Part II of the series on this topic
2) Work equipment
An employee works with the client's resources, a freelancer has his own resources. Instructions from the customer that the employee may only work with these or those resources (i.e. only use the company's own Jira, Comsystem, etc.) are strong indications of the existence of bogus self-employment or temporary employment.
3) Integration
The stranger is considered an employee if he is integrated into the customer's business. Here, too, there is a lack of a coherent description of the facts, and here, too, many indications are used.
a.) Required environment
A strong indication of the existence of bogus self-employment / temporary employment is always the dependence on the existence of certain technical and/or organizational requirements. Always imagine that a self-employed? craftsman brings everything he needs to repair the heating system, while the employee can only work if he is provided with a vehicle, work kit, etc. A self-employed person is dependent on the object of his work being available. He brings everything else with him. So much for the theory.
This theory then goes so far as to suggest that an indication of integration should also exist if the employee's work can only be carried out together with the client's employees. In other words, there is always a risk with "Scrum" because the working groups consist of employees of both the contractor and the client. I think this is wrong. The law is aimed at situations in which certain people work side by side on an assembly line. The necessary cooperation of people is certainly not meant if an exchange of information cannot be guaranteed in any other way. When I give training courses at my customers' premises, I don't become a bogus self-employed person because other people ask me questions or listen to me and we work together on certain problems.
b.) Same work equipment
The use of in-house e-mail, telephones, coffee kitchens etc. should also be strictly avoided. The law leads to absurd blossoms here that are strongly reminiscent of the Nazi era or apartheid. Allegedly, a German aviation company (who might that be?) uses adhesive tape on the floor of the corridor to tell temporary workers that they are only allowed to use one side of the corridor and employees only the other. At car manufacturers, people are put in different clothes. And I really wonder when it will be time to wear signs over the heart on clothing again to make the difference between employees and temporary workers clear. In any case, this is another way of trying to give an indication.
c.) Taking over genuine work in the production process
This indication always plays a role if the client itself employs staff who can perform certain tasks, but is understaffed. In other words: the client has IT-savvy employees, but unfortunately too few and therefore wants to supplement its own staff in certain periods. This is indeed a strong indication if employees are repeatedly left to the client.
However, the IT-relevant problem is usually that there is a lack of competent employees for specific IT systems who are supposed to support and administer certain applications or program or configure certain systems.
If you want to do something here, you could actually create an organizational structure of the client to be able to prove that certain tasks of the client have never been or will never be filled by employees.
d.) Own entrepreneurial activity
This is an indicator that is actually only used to differentiate between self-employment and bogus self-employment.
Entrepreneurs have their own organization (own office, own communication, own promotion of their own activities). For IT professionals, this naturally means having their own hardware and software technology rather than the necessary presence of a receptionist.
Anyone who employs others on a dependent basis is also engaged in entrepreneurial activity, as employees usually do not. Employees provide their services personally, not through third parties.
And quite clearly, anyone who works for several clients does not tend to qualify as an employee, but controls and coordinates their own resources.
Of course, this area also includes the answer to the question of whether the person pays appropriate financial contributions to their health and pension insurance.
