Rupe

This goes back to whole subbie debate!! You do not need insurance as you are not a subcontractor. There is no way your boss is going to make you go self empployed then expect you to insure your work when working with him.

100 would be pushing it a bit I guess. Good luck with it all.

Entitled or not I would say you have no chance of gettign it! Your employed on an ad-hoc basis which is unfair for you. Boss wins again! If you were employed part time, say four days a week then you would turn up four days a week if there is work or not is not your problem. He could reduce your hours to two days a week and you would still turn up two days a week even if there is no work. he can't just get you to work whenever he feels like it, there must be some kind of agreement even if that agreement changes from week to week. Then your holiday pay would be as stated about 1.5 days or whatever the figure is for every month worked, but part time work would take longer to acrue that holiday entitlement. There must be a lower limit wherby you get no holiday pay. For example if you had a second job in a bar two evenings a week, you wouldn't get holiday pay from that job. I'm not sure exactly how that all works though. Are you sure he's even payign any tax for you? Do you get paysips?

Are you on the books employed? You should be paid a fixed amount per week regardless of hours as long as you turn up and polish the truck or sweep the floor. Overtime can be paid but is not compulsory if you are on a salary. Yes you should have holiday pay! The fact that you have not signed anything is in your favour. Statutory employment law will stand as a contract in place of the one that you have not been provided with.

Ok, sorry about my rant! Sore point, I hate the use of the word subbie and sub contractor when used in the wrong context. He would be taking advantage because he's getting labour without the commitment. Of course you have no commitment to him either so you can go and work else where whenever you like, but the law is there to protect you not him. As an employer he has a duty to take care of your tax through paye, making you self employed means that is now your responsibilty, so he makes the profit from your work and without the commitment. Any agreement regarding amounts of work etc would not be binding so at any time he can say sorry no work next week and your stuffed. Will you be providing your own tools, ppe etc? I'm not anti self employed people. I soley use self employed people, for the same reason as your boss wants to, but I'm just trying to offer some help/advice. My main worker also works for three other firms so I can't rely on him being available 5 days a week if I suddenly need him. That is how self employed should work IMO. If I wanted commitment of 5 days a week then I would have to employ someone full time PAye and all. You can't have your cake and eat it as an employer. Years ago I was in the same position as you. Employed at about £27/day. My then boss said he couldn't keep me full time so I should go self employed at £35/ day. I agreed as I had no choice but I immediatly looked for other work. On my last day of employment I told him I wouldn't be in the following monday as a self employed person as I was starting full time with a bigger company. He went mental, but I moved on a did much better with the new firm. They paid for my tickets etc and two years later I was ready to move on again. If you have no choice then accept the sefl employed option but just bare inmind that you are doing him the favor. Pay should be double what you are on now to make it worth your while. Effectivley the holiday pay that is not going to get paid needs to be included in your day rate.

YOU WONT BE A SUB CONTRACTOR!!!!! Being self employed is not the same as beign a sub contractor, try not to fall in to that trap of using the word subbie. You will not be a subbie! Sounds to me as though he wants to employ you without making any commitment, so you'll get no holiday pay etc. If he's your only employer then that is illegal and he is taking advantage of you for his own benefit not yours.

If you have a "the boss" then you surely you shouldn't be going self employed?

17 years ago I got £27.50 a day as a climber, I had no tickets to start with but then no one else did either. Beer then was about £2.00 a pint as I remember, so do the maths, thats like £45/day now.

Not enough experience to be self employed IMO. Self employed means you need to be able to get on with the the job in hand, any amount of teaching or instructing is just going to benefit the next company you work for. I would want a year or 2 of commitment at basic wage and you'd have to do all the types of work includign making tea in the morning etc.

Sorry, don't know any firms there. I guess the only german climbers I know are competition climbers so perhaps it was not fair of me to comment on the overall standard in germany, they have SOME very good climbers thats all I know!

That info is well out of date! It was true for a while and they hired in brits and then later eastern europeans did it cheaper. Now the Germans can do it, they have strict HSE type stuff but no height restrictions. German climbers are of really high standard so you might only get work if your really good, same in sweden too from what I hear.

Depends on the anchors, if they are good then it must be safer. Its more useful for difficult work positioning rather than safety. If safety is the reason for two anchor points then two ropes would be betterer.

Yes, your right, but don't think of it as two seperate anchor points in the same was as using two ends of your rope would be. If one anchor fails your in big trouble!!

Don't forget that a V set up is NOT two seperate anchor points!

Fair enough, but naturally it would be below you. I don't think droppign stuff into the loop is a real risk, its easy enough to coil it and chuck it out the way. The point is, why do that when one piece of rope trailing to the floor doesn't need moving so that technique must be more efficient?

In order to be ironic surley everybody should choose option 1. That would be irony.

How is it all above you MB?

Also, climbing constantly with both ends of the same rope would make rescue difficult if both ends are attached in the tree. You would need a long rope or one side might have to be cut (making the original rope shorter anyway) or you might have to be rescued on a the rescuers rope (increased risk). there are reasons that these techniques have been updated since the 90's. Who cares if it was revolutionary at the time and everyone was impressed! Use the techniques that are revolutionary now.

Check this site Allen Bathurst, 1st Earl Bathurst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I quote "Lord Bathurst married his cousin Catherine, daughter of Sir Peter Apsley, in July 1704." Sums it up really!!

my mother/sister has all three of his thumbs!

At least one person got that one, cheers for the laugh!

I wouldn't bother, they got it doen cheap they know that, your quote was just for them to see how much it could cost. Another good reason to stay out of yellow pages!

I hope the "I never vote on polls and never will" comes out top

Theres no pub either! Nearest is 2 miles north at North Cerney the "Bathurst Arms". Yes the same bloke owns most of the land and the pub in that area too!

Sure as a teaching technique its fine and a perfectly good way to get up a tree if you like slow climbing. But for work you should drop one end. You can't drag both ends around the tree! forget about dropping stuff in the loop, what about catching it on everything as you move around the tree! Times have changed, get with the program.