You should make it three hours not two. Otherwise it's making it not worth their while. You'll have a happier cleaner that way.
I hope you are registering as an employer, deducting paye, psi, use etc. Or have other arrangements to ensure you are tax compliant.
I hope you are registering as an employer, deducting paye, psi, use etc. Or have other arrangements to ensure you are tax compliant.
And does it? What are the rules governing paying someone for a casual or one-off job, say house cleaning or filling a skip or some such? Let's suppose the person doing the work is not a self-employed tradesperson. Does the person paying for the job automatically become an employer? That would make any such casual arrangement nigh on impossible to do in a strictly legal way.This is only applicable if an employment situation applies in the first instance.
And does it? What are the rules governing paying someone for a casual or one-off job, say house cleaning or filling a skip or some such?
While I take your point, there also needs to be a balance between a happy home owner and a happy cleaner... €45 is a lot of money for 3 hours work on a regular basis. Personally, I think €15 per hour is too much tbh (although I'm very impressed with Landlord getting circa €11 per hour and think thats the cheapest I've heard of in quite a few years).
I have no idea if they are any good or not, but Hassle.com are doing a regular rate of €13.90 per hour and that no doubt includes a commission to whoever runs the website, covers the costs of credit card processing and so on. Assuming their service is reasonable, then their cleaners are getting notably less than €15 per hour.
No. There is a difference between an employer and a client.Does the person paying for the job automatically become an employer?
I hope you are registering as an employer, deducting paye, psi, use etc. Or have other arrangements to ensure you are tax compliant.
None of that is relevant here.
The rules, such as they are, are contained in a substantial library of case law and are quite complex and often mutually contradictory. The application of this body of case law to each individual case is determined by the particular facts of that case. For example, a cleaner may be free to control his/her own hours on a given assignment and may be empowered to subcontract the work or elements of it to third parties without the premises owner's specific consent. An individual in such circumstances is unlikely to fit within the parameters of an employee, as employees are rarely free to come and go as they choose and can rarely if ever nominate a substitute to replace them.
However if a householder pays a cleaner to attend at set hours, if the householder expects the cleaner to do the work him or her self rather than allow a stranger into the house. That seems to me to indicate an employment situation.
Hardly is, you are paying for a service. If you pay a milk man to deliver milk every morning you hardly see that as an employment situation?
The milkman may call at the same time every morning but that is his decision not your instruction. You may have the same milkman calling every morning, but he could send a colleague to do the delivery without having to ask for your agreement.
I rather think your post proves my points.
However if a householder pays a cleaner to attend at set hours, if the householder expects the cleaner to do the work him or her self rather than allow a stranger into the house. That seems to me to indicate an employment situation.
Not really, milkman in my area is actually working for himself and I ask him to delivery milk each morning, he has no colleagues he takes instruction to deliver milk by 7am each day. So you really think I should be employing him?
Are their real world examples of what you are claiming?