issue for workers, Revenue and Social Welfare and that issue is 'Retrospection'.
@PaulMcauliffe@rte@CathMurphyTD As Catherine pointed out, the ES process was completed 2 years ago and still retrospective repayment of employer's PRSI is unresolved.
@RTE's HR Director confirmed that there is a Revenue Audit ongoing and that there have been previous audits. This begs the question, how come
@PaulMcauliffe@rte@CathMurphyTD the very high rate of 36% bogus self employment was not picked up in previous Revenue/SW audits, why did it take an independent outside agency to uncover what has been going on for years?
The HR Director confirmed that the Revenue Audit had been 'triggered' by the ES report.
@PaulMcauliffe@rte@CathMurphyTD@ImeldaMunster was next with questions. Imelda asked was the Dept. SW also investigating, when was a conclusion expected and what kind of bill, if any, RTE was expecting.
In reply, @deeforbes_dee stated that @RTE was not a bogus employer, but clearly with a bogus self employed
@deeforbes_dee stated that RTE does not know when or if a bill will issue to RTE, but as confirmed later in the hearing, RTE have already paid an undisclosed interim payment in respect
@RTE's Commercial Finance Manager confirmed that the Dept. of SW only began an investigation in 2020 and again this was on foot of the ES report and the Revenue audit.
@PaulMcauliffe@rte@CathMurphyTD@ImeldaMunster@deeforbes_dee Next up with questions was @mattcarthy and I have to say, Matt's grasp of the subject matter and some of the nuances involved was excellent. Matt asked why somebody who essentially works full time for RTÉ would have become a contractor in
the first place and the historical
"Of the seven contractors Deputy Carthy speaks about are brands in their own right and they also
have the ability to earn money outside of RTÉ. >
@PaulMcauliffe@rte@CathMurphyTD@ImeldaMunster@deeforbes_dee@mattcarthy They are contracted by RTÉ to provide a particular service for a particular programme on a particular day. They are not full-time employees of RTÉ, and as a result, they are contractors as opposed to being employees"
The contradictions in this statement are all over the place
@PaulMcauliffe@rte@CathMurphyTD@ImeldaMunster@deeforbes_dee@mattcarthy and Matt was quick to point them out but before I get to them, back up a little, previously, RTE stated that the conditions of contractors had changed over time thus resulting in them becoming employees. But surely this rationale applies to high earning contractors also.
So the answer to Matt's question is that both employees and contractors have to seek permission from RTE. Contractors may have more 'freedom' but that's not the same as full freedom and also the high paid contractors are required
Matt went on to ask if 7 of the top earners all had the same agent and if this was a factor in their contractual arrangements. Interesting question with no answer forthcoming.
This approach reveals a lot. It reveals that it was fairly common knowledge among managers that all was not right with employment practices in RTE. It reveals that the ES review was not
@PaulMcauliffe@rte@CathMurphyTD@ImeldaMunster@deeforbes_dee@mattcarthy to the same standard one would expect of a properly conducted review where each worker should be interviewed separately. It represents a major flaw in the process and one which must be addressed by both Revenue and the Dept. SW.
@RTE's appearance at the PAC throws up more questions than answers. It is indisputable that RTE was non compliant with the 21 year old 'Code of Practice' and with the case law handed down by the courts over the years. Bigger
It is my opinion that RTE is politically compromised by non compliance. It is my opinion that RTE will get off very lightly because Revenue and SW will not pursue RTE to the fullest.
Only time will tell. TY.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Revenue finally replied in writing to the questions asked by the Public Accounts Committee about #bogusselfemployment. The reply is dated February 2021 and I will be sharing it on this thread later tonight. It confirms every single word of this thread to date and drops SW in it.
The first question from the PAC was -
"A test case regarding bogus self employment amongst couriers was discussed. Please provide further details in relation to this case including detailing any associated costs"
Revenue replied with -
"There is no one specific “test” case.
However, couriers were regarded as self employed for PRSI purposes as a result of a Social Welfare
Appeals OfficerOfficer’s decision. In the interest of uniformity Revenue decided, >
Way back in the mists of time (late 70's), PAYE workers held some of the most militant strikes ever seen in Ireland.
They demand a more equitable taxation system for workers. Workers paid income tax through the Pay As >
You Earn (PAYE) scheme, tax and PRSI deducted directly from your wages.
The failure of Fianna Fáil to introduce increased taxation for prosperous farmers and wealthier members of society was the issue. Workers, PAYE employees, correctly felt that they were shouldering the
tax burden of running the country. One of the big issues was that the self-employed were getting away with murder on taxation and the figures showed that indeed was the case.
Workers were fighting to replace an unjust tax system and to ensure that the wealthy paid >
Can't sleep, damn insomnia. Thoughts running so I'll share. Tomorrow marks 17 days since the DPC told me that my complaint about the PSC travel pass being used as a tool of mass surveillance, was valid.
It's 2 weeks since I emailed the DPC and said I didn't want it included in
with the current DPC case re the PSC as it had nothing to do with it. A travel pass is one of those functions which the Social Welfare is allowed use the PSC.
The 2 weeks is important because that's the time limit to act once the complaint is deemed valid, there's a precedent
somewhere.
Anywho, I'm mulling over the individual number of data protection/GDPR breaches involved. So, you have a travel pass and you get on public transport. The PSC travel pass is supplied by dept SW. It has your name, a biometric photo and on the magnetic strip is a
I just finished writing a piece about Revenue in the PAC about bogus self-employment last week and it got me thinking. I've been talking to whistleblowers recently, top notch people, all of them have been through 'processes'
I see patterns. 'Newbies' and I don't mean that in
a bad way, Newbies at this level have done a lot very quickly, they tend to 'spill' when the meet somebody who is genuinely interested. They try and get as much out as possible as quickly as possible. I know, I was there myself.
Then there are the 'Seasoned', at it a long
time. Focused, detailed, they listen and wait until they see a part of their extensive story, and it is extensive when you've been at it long enough, which fits into what the listener is really interested in. These whistleblowers have seen so many false dawns that they keep
The top tier of #Tortoiseshack membership is €8.43 a month. Top tier comes with patron only pods, updates, early access, questions for guests and a lot more. The bottom tier of #TortoiseShack membership is €2.11 and for that you got 40 pods last month > patreon.com/join/tortoises…
Forty Podcasts since this day last month. The #Tortoiseshack is incredibly good value for money -
For those concerned about bogus self employment, I'm going to do a little thread on the tweet below.
The former Minister accepts and concedes that there is no legislation which allows the dept. to make insurability of employment decisions on groups and classes of workers. >