Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension scheme.

[MOB]

Polarised postions do not make for instructive debate:


"In this case of course, the ripped-off employees didn't go into this with their eyes open."

We cannot possibly know this. They might all have left compliant employers to joint the new start-up company, based solely on the fact that weekly nett pay was higher. If the OP's brother is only in business for 4 years, there is a very good chance that he hired people from other employers by offering higher nett pay.

"There is a fairly good chance that they barely spoke English."

True, but irrelevant; There is no reason to suspect that non-English speaking construction workers are less well educated than English speakers - anecdotally the opposite seems to be the case (except where foreign workers were brought in en masse by a foreign employer such as Gama).

And on the other side:

"There are not two moral classes in this country, or any country, where the pure of heart “workin’ man” get abused by the big bad evil fat-cat bosses. "

I think if Purple had the chance to re-consider, he\she might omit the words 'any country'. We do live in a country where the rights of employees are by and large well protected. We should not take this achievement for granted: there are many countries, and some sectors within our country, where it just isn't so. The plight of vegetable pickers in the UK has already been highlighted on more than one documentary. The chinese cockle harvesters are another good example. I could give examples in Ireland from personal knowledge, but there could be confidentiality issues.

The point which I did want to make, and which seems to have been lost in the dust from the 'duelling pistols' approach, is that the construction industry of the last few years is probably not a place where one can easily characterise the employees as innocent victims, even in circumstances where their pension payments have not been paid.

 

[Purple]

Polarised postions do not make for instructive debate:


"In this case of course, the ripped-off employees didn't go into this with their eyes open."

We cannot possibly know this. They might all have left compliant employers to joint the new start-up company, based solely on the fact that weekly nett pay was higher. If the OP's brother is only in business for 4 years, there is a very good chance that he hired people from other employers by offering higher nett pay.

"There is a fairly good chance that they barely spoke English."

True, but irrelevant; There is no reason to suspect that non-English speaking construction workers are less well educated than English speakers - anecdotally the opposite seems to be the case (except where foreign workers were brought in en masse by a foreign employer such as Gama).

And on the other side:

"There are not two moral classes in this country, or any country, where the pure of heart “workin’ man” get abused by the big bad evil fat-cat bosses. "

I think if Purple had the chance to re-consider, he\she might omit the words 'any country'. We do live in a country where the rights of employees are by and large well protected. We should not take this achievement for granted: there are many countries, and some sectors within our country, where it just isn't so. The plight of vegetable pickers in the UK has already been highlighted on more than one documentary. The chinese cockle harvesters are another good example. I could give examples in Ireland from personal knowledge, but there could be confidentiality issues.

The point which I did want to make, and which seems to have been lost in the dust from the 'duelling pistols' approach, is that the construction industry of the last few years is probably not a place where one can easily characterise the employees as innocent victims, even in circumstances where their pension payments have not been paid.

I accept your point that my "any country point" is badly made. I was trying to say that many people are both employees and employers during their working lives, some at the same time, so to talk as if there is some sort of in built difference in the moral standards that employers and employees have is just ridiculous. It is also ridiculous, and insulting to employees, to suggest or imply that all employees are 1900's style ill educated bumpkins that can be taken advantage of with impunity by their employer.

 

[ssap16]

I agree with comments that brother was wrong and he will have to face the music. Indeed he has already paid the amounts due even though the majority of employees did not want the CFOPS. Not all construction businesses make huge profits and his employees were well treated. Hints of mis-treatment of non English employees is way of the mark. He got into trouble on this by the fact that he instigated registration for the scheme.Question remains unanswered : Is it fair for an employer to have to pay €46 on top of paying PRSI.

 

[MOB]

"Question remains unanswered : Is it fair for an employer to have to pay €46 on top of paying PRSI."

It is fair enough provided that the rules are enforced against every employer in the sector.

 

[ssap16]

"Question remains unanswered : Is it fair for an employer to have to pay €46 on top of paying PRSI."

It is fair enough provided that the rules are enforced against every employer in the sector.

At least an answer. Probably a fair answer!

 

[ubiquitous]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

If he had a ltd company he could do a phoenix and liquidate the business and set up again, he wouldnt be the first, however he is a sole trader so doesnt that option, i have read on many boards advising people not to set up as ltd companies but as sole traders because its cheaper, here is a good example of where limited liability would have helped the business owner,

I'm afraid the above comment is totally incorrect and, on the off-chance that someone out there might actually be foolish enough to believe it and act on it, I believe it is essential that it is rebutted.

The 2001 Company Law Enforcement Act and the existence of the ODCE now both mean that it is impossible for company directors to avoid their statutory and other obligations to employees, Revenue or creditors by liquidating their company and starting again under a new name. The law now explicitly provides that limited liability does NOT apply in such circumstances.

Anyone who says otherwise doesn't really have much of an idea of the up-to-date company law position in this country.

 

[simplyjoe]

It annoys me that increasingly on this site a direct query is sidetracked with great issues arising. Socialist vrs Capitalist. Employer vrs employee. Purple, Riany Day and MOB come off your high horse and comment on the specific queries raised by the OP. The same thing is happening on the Brendan Investment topics. Stay specific. Save your chit chat for shooting the breeze.

 

[Purple]

It annoys me that increasingly on this site a direct query is sidetracked with great issues arising. Socialist vrs Capitalist. Employer vrs employee. Purple, Riany Day and MOB come off your high horse and comment on the specific queries raised by the OP. The same thing is happening on the Brendan Investment topics. Stay specific. Save your chit chat for shooting the breeze.

I agree with you but if someone deliberately and maliciously misconstrues my posts in order to imply that I support criminal actions and the exploitation of employees then I will defend myself. I am very surprised and very disappointed that a poster that I had considerable respect for has behaved in such a manner.
Ironically my first post was an attempt to keep this thread on track.

 

[contemporary]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

I'm afraid the above comment is totally incorrect and, on the off-chance that someone out there might actually be foolish enough to believe it and act on it, I believe it is essential that it is rebutted.

The 2001 Company Law Enforcement Act and the existence of the ODCE now both mean that it is impossible for company directors to avoid their statutory and other obligations to employees, Revenue or creditors by liquidating their company and starting again under a new name. The law now explicitly provides that limited liability does NOT apply in such circumstances.

Anyone who says otherwise doesn't really have much of an idea of the up-to-date company law position in this country.

I would hope people didnt do that, however I have seen it done, that was the point I was making, you know some people just dont give a flying funk about the law....with hundreds of companies setup and stuck off every week, some get lost in the system

 

[ubiquitous]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

I would hope people didnt do that, however I have seen it done, that was the point I was making, you know some people just dont give a flying funk about the law....

If you have "seen it done" since 2001, can you then explain your conclusion that the 2001 Company Law Enforcement Act does not apply to them and that it is impossible for Revenue, creditors, employees or other aggrieved stakeholders to request the ODCE to take action against them, up to and including the initiation of criminal prosecution proceedings?

 

[MOB]

"It annoys me that increasingly on this site a direct query is sidetracked with great issues arising. Socialist vrs Capitalist. Employer vrs employee. Purple, Riany Day and MOB come off your high horse and comment on the specific queries raised by the OP. The same thing is happening on the Brendan Investment topics. Stay specific. Save your chit chat for shooting the breeze"

A fair point. In fact a very fair point. Guilty as charged. But - and sorry if this is petty - better perhaps if the point were coming from someone who had not actually instigated the widening of the issue with a previous post.

 

[contemporary]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

If you have "seen it done" since 2001, can you then explain your conclusion that the 2001 Company Law Enforcement Act does not apply to them and that it is impossible for Revenue, creditors, employees or other aggrieved stakeholders to request the ODCE to take action against them, up to and including the initiation of criminal prosecution proceedings?

i never came to that conclusion, they arrived at it themselves

 

[ubiquitous]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

i never came to that conclusion, they arrived at it themselves

Yes but you said

"If he had a ltd company he could do a phoenix and liquidate the business and set up again"

and

"limited liability would have helped the business owner".

I'm just wondering how you arrived at this conclusion, given the existence of the 2001 CLEA and the ODCE?

How sure are you that the phoenix operators you cite are immune from ODCE proceedings, and that their limited liability protection remains intact?

 

[Towger]

While you are all arguing over rules I will give an example of a real world case I was told by the companies owner, about 5 years ago.

He was audited and Revenue were looking for large sum of PRSI + penalties...

He gave Revenue two options:

A - He could pay it, but the company would close and 20 employees would be on the dole.
B - He could pay a token contribution and they could write the rest off.

Revenue took option B.

And yes, he is still in business today.

Towger.

 

[simplyjoe]

"It annoys me that increasingly on this site a direct query is sidetracked with great issues arising. Socialist vrs Capitalist. Employer vrs employee. Purple, Riany Day and MOB come off your high horse and comment on the specific queries raised by the OP. The same thing is happening on the Brendan Investment topics. Stay specific. Save your chit chat for shooting the breeze"

A fair point. In fact a very fair point. Guilty as charged. But - and sorry if this is petty - better perhaps if the point were coming from someone who had not actually instigated the widening of the issue with a previous post.

Actually you are right. Guilty as charged.

 

[contemporary]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

Yes but you said
and
I'm just wondering how you arrived at this conclusion, given the existence of the 2001 CLEA and the ODCE?

How sure are you that the phoenix operators you cite are immune from ODCE proceedings, and that their limited liability protection remains intact?

2 brothers who owned a business went bust in Feb owing me 4k, they are now back trading with a new company, i dont think they are imune, perhaps i phrased my post badly, but it does happen (well to me anyway!)

 

[ubiquitous]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

2 brothers who owned a business went bust in Feb owing me 4k, they are now back trading with a new company, i dont think they are immune

They most certainly are not immune. February is not that long ago - if Revenue or anyone else were left out of pocket, they still have plenty of time to pursue them. You yourself are free to report them to the ODCE using the guidelines on www.odce.ie if you wish.

 

[RainyDay]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

While you are all arguing over rules I will give an example of a real world case I was told by the companies owner, about 5 years ago.

He was audited and Revenue were looking for large sum of PRSI + penalties...

He gave Revenue two options:

A - He could pay it, but the company would close and 20 employees would be on the dole.
B - He could pay a token contribution and they could write the rest off.

Revenue took option B.

And yes, he is still in business today.

I'd suspect there is a bit of bravado spinning going on here. How do you reckon the Revenue inspector would spin the tale to his mates in the pub?

I agree with you but if someone deliberately and maliciously misconstrues my posts in order to imply that I support criminal actions and the exploitation of employees then I will defend myself. .

For the record, I didn't misconstrue any post. I asked a question seeking clarification. Yet again, when you use the term 'everyone' in a post when you don't really mean it, don't be surprised that there is a need for clarification.

I do consider trying to pigeon-hole everyone into a “worker” or “boss” identity is totally outdated and in this day and age just plain stupid and therefore a 'simplistic 1920's style socialist views'.

Stop putting words into my mouth. I never used the words 'worker' or 'boss'. Indeed, my original post made no judgement about anyone, and simply asked the practical question about who might fund the defecit. Only when attacked by other posters with the 'business is tough' and 'Rainyday lives in a nice zone' stuff did I expand. And even then, there was no worker/boss stuff. I did refer to employers and employees, but I can't really see how anyone can comment on this topic without such words.

 

[Purple]

Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche

For the record, I didn't misconstrue any post. I asked a question seeking clarification. Yet again, when you use the term 'everyone' in a post when you don't really mean it, don't be surprised that there is a need for clarification.

You got my clarification, ignored it and continued with disingenuous posts.

I think I'm getting it. When you said 'everyone went into this with their eyes open', you didn't really mean everyone - is that it? You meant 'everyone except the employees of ssap16's brother's company' or something like that - have I got it now?



Stop putting words into my mouth

Indeed

By the way, my post came after your one where you has veered away from just asking a question. At that point I agreed with the substance of your post, as I continue to do, but simply questioned the tone.

 

[Graham_07]

On a lighter note, does anyone know if TIcketmaster have seats left for the next round in this debate ?