To think that surely this cannot be legal

[ikeaaddict]

I phoned up a company regarding an advertisement that I saw online for local telesales staff. I am currently job hunting and love telesales so it would be ideal for me. The advert stated that it was a basic hourly rate plus commission, and that it could be full time or part time, with hours to suit. (Company operates evenings and weekends too).

Phoned up, spoke to a nice guy who told me all about the hourly rate and commission structure, would I like to go in for an interview etc etc. I said that yes, I'd love to, but just wanted to state that I'd be interested in the part time position rather than a full time one.

He then told me that a) part timers are taken on on a self employed basis rather than an employed basis and b) part timers get NO hourly rate, just commission. Ok, the commission is at a higher rate than full timer's get, but with telesales it often is just a numbers game, so there may be full shifts where I would get no earnings at all.

Surely this isn't legal? I'd say it's indirect sexual discrimination

It isn't legal to treat part timers less favourably than full timers. I just wonder if they're using some loophole to justify it...

Why sexual discrimination? Men are allowed (and often) want to work part time too and presumably have the same conditions?

well you're in a no win situation - kick up shit about it and you wont get it anyway

Government advice

Because a woman is more likely to be primary carer for a child/children than a man is, and it seems to be the norm in the this country that it's women that want a little, part time job, penguin

I agree OP, that's pretty poor tbh

I'm guessing they aren't treating part timers less favourably. They are saying they only have full time positions. That the only people who don't work full time are independent contractors and they are engaged on a contract for services rather than being employed.

I think though that only employing full time staff could be argued as in direct discrimination but am not sure it would get very far.

custardo, I'm not taking my application any further or going to an interview now. I don't want to work for a company that has unfair conditions

The sexual discrimination argument can be relevant if most of the part time workers in a company are women, for childcare reasons. This is usually the case in fact. Discriminating against part time workers can be a back door way of discriminating against women.

You're looking for discrimination where you will never be able to prove it's discrimination.

If you want the job, on their terms, apply.

If you don't, don't.

If it's a part time job, with fixed hours, then offering it as self employed is illegal - it is an employment relationship and should be treated as such. The fact that full timers are employed suggests that it is employment. You could report them to HMRC for this.

Treating part timers less favourably than full timers is generally regarded as indirect sexual discrimination.

I realise that, Tee. I just wanted to vent really, it's really annoyed me

I think the OP is just interested in discussing something she has seen that she thinks is wrong, rather than preparing a court case against a company she has nothing to do with.

Yes cotton it would probably breach IR35.

Thank you PostmanPat, that is it exactly!

I am forever ranting about injustices that technically have bugger all to do with me, ikeaaddict, I think it's better than just saying 'well it's nothing to do with me!'

The comparison in this case is between employed full time people, and self-employed people who work part time. So it's not a discrimination matter.

However, if the substance of the job us the same in both cases and the only difference is the hours worked, then the employer is at risk of investigation by HMRC for NIC avoidance and failure to operate PAYE. If this is so, I'd urge you to report them, OP.

IS the same, not US the same!