Research and analysis

Employment Status in the UK: qualitative research

Published 27 May 2025

Prepared by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in collaboration with National Centre for Social research (NatCen), based on a presentation of final findings prepared by NatCen for HMRC

Martin Mitchell, Nilufer Rahim and Jessica Reddin (NatCen Research)

Research report number: 774

August 2024

The views in this report are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of HM Revenue and Customs

Glossary

Employment Status terms

Term	Definition
CIS (Construction Industry Scheme)	Under this scheme, lead building contractors deduct money from a subcontractor’s invoice. These deductions go to HMRC to count towards the subcontractor’s tax and National Insurance liabilities.
Employment status	Employment status is the classification of a working relationship between a person providing work and a person carrying out that work. There are two separate employment status regimes: for tax purposes and for employment rights. For rights, it determines an individual’s entitlement to statutory employment rights and provides the employer or engager with a set of responsibilities. For tax, it establishes the tax regime that applies to the income earned by the individual, which determines the amount of Income Tax and National Insurance contributions individuals (and if appropriate, the businesses they work for) pay. It is important to note that an individual’s employment status for tax and rights purposes will not always be the same. See Chapter 4 of the quantitative report for further information.
Engager	The person, organisation or business an individual does work for.
IR35 (off-payroll working rules)	IR35 is how the off-payroll working rules are commonly known. These rules ensure individuals who work through their own limited company or other intermediary pay similar levels of Income Tax and National Insurance contributions (NI) as individuals who are directly employed.
Intermediary	A company or business that supplies the services of workers to clients.
Limb (a) worker (or ‘employee’)	This group are also referred to as ‘employees’. Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that ‘employee’ describes an individual who has entered into or works under a contract of employment. Individuals with this employment status for rights normally have a high degree of certainty over where, when and how work is carried out. The individual would likely work regularly and be paid for completing those hours of work. They tend to be individuals in permanent full-time or part-time work but can also, in some circumstances, include individuals on casual contracts. They are entitled to the full suite of employment rights after relevant qualifying periods. A person may be a limb (a) worker (employee) in employment law but have a different status for tax purposes. Employers must work out a worker’s status in both employment law and tax law.
Limb (b) worker	Limb (b) workers are entitled to core statutory employment rights but have increased freedom in how much, where and when they work. ‘Worker’ is often a term used to describe limb (b) workers only. However, this report uses the statutory meaning of ‘worker’, covering both limb (a) workers (employees) and limb (b) workers. All limb (b) workers are ‘workers’, but not all ‘workers’ are limb (b) workers. Please also see the definition for ‘worker’ in this glossary.
National Minimum Wage (NMW)	The National Minimum Wage (NMW) is the minimum pay per hour almost all workers (limb (a) workers, known as ‘employees’, and limb (b) workers) are entitled to. Individuals classed as workers must be at least school leaving age to receive NMW. The minimum wage a worker should get depends on their age and if they are an apprentice.
PAYE (Pay as You Earn)	The system HMRC uses to collect Income Tax and National Insurance contributions from employment income. Employers deduct payments directly from employees’ pay before paying the employee, and pay these to HMRC.
Self Assessment tax return	The system HMRC uses to collect Income Tax that is not automatically deducted from wages, pensions and savings. For example, self-employed individuals are responsible for declaring their taxable income and filing a Self Assessment tax return after the end of the relevant tax year.
Self-employed	Generally, a person is self-employed if they run their business for themselves and take responsibility for its success or failure. Self-employed individuals are not paid through PAYE (unless they own a business and run their own PAYE scheme), and instead typically pay tax through Self Assessment. Self-employed individuals do not have the employment rights of limb (a) workers (also known as ‘employees’) or limb (b) workers. Self-employment is not defined in statute for employment rights or tax purposes.
Worker	Under Section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a ‘worker’ is an individual who has entered into or works under: A) a contract of employment (they are an employee/limb (a) worker) or B) any other contract, whereby the individual undertakes to do or personally perform any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer. This group are known as limb (b) workers. ‘Worker’ is often a term used to describe limb (b) workers only. However, this report uses the statutory meaning of ‘worker’, covering both limb (a) workers (employees) and limb (b) workers. Please note: all limb (b) workers are ‘workers’, but not all ‘workers’ are limb (b) workers.

Study specific terms

Term	Definition
Highly likely to be a worker	The population of interest, as defined by the qualitative stage of the research. This term is used in this report to describe those who were identified by NatCen’s quantitative survey as being highly likely to have a worker employment status (either limb (a) or limb (b) worker) for rights purposes – a subset of the ‘unassigned status workforce’. These individuals were then eligible to participate in the qualitative stage of the research. For more details on how these individuals were identified, please see Chapter 4 of the quantitative report.
Less traditional worker	This term is used in this report to describe individuals categorised as having a job with less traditional working arrangements compared to employees or limb (a) workers. In other words, implying a greater likelihood of limb (b) worker status. This group emerged based on participants’ discussions about the working arrangements of their job, specifically: - how they were paid - contract type - holiday pay entitlement - sick pay entitlement (where known) - how they paid tax
More traditional worker	This term is used in this report to describe individuals categorised as having a job with more traditional working arrangements. In other words, implying a greater likelihood of limb (a) worker status. This group emerged based on participants’ discussions about the working arrangements of their job, specifically: - how they were paid - contract type - holiday pay entitlement - sick pay entitlement (where known) - how they paid tax
Platform worker	Individuals who both obtained work via an online platform or ‘app’, and got paid via the same platform or ‘app’.

Analysis terms

Term	Definition
Feature analysis	A two-step analysis methodology developed by HMRC to determine worker status for rights purposes, and used for the quantitative analysis of the 2023 employment status survey data. Firstly, by identifying several working patterns and behaviours, the type of associations respondents had with each of the four working relationship features was established (see definition for ‘Features’). An association with a feature could be positive (or ‘present’), negative (or ‘absent’) or undetermined. The combinations of associations were then used to form predictive discrete groups. Specifically, they were combined to determine the likelihood that an individual was either ‘highly likely to be a worker’, ‘fairly likely to be a worker’, ‘likely self-employed’ or ‘undetermined’. The criteria for each of these outcomes is outlined in Appendix B of the Technical Report of the survey findings.
Features	The term ‘features’ refers to the qualities of a working relationship which were examined in the employment status survey conducted by NatCen in 2023. More specifically, this describes the ‘features’ of a working relationship that are often taken into account by the courts to help determine worker status for an individual’s employment rights. The four features chosen for analysis in this research were: control, enterprise, integration and personal service.

1. Executive summary

Introduction

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) commissioned the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to undertake research on employment status in the UK. This included a quantitative survey to produce an updated estimate of the total ‘worker’ population in the UK, and follow-up qualitative research with some survey respondents found to be ‘highly likely to be a worker’, regarding their job and employment status. The findings from this follow-up qualitative research are included in this report. The findings from the quantitative research can be found in the report: Employment Status in the UK – 2023 survey

Methodology

The qualitative research aimed to advance existing knowledge of the characteristics of individuals within the ‘worker’ population, including their attitudes and motivations towards entering their jobs with more or less traditional working practices, understanding of their own employment status for the job, and potential behaviour change if working practices or employment status rules changed.

The research consisted of 19 semi-structured, qualitative interviews with individuals who completed NatCen’s survey on employment status in the UK. Survey respondents were eligible to participate in the qualitative research if they met both of the following criteria:

• They were identified as being part of the ‘unassigned status workforce’, which meant they reported having a job with less traditional working practices during the quantitative screening survey

• They were identified as ‘highly likely to be a worker’ (limb (a) worker or limb (b) worker) by the feature analysis of respondents’ answers to the main survey

More information on the survey and feature analysis can be found in Chapter 4 of the report: Employment Status in the UK – 2023 survey.

Qualitative fieldwork took place from July to August 2023.

Data analysis

A framework approach to data management with case and theme-based analysis was used. Two distinct groups of participants emerged in the qualitative analysis. One group of participants had a job with ‘more traditional’ arrangements. Participants reported They had a permanent contract with stable full-time or part-time hours, they were paid directly by the person or organisation who hired them via PAYE, and they were entitled to paid annual leave and sick pay. For brevity, these participants are described as ‘more traditional workers’ in the report.

Another group of participants had a job with ‘less traditional’ arrangements. For example, respondents reported were on a fixed term or minimum hours contract, they were paid by an intermediary or app, they either accrued annual leave or had no contractual annual leave^{[footnote 1]}, and had lower levels of sick pay entitlement or none. For brevity, these participants are described as ‘less traditional workers’ in the report. Where relevant, the qualitative findings presented in this report explore the differences between more traditional workers and less traditional workers. ‘Participants’ is used where no differences between these groups were observed.

Key findings

Motivations for entering their job

More traditional workers described two key motivations for entering the job they were interviewed about:

• it fit with their career aspirations and skills
• it had desirable pay and conditions.

Less traditional workers described more diverse, specific motivations for entering the job they were interviewed about. Four main types of jobs were identified amongst less traditional workers: skilled freelance jobs, stop-gap jobs, flexible part-time jobs, and ‘fun’ jobs. These jobs tended to offer certain working arrangements or practices which met individuals’ needs, such as a change in work circumstances, to earn extra money, or for personal interest or reward. However, these jobs could come with limitations, such as insecure hours or not being their ‘ideal’ job.

Understanding of employment status

Employment status was not well understood by participants – both in a general sense and in relation to their job. Participants were not always clear about the specific terms and conditions, Income Tax and NI arrangements, or employment rights related to their job. These were often assumed to be correct, and participants trusted the person or organisation they worked for to ensure their terms and conditions were right.

Despite this limited understanding, more traditional workers were generally confident to describe their employment status as an ‘employee’ for their job. In contrast, less traditional workers provided mixed responses: whilst some described their employment status as an ‘employee’ for their job, others described their employment status as ‘freelancer’ or ‘contractor’.

Potential behaviour change if working practices or employment status rules changed.

The interviews explored how participants would respond to hypothetical changes to working practices or employment status rules in relation to their job. These hypothetical changes were:

• having no guaranteed minimum contracted hours of work
• accepting lower pay for guaranteed minimum contracted hours of work
• accepting fewer employment rights for higher pay or until after a fixed period
• not being able to do other work in addition to their job
• changing the method of paying tax

Across all hypothetical changes, the key concern of participants was whether the change would still enable them to meet their financial commitments, such as paying bills and mortgages. This practical concern would be fundamental to how they would respond if working practices/or employment status rules changed. Participants also demonstrated more specific concerns: any behaviour change as a result of employment status rules changing would also depend on how much an individual valued their job, how important they considered certain rights to be, and how risky they considered the change in employment status rules to be.

Since participants had limited understanding about their employment status for their job, effective communication of any future change to employment status rules would be key. Participants said they would consult co-workers, payslips or employment contracts, and GOV.UK or Citizens Advice when unsure about the terms and conditions, tax or employment rights in relation to their job.

2. Background and methodology

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) commissioned the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to undertake research on employment status in the UK.

This included a quantitative survey to produce an updated estimate of the total ‘worker’ population in the UK. This was followed-up with qualitative research with individuals who had responded to the survey about their employment status.

The findings from this follow-up qualitative research are included in this report. The findings from the quantitative research can be found in this report: Employment Status in the UK: 2023 survey.

Background

An individual’s employment status determines their employment rights and the tax they and the clients or businesses they work for (engagers) must pay. Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 defines the employment status ‘worker’ as limb (a) (employees) and limb (b) workers. Limb (b) worker status is to extend the coverage of certain employment rights to a wider group of individuals who are in dependent working relationships, but are not limb (a) workers (employees) who are entitled to the full suite of employment rights.

In 2022, HMRC commissioned NatCen to undertake research on employment status for rights purposes in the UK labour market. This included a nationally representative survey of UK adults aged 18 to 64 which aimed to estimate the total number of ‘workers’ (limb (a) workers and limb (b) workers) in the UK, followed by qualitative interviews with some of the survey respondents.

In the first section of the survey, respondents answered a set of screening questions aimed at establishing the employment status for their paid jobs. Participants were looped through the screener a maximum of three times, depending on the number of paid jobs they had. If the screening questions failed to assign an employment status to at least one of the respondents’ three highest paid jobs, they were deemed eligible for the main survey. Participants with multiple jobs were eligible for the main survey based upon the highest paid job that was not assigned a status during the upfront screening. The group of respondents who completed the main survey are referred to as the ‘unassigned status workforce’ in this report.

To further determine their status for that specific job, the main survey asked respondents a series of questions based on employment status from case law. Respondents’ answers to these questions were analysed to determine worker status – this analysis is referred to as feature analysis. Those identified as ‘highly likely to be a worker’ (limb (a) worker or limb (b) worker) by the feature analysis were eligible to participate in NatCen’s follow-up qualitative research.

Aims of the research

The qualitative research aimed to advance existing knowledge of the characteristics of the ‘worker’ population. It also intended to provide a deeper understanding of the quantitative survey results, such as indicating which areas may warrant further development if the survey was to be repeated at a later date.

The qualitative research focussed on the job that each participant had answered the main survey on.

The qualitative research sought to answer 3 questions:

• what motivates individuals to engage in more or less traditional working practices?
• to what extent do individuals understand their own employment status?
• what behavioural changes would occur if working practices or employment status rules changed?

To answer these questions, NatCen prepared a topic guide, in collaboration with HMRC, which included questions across 4 themes:

• participants’ backgrounds and working arrangements for the job they answered the main survey on
• their motivations for engaging in more or less traditional working practices
• their awareness and understanding of employment status
• likely behavioural responses to hypothetical changes in their working arrangements

Methodology and sampling

The qualitative research comprised 19 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with individuals identified as ‘highly likely to be a worker’ by a survey on employment status conducted by NatCen for HMRC in May to June 2023.

Interview participants were eligible to participate in the qualitative research if they met both of the following criteria:

• they were identified as being part of the ‘unassigned status workforce’, which meant they reported having a job with less traditional working practices during the quantitative screening survey
• they were identified as ‘highly likely to be a worker’ (limb (a) worker or limb (b) worker) by the feature analysis of respondents’ answers to the main survey

More information on the survey and feature analysis can be found in the report: Employment Status in the UK: 2023 survey.

A purposive sample design was used when recruiting participants for the qualitative interviews to achieve a balance of characteristics, including age, sex and location. The achieved sample composition can be found in Table 1.

Table 1: Achieved sample composition

Subgroup characteristic	Total
Age 18 to 24	2
Age 25 to 34	3
Age 35 to 44	6
Age 45 to 54	2
Age 55 to 64	6
Male	9
Female	10
Located in England	16
Located in Scotland	3
Work in the private sector	12
Work in the public sector	4
Work in another sector	3
Module of questions participants’ answered in the quantitative screening survey[footnote 2] : employee (limb (a) worker) screener	11
Module of questions participants’ answered in the quantitative screening survey: incorporated and self-employed screener	8

Interviews lasted around 45 minutes and were conducted through video calls or telephone calls using Microsoft Teams. Fieldwork took place from July to August 2023.

Analysis

A framework approach to data management was used alongside a case and theme-based analysis the qualitative data. This meant that researchers analysed both the experience of individual participants (cases), as well as themes found across multiple cases.

Two distinct groups of participants emerged through the analysis: those whose job had ‘more traditional’ arrangements for a worker and those whose job had ‘less traditional’ arrangements. Participants were identified as being part of these groups based on their responses to questions concerning:

• how they were paid for their work
• contract type
• holiday pay entitlement
• sick pay entitlement (where known)
• how they paid Income Tax

Ten participants had jobs which were identified as having ‘more traditional’ arrangements and have thus been labelled as the ‘more traditional workers’ in this report. In their interviews, these participants reported characteristics that were more typical of limb (a) workers (employees). These participants reported they were:

• paid directly by the person or business that hired them
• on a permanent contract with stable full-time or part-time hours
• entitled to paid holiday
• entitled to sick pay (where known)
• paid tax via PAYE

Nine participants had jobs which were identified as having ‘less traditional’ arrangements for someone with worker status. They are described as ‘less traditional workers’ in this report. In the interviews, these participants reported less typical working characteristics and were far more diverse in the arrangements they described for their job. The range of characteristics participants reported included some or all of the following:

• on fixed term or minimum hour contracts
• paid via an intermediary or app
• accrued annual leave or no contractual annual leave^{[footnote 3]}
• reduced sick pay allowance (ranging from statutory to none)
• paying Income Tax and National Insurance contributions (NI) via an intermediary (within IR35 rules) or the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS).

How to read this report

The findings chapter in this report is split into four sections, each addressing an objective of the research. This is followed by a recommendations chapter which uses insights from the qualitative research to recommend efficiencies which could be made to the quantitative survey in the future.

In this report, the phrases ‘more traditional workers’ and ‘less traditional workers’ are used when reporting differences that emerged during the analysis phase between these two groups. The term ‘participants’ is used where no differences between these groups were observed.

This research focussed on the specific job that each participant answered the employment status survey on (the topic guide used in the interviews can be found in Appendix 1). The terms ‘working practices’ and ‘working arrangements’ have been used in this report to describe features of a participant’s job, such as flexible working. It is important to note that some working practices and arrangements were also preferences of participants for how they worked, such as the desire to work flexibly, and not explicitly tied to their job. Features of their job and preferences for how they worked were discussed interchangeably by participants in the interviews.

This report does not provide numerical findings, since qualitative research cannot support statistical analysis. Instead, the strength of qualitative analysis lies in understanding the range and diversity of experiences or views, and depth of insight into factors underlying them. Quotations and case illustrations are used throughout the report to help the reader interpret the findings.

All quotation attributions include whether the participant has been classified as a ‘more traditional worker’ or ‘less traditional worker’, whether they worked full or part-time, and a non-disclosive job title. Additional characteristics, such as contract type, have not been included to ensure attributions are not disclosive. Quotations with the same attribution do not necessarily come from the same participant. Case illustrations are composites of several different participants’ experiences to ensure they are not disclosive.

3. Findings

Motivations for entering their job

Summary of this section

More traditional workers described 2 key motivations for entering the job they were interviewed about: the job fit with their career aspirations and skills, and had desirable pay and conditions.

Less traditional workers described more diverse, specific motivations for entering the job they were interviewed about. These jobs tended to offer certain working arrangements or practices which met individuals’ needs, but could come with limitations, such as having insecure hours or not being their ‘ideal’ job.

Findings from more traditional workers

Participants who were identified as more traditional workers reported having permanent contracts, working full-time or part-time hours, and paying tax via PAYE for the job they were interviewed about. Length of service for these jobs among the participants in the sample ranged from 18 months to 33 years. They typically said they received holiday pay and pension entitlements. They tended to say they were entitled to sick pay, although some who had not taken sick leave in their job so far were uncertain of their sick pay arrangements.

More traditional workers’ jobs spanned across the private, public and voluntary sectors, and included a range of industries, including retail, technology, education and charity sectors. They displayed a wide range of experience and seniority in their roles.

More traditional workers discussed two key motivations for entering the job they were interviewed about: career aspirations and skills, and desirable pay and conditions. For example, more traditional workers described their job reflecting longstanding career aspirations, offering job satisfaction through challenging and rewarding work, and it fitting with their skills and experience.

“So my father is in the same sort of work. He’s a police officer. It was a job that I quite liked the look of. I thought it’s a job that you can, in the most stereotypical way, make a difference. […] It’s a job you don’t have to sacrifice your morals for.” (Full-time, Police Officer, More traditional worker)

“I’m home for my children, I get holidays off when they’re off, I get to do something that’s beneficial for myself and the community and I feel like I make a difference in people’s lives.” (Part-time, Teaching Assistant, More traditional worker)

Pay and conditions, including some working practices, were an important consideration for the more traditional workers when entering their job. In the interviews, pay and conditions were often mentioned at the same time as career aspirations and skills. Desirable or stable hours, permanent contracts to provide job security, convenient working locations, suitable commutes, and pay which met or exceeded their needs were important working practices and arrangements that more traditional workers considered when entering their job.

“It’s challenging. It’s never boring. It changes all the time. You have to be on your toes all the time. […] it was just so close [by], and, of course, the environment, the offices, when I got there for the interview, and then the salary.” (Full-time, Exporter, More traditional worker)

“I work Monday to Friday which in retail is unknown. I’m very lucky. It’s 10:00 am till 5:00 pm which I think is fantastic because in retail it’s usually late nights. […] Plus you’re working for a good cause.” (Full-time, Charity Worker, More traditional worker)

Findings from less traditional workers

Summary of this section

Participants who were identified as less traditional workers reported being on fixed term or minimum hours contracts. They also reported a range of other terms and conditions of their job, relating to sick pay, annual leave, how they were paid for their work, and how they paid tax.

Less traditional workers described several motivations for entering the job they were interviewed about. They were typically motivated by certain working arrangements or practices of the job that met their specific needs, but these jobs could come with limitations as explored below.

Four main types of jobs were found among less traditional workers:

• skilled freelance jobs
• stop-gap jobs
• flexible part-time jobs
• ‘fun’ jobs

Skilled freelance jobs

Skilled freelance jobs tended to be technical and academic, undertaken on fixed term contracts. Those engaging in these types of jobs described a trade-off between having an interest in the work and the job being highly paid, with the short-term nature of the contracts available.

“Currently on to my current role, which is at [business] as a contract employee in the job, to do as a permanent employee inside IR35… Managing and leading development of different projects. They [business] have permanent employees and contract workforce is managed through, I’m not sure, I think maybe a couple of different recruitment agencies, or maybe the one now.” (Full-time, Research and development, Less traditional worker)

Case illustration: Skilled freelance work

An individual worked in research and development for a large manufacturer. Their contracts were fixed term but could be up to 2 years. They had previously worked as a freelancer providing their services to the manufacturing firm via their own limited company. They paid tax via Self Assessment for this previous job. However, recently they had been brought inside the IR35 rule which meant they were paid by an intermediary through PAYE. They accepted this arrangement but preferred their previous set-up because they said it gave them more control over their finances. They felt they had a good income and did not find it difficult to get more work.

Stop-gap jobs

Stop-gap jobs were undertaken in place of participants’ ‘ideal’ jobs. They were originally considered temporary, but participants subsequently stayed in these jobs on a more long-term basis because the jobs met their needs.

“That opportunity was put in front of me, so at the end of the day, when you’re not earning and that opportunity comes along and there’s a chance to earn.” (Full-time or part-time depending on availability of work, Security Worker, Less traditional worker)

Case illustration: Stop-gap job

A participant who described themselves as an employee, but was employed via an intermediary, worked for different organisations for a minimum number of hours. They had previously worked making artisan foods for local suppliers. Although this was their ideal job, the work was not secure, and ultimately, they had to look for another job. They found a job with a minimum number of hours, but they could be asked to work more hours (between 20 to 50 hours per week). They received holiday pay in proportion to the hours worked and would not be paid for the first three days of sick leave. They received the statutory minimum for longer-term sickness absence. They were paid via an app used by the company that organised their work.

Flexible part-time jobs

The motivation for engaging in flexible part-time jobs was because these could fit around other needs of the individual, such as a disability, caring responsibilities, or education. These jobs tended to be part-time and sometimes renegotiated at the end of each fixed-term contract. Whilst desirable because they offered flexibility, these jobs were not always secure, for example offering participants varying amounts of work.

“I feel, actually, that my choice has been quite limited. A lot of that just comes back to having a caring role because if I’m honest, I’m vastly over-qualified for what I do. I’ve got a good brain and I’ve got a lot of skills… I stick with this organisation because it feels safe and because I know they’re going to be flexible with me. I feel like my choices have been quite limited and as a knock-on effect, so has my income.” (Part-time, Charity worker, Less traditional worker)

Case illustration: Flexible part-time work

An individual worked part-time for a local authority supporting disabled people living in the community. They were on a fixed-term renewable contract, and the amount of work they did varied when the contract was renegotiated each time. They also did some freelance work writing guidance for local authorities on supporting disabled people. The amount of work they could do had to fit around their caring responsibilities. As the only income for their household, they saw this type of work as the best option in terms of flexibility, despite feeling it was sometimes ‘bitty’ or insecure.

Fun jobs

Fun jobs tended to be jobs which participants engaged in out of enjoyment, interest or as something to do, either as a second job or as a part-time job following retirement. The label ‘fun’ was used explicitly by these participants to describe their jobs.

“It was extra money and just something to do when I was on holiday, extra money, extra fun, see some concerts.” (Part time, Security Worker, Less traditional worker)

Case illustration: Fun jobs

This individual previously worked in IT but was made redundant. They wanted a job that was fun and interesting and that they could use to top up their pension. They found work as a film and TV extra for a few days a month, through an app that provided extras to different organisations. They were paid a fixed rate for each nine-hour shift they worked as an extra. If they did not turn up on the day, they would be penalised and receive fewer work offers. They were paid via the app, with a small proportion of their earnings deducted as accrued holiday pay. They had not paid tax to date because their earnings were below the taxation threshold. They felt that they could only work in this way because they were already retired and did not need the money.

Understanding of employment status

Summary of this section

Employment status was not well understood by participants, who were not always clear about the specifics of all their terms and conditions, Income Tax and NI arrangements, or employment rights. These were often assumed to be correct, or that participants were entitled to them, based on the trust they had in the person or organisation they worked for.

Despite low understanding, more traditional workers were confident they were employees. In contrast, less traditional workers were more mixed: some identified as employees while others identified as ‘freelancers’ or ‘contractors’ instead.

Co-workers, payslips and employment contracts, or GOV.UK and Citizens Advice, would be consulted if participants were unsure about their terms and conditions, Income Tax and NI arrangements, or employment rights.

Participants’ understanding of employment status

Participants were asked about their understanding of their employment rights status for their job. Their responses suggested a lack of understanding of the legal definitions surrounding employment status.

More traditional workers expressed certainty that they were ‘employees’. These participants gave many reasons for identifying as employees including: the term “employee” being used in their contract, having a stable basic salary, paying tax via PAYE, being a full-time and permanent member of staff, having an employment contract, having no executive control over the company they worked for, being paid directly by the person they person they were hired by, and that they were not a freelancer.

However, it was evident that employment status definitions were not well understood by this group. During the interviews, there were discussions surrounding the terms “employee” and “worker”. More traditional workers expressed that “employee” sounded less manual than “worker”, and therefore would apply to jobs like working in an office. In contrast, “worker” was perceived as sounding more manual, with some citing jobs such as police officer or construction worker as ones that would fall under this category.

“What’s the difference between employee and worker? I think ‘employee’ is probably the right word. Because, I don’t know, in my mind ‘employee’ is an office worker and ‘workers’ are like construction workers. I don’t know, but that’s what’s in my head.” (Full-time, Exporter, More traditional worker)

Less traditional workers had a similar understanding of employment status as more traditional workers. Once again, the term “worker” was not well understood by less traditional workers. Some cited that “worker” sounded manual in nature.

“I would describe it as employed, as on a fixed-term contract. I think the word I would use first would be employee, yes, just because you’re employed by a company. I’m not sure whether worker sounds a bit more like you’re doing a manual job.” (Full-time, Accounts, Less traditional worker)

However, not all less traditional workers identified as ‘employees’. Instead, less traditional workers also identified themselves as a ‘freelancer’ or ‘self-employed contractor’ for their job. When exploring reasons why they identified in this way, it appeared that these participants were considering their previous experience of being self-employed. For example, one participant was previously selling their services as a limited company and did not see themselves as an employee, even though they were now providing their services within the IR35 rules. 

“Not a permanent employee. It’s a contract role, but it gets renewed yearly. […] I don’t get any pension, typical legal requirements as well that employees are entitled to. You know, redundancy, all those typical legal requirements of permanent employment for employee and an employer. Such as all staff meetings, things which are maybe a bit more confidential. I’m not really involved in those.” (Full-time, Research and Development, Less traditional worker)

The interviews also explored participants’ rights, terms and conditions, and how they paid tax for the job they were interviewed about. Less traditional workers reported similar rights and tax arrangements as their more traditional counterparts.

Both groups indicated a limited understanding of their employment rights, and terms and conditions. There were some assumptions of rights they were entitled to, as well as a sense of trust from participants that they had certain rights which could be examined more closely at a later time, as and when they were needed. For example, some participants assumed they were entitled to sick pay, but could not say for certain as they had never needed to use it.

“I don’t know about rights as such, but I’m aware of health and safety, especially more so when in the office. My employment rights, to be honest, it’s not ever something that I’ve really thought about too much. The only time I maybe gave it some consideration was when I guess my job was kind of at risk.” (Full-time, Banking sector, More traditional worker)

“As a self-employed contractor, I don’t believe I have many rights at all. So, I don’t believe I’ve got any rights to sick pay or annual leave or anything like that. I think that’s why contractors get paid more because you have to manage certain things like that downtime yourself. Yes, it’s probably not a great understanding I have of my rights, but that’s my take on it.” (Full time, Rail infrastructure worker, Less traditional worker)

When discussing terms and conditions of their job, less traditional workers expressed the importance of being able to take another job in addition to their current job. This differed from more traditional workers who were not seeking additional work. In the interviews, less traditional workers tended to describe doing work that was made up of multiple jobs and that they were looking for further or new work to meet their financial needs.

“So I am very, very lucky in that I have total, complete choice over what I do or don’t take on […] as I say, do a thing where I don’t see any big PAYE type work coming up on the horizon, so I try to fill my time with a few days a week of consultancy work…” (Part-time, Horticultural specialist, Less traditional worker)

Arrangements for paying Income Tax and NI were also similar across both more traditional workers and less traditional workers. Participants said they were being paid and had tax deducted from their pay via PAYE for the job they were interviewed about.

“Direct from my wages. Yes, I don’t deal with any of it… I think it’s so much easier than if you have to do it yourself. I do not like when you have it work it all out yourself. I think the system is so complicated. I wouldn’t go self-employed because of that reason; because it’s too complicated to do it yourself.” (Part-time, Teaching Assistant, More traditional worker)

“Yes, it’s always been straight from my pay…. Probably the easiest way for me. I don’t want to have to faff around with it, and it’s easier to know how much money I’ve got if it’s just automatically deducted. I’m more than happy with it.” (Part-time, Caterer, Less traditional worker)

The PAYE system tended to be favoured across participants due to its perceived simplicity and reliability. An exception to this was reported by some less traditional workers who were being paid and had tax deducted from their pay via PAYE by an intermediary, inside the IR35 rules. This is covered in Section 4.4 on potential behavioural changes if working practices or employment status rules changed.

Information sources

Both more traditional workers and less traditional workers were not always clear about the specifics of all their terms and conditions, Income Tax and NI arrangements, or employment rights. These were often assumed on trust, or because a participant worked for a person or organisation who they perceived as a ‘good’ employer who would give them what they were entitled to ‘by the book’. Where they were unsure, they said they would consult these sources of information in the following order: co-workers, payslips and employment contracts, or GOV.UK and Citizens Advice.

Features of the job

In the interviews, participants were probed on the ‘features’ of their job covered in the main survey that identified them as ‘highly likely to be a worker’. It should be noted that individuals could have multiple jobs, though the qualitative interviews focussed only on the job covered in the main survey.

In the context of this report, the term ‘features’ refers to the qualities of a working relationship that were explored in the survey prior to the qualitative interviews, including: control, enterprise, integration, and personal service. More information on the features and how they were analysed with the survey data can be found in Chapter 3 of the report: Employment Status in the UK: 2023 survey.

Control

The level of ‘control’ in an individual’s employment refers to the extent to which aspects of their work are controlled by an engager. That is, the extent to which the person or organisation that an individual works for is in charge of the work the individual does. Control is characterised by engagers dictating what tasks are performed, how tasks are performed, when and where to work, and whether other work can be taken on while doing their job. A presence of control is an indicator of someone being a worker.

Although participants described their engager as having control to some extent, participants also reported having some degree of personal control over how and when they performed tasks within their overall job description, except where technical, procedural or retail work meant they had to respond to specific demands. There were varying levels of flexibility over where and when they worked, depending on the requirements of each job. Some were able to take on other work but only if they had permission by their current engager, some could not for tax reasons, whilst other participants were not aware if they could take on other work as they had never needed to check this with their engager.

“I’m allowed, within the realm of everything has to be done exactly this way, to do it in a way that works best for me.” (Part-time, Horticultural specialist, Less traditional worker)

“I have almost total say because they trust me. I’m old enough, experienced enough, but I always have to get the final sign-off, like can we pay for this? Generally speaking, they’re so busy that they just rely on me anyway to get the job done. So yes, I have a lot of say, and I do a lot of things on behalf of the big boss, my boss, signing off stuff. If I have a question, of course I will ask them, but otherwise I just go for it.” (Full-time, Senior admin worker, More traditional worker)

Enterprise

The level of ‘enterprise’ in an individual’s employment describes the extent to which their work is arranged such that they can increase profit levels or risk losses based on their working practices. An absence of enterprise is an indicator of someone being a worker. Enterprise is characterised by an ability to increase profits, there being repercussions for poor work, and having to provide equipment needed for the job.

Participants tended to show the absence of enterprise in the job they were interviewed about and therefore did not have the ability to make a profit or loss. However, some less traditional workers did exhibit elements of enterprise. For example, those who identified as ‘freelancers’ had fixed day rates, which meant they could profit from completing work quickly. Others were paid overtime.

“So, of an 8 or 9 hour day, I could be working 2 hours or sometimes not at all for a day that I will charge for.” (Full-time Rail infrastructure worker, Less traditional worker)

Less traditional workers on minimum hour contracts said they could sometimes be penalised by being offered fewer work opportunities if they did not accept unpopular shifts, or if they cancelled shifts.

“If you cancel that shift that could go against you. That could negatively impact you. They would not give you a shift for a couple of weeks to punish you, so that kind of thing goes against you.” (Full-time, Rail infrastructure worker, Less traditional worker)

However, work culture mediated this as some others with similar working arrangements did not express fear of being penalised. For example, a less traditional worker described their work culture as “like a small family”, resulting in a fairer allocation of work:

“We say how many hours we want to do a week, now the hours are there, and the boss tries to fit you all in.” (Minimum hours contract, Security Worker, Less traditional worker)

Integration

The levels of ‘integration’ in an individual’s employment describes the extent to which a person is an involved part of the organisation they work for. It is characterised by individuals following staff guidelines, wearing a uniform, having or being a line manager, and having a notice period of a week or more.

Participants also exhibited evidence of integration for the job they were interviewed about. More traditional workers tended to describe being fully integrated into the workforce.

“I’m in a team, and I report directly to my boss who is the head of our team in [City] […] So he manages a team, and then our team, so, yes, I have a direct boss.” (Full-time, Senior admin, More traditional worker)

Less traditional workers described 2 types of integration: employee-type arrangements and more variable arrangements. Employee-type arrangements meant that less traditional workers were integrated in much the same way as more traditional workers described, with an element of exclusion. For example, some less traditional workers described not being included in staff meetings that employees would attend.

“I’m not included in employee activities inside [the company], I don’t get any pension, staff meetings, things which are maybe a bit more confidential.” (Full-time, Research and Development, Less traditional worker)

More variable arrangements were described by less traditional workers who found work via apps or agencies that had more loose organisational structures. This meant that their level of integration varied between different jobs and could even be subject to day-to-day changes. For example, one participant described not knowing exactly who they were working with or whether they were supervising someone until being briefed at the beginning of each shift.

“They go through that in the briefing at the start of the shift, ‘You are in position, you are at [an event], this is [the set-up], these are the exits here, here and here. This is your position.” (Part time, Security Worker, Less traditional worker)

In addition, less traditional workers described other signs of integration into the organisation they worked for. For example, less traditional workers who were required to wear uniforms or needed specific equipment for the job had these provided by their engager. Notice periods for less traditional workers varied between a week and a month depending on the role.

Personal Service

The levels of ‘personal service’ in an individual’s employment describes the extent to which individuals are obliged to perform the work for their job themselves, without the right to pay someone else to do the work for them.

Participants exhibited the presence of personal service in the job they were interviewed about. Neither more traditional workers nor less traditional workers were able to subcontract work to another person. This included some less traditional workers who worked under IR35 rules which prohibited subcontracting. No participants reported having previous experience of paying someone else to do their work for them.

“No, I don’t subcontract it. It’s quite an intricate framework for getting accredited contractors to work on a railway. They need to jump through several hoops to say that they’re competent. So I wouldn’t be in a position for awarding contracts to anybody.” (Full-time, Research and Development, Less traditional worker)

Participants reported a range of responses in the event that they were unable to do their work, such as when taking a holiday. Some said they would find someone else at their workplace to help complete the work. Others indicated that they would not be able to arrange for someone else to do their work on these occasions, since their work required specific qualifications or accreditations.

“So I can tell you my situation. My situation is if I’m off work, for example, like, 2 or 3 weeks, because my role is very mission led, very task based, I will find other people to split my tasks [within] the same company.” (Full-time, Technology sector, More traditional worker)

Potential behavioural changes if working practices/ or employment status rules changed

Summary of this section

A key concern of participants was whether any hypothetical change to working practice/ or employment status rules would still enable them to meet their financial commitments, such as paying bills and mortgages. This core consideration would underpin any actions they would take if working practices or employment status rules changed.

Participants also had more specific concerns which would impact how they would act if working practices or employment status rules changed, such as how much they valued their work, how important certain rights were to them, and their perception of risk.

Exploring the impact of hypothetical changes to current work circumstances

The interviews explored how participants would feel about and respond to hypothetical changes to their current work circumstances. These hypothetical changes were discussed with participants in relation to the job they were interviewed about.

The hypothetical changes explored in the interviews were:

• having no guaranteed minimum contracted hours of work
• accepting lower pay for guaranteed minimum contracted hours of work
• accepting fewer employment rights, such as sick pay or holiday pay, if given higher pay
• accepting fewer employment rights, such as sick pay or holiday pay, until after a fixed period
• not being able to do other work (for example, with a different employer or engager) in addition to their current job
• changing the method of paying tax, for example to Self Assessment instead of via PAYE

Participants weighed up the risk and rewards of each scenario during the interviews. A key concern of participants was whether the hypothetical change would still enable them to meet their financial commitments, such as paying bills and mortgages. Participants also considered whether the hypothetical changes to rights were acceptable or desirable in comparison to the rights they were entitled to in their current job.

Having no guaranteed minimum contracted hours of work

Participants expressed a strong desire for guaranteed minimum contracted hours of work, saying they needed a specified number of hours to meet financial commitments. Less traditional workers already on minimum-hour contracts explained that they would seek alternative work if their existing arrangement was reduced further. Even less traditional workers with ‘fun jobs’ or multiple jobs said they needed enough hours to make it worth them doing the job at all.

“I’ve still got bills and that to pay, and that’s like everybody else. I would have to do my best to be in employment and make sure that I had enough money to live on basically.” (Full-time, Accountant, Less traditional worker)

“Yes, I’d say 10 hours would suit me perfectly. I could do 5 on a Saturday and a couple during the week. That would be the ideal… even Minimum Wage, yes.” (Part-time, Security worker, Less traditional worker)

Accepting lower pay for guaranteed minimum contracted hours of work

Some participants (both more and less traditional workers) were receptive to a hypothetical change of accepting lower pay for guaranteed minimum contracted hours of work. For these participants, lower pay would be acceptable up to certain threshold, such as National Minimum Wage (NMW) or their own personal minimum threshold to ensure they could still meet their financial commitments.

“To be honest, because [the organisation gave me a health-related early retirement pension] I don’t think it would affect me that much. I think I’d carry on working there, still, because my job, you don’t do… It’s really not the sort of job you do for the money. You have to do it. If you love children… well, love working with people… you want to help people. It’s one of those jobs [where] the wages are not great.” (Part-time, Teaching Assistant, More traditional worker)

Those already on lower pay, including those earning NMW, said they would not consider accepting lower pay.

“Yes, I would be more likely to look for another job, definitely [if I had lower pay or fewer employment rights]. I guess partly the principle of it, to be honest, but partly because if I was on minimum wage and that meant the wage was lowering, that would also be a reason.” (Part-time, Catering worker, Less traditional worker)

Some less traditional workers who had ‘fun jobs’ said that a reduction would not necessarily affect their view of their job because they were not solely motivated by money or hours.

Accepting fewer employment rights, such as sick pay or holiday pay, if given higher pay

Participants were asked if they would accept a reduction is some employment rights (such as sick leave entitlements, annual leave, or reduction in health and safety requirements) for a higher rate of pay.

Participants differed in their views to this hypothetical change, depending on how much they earned and whether they had other concerns or commitments.

Less traditional workers who were not entitled to annual leave or sick pay in the job they were interviewed about were content with fewer employment rights if their pay compensated for these benefits. These less traditional workers tended to be younger and already on higher pay.

“Well, like I say I’ve never really as a contractor taken advantage of sick pay or holiday pay and I’ve always been pretty sure I’m getting paid well above the minimum wage. So as blinkered as it sounds, it’s not something I’ve really thought about. It’s not going to faze me at present on what package I’m on.” (Full-time, Rail infrastructure worker, Less traditional worker)

Some more traditional workers said they would accept higher pay for fewer rights, specifically sick pay, which these participants had tended not to use.

Other participants, including more traditional workers and participants with health conditions or caring responsibilities, said they would not compromise key employment rights for more pay.

“I think if anything was taken away, then it would be annoying… I would be looking around to see if there was something better. I think all of that stuff is really important to me; because we’re quite fragile as a family, we particularly need to have a sense of there being a safety net. For us if the safety net is not there, even if we don’t need to use it, then it makes a big impact… I would be lying awake at night, hoping that I didn’t get ill or not wanting to take time off, and that’s, I can’t, I don’t need that.” (Part-time, Working with disabled people, Less traditional worker)

Accepting fewer employment rights, such as sick pay or holiday pay, until after a fixed period

Participants tended to feel that this hypothetical change would be more acceptable the shorter the fixed period was. Participants were typically prepared to accept this if it were to be between 6 months and 1 year.

Some less traditional workers on higher pay said they were prepared to accept some reduced employment rights, such as reduced sick pay, provided their earnings were at a sufficiently high level to compensate.

However, having to wait lengthy periods for rights was perceived by both more traditional and less traditional workers as a sign that they were not valued by hirers.

“I think it would definitely make me think about looking for another… looking to work at another company… Their holiday pay, I think it’s important to take some holidays and whilst they maybe don’t have to pay you, I think that they should. It would be good to do. I think again it just shows whether they care about their employees at all, or whether they just want you to go in and do your work, I think.” (Full-time, Accounts office, Less traditional worker)

“I do regularly look for other work because the nature of the decreasing of the rights means that perhaps I am not valued as a human being. I’d rather be valued as a human being because if you’re working right near the edge of what you’re capable of with as little as physically possible, then it’s like, well, there is nowhere to go from here.” (Part-time, Shop worker, More traditional worker)

Not being able to do other work (for example, with a different employer or engager) in addition to their current job

Although not a worry for more traditional workers who typically only had one job at a time, less traditional workers were particularly concerned by this hypothetical change. For less traditional workers who were on minimum hours contracts, being able to take on new opportunities was essential for them to have the hours they needed, to support themselves financially.

Some less traditional workers undertaking skilled, higher-paid freelance work within the IR35 rules said they were already unable to take on other work and therefore felt their earning potential was being restricted by the rules.

“I would prefer to be outside IR35 and my accountant manage all the tax and I’d rather not lose that 20 per cent at source. I’m not greedy. I’m not motivated by money so I’m happy with what I’ve got, but obviously I’ve got a family, so if I can get more money just being on a contract then I’ll go for that.” (Full-time, Rail infrastructure, Less traditional worker)

Changing the method paying tax, for example to Self Assessment instead of via PAYE

In general, both more traditional workers and less traditional workers preferred the simplicity and convenience of paying Income Tax and NI via PAYE.

“Well, at the moment, I am probably earning more from the filming than £1,000 a year, so I probably will have to self-assess, but I don’t know. Yes, so I would prefer if it was done for me, like PAYE, done on a tax code.” (Part-time, Film Extra, Less traditional worker)

“It’s PAYE. Well, .. because I just get the payslip with the deductions on it, the National Insurance and the tax. It’s fine, yes… I can compare in my life because in a former life… I was freelance. Here, also, I had a period of freelancing. Oh gosh, that was so difficult doing the it… You just need to know how, filling in your own tax form and all that. I didn’t enjoy that period.” (Full-time, Senior admin, More traditional worker)

The only exception to the preference for PAYE came from some less traditional workers who were undertaking skilled, higher-paid freelance work. They sometimes saw being within the IR35 rules, which meant recently moving from Self Assessment to PAYE, as limiting their control over their finances.

“Personally if it’s a question about IR35, I think it’s a lot less flexibility… I was ultimately responsible for my own finances and how that worked through my own company. There’s less reason to do that now. I guess if you’re working as an employee, then I guess the current structure works fine through PAYE. If you want to take that on yourself and operate through a limited company, I think for those people who like being in charge a bit more of their finances, that’s a good way to operate. With the IR35, there’s no real advantage of doing that anymore.” (Full-time, Research and Development, Less traditional worker)

“I would prefer to be outside IR35 and my accountant manage all the tax and I’d rather not lose that 20 per cent at source.” (Full-time, Electrician, Less traditional worker)

4. Recommendations for future surveys on employment status

As a follow-up to the quantitative survey, this qualitative research has provided deeper insights on and context to the experiences of those identified as ‘highly likely to be a worker’. In doing so, it has also helped highlight areas of the survey which could be improved to make a future survey on employment status more efficient.

Inclusion of likely limb (a) workers

The Employment Status survey consisted of 2 parts: the screening survey which was used to assess whether each respondent could initially be easily identified as an employee (limb (a) worker), self-employed or not in paid work, followed by the main survey for those whose employment status could not be identified during the screening survey. Using the feature analysis, some respondents were then later identified as ‘highly likely to be a worker’ (a group encompassing both limb (a) workers and limb (b) workers) based on their answers to the main survey questions.

As evidenced by the follow-up qualitative interviews, some individuals who entered the main survey and were found ‘highly likely to be a worker’ did indeed have the more traditional working practices associated with employees (or limb (a) workers). However, these individuals were not identified in the screening survey. This suggests there could be further efficiencies made to the screening survey in the future to identify more employees earlier, for example by increasing the number of questions in the screening survey to prevent them proceeding to the costlier main survey.

Misinterpretation of some terms and concepts

The qualitative interviews indicated that there were differing interpretations of some terms and concepts used in the survey, including:

• ‘director’ in a limited company
• fixed-term, fixed-task or casual work
• get this work and get paid through an online platform or app

This misinterpretation may have led to some survey respondents proceeding unnecessarily to the main survey, instead of their status being identified the screening survey. For example, an understanding of ‘director in a limited company’ or ‘get this work and get paid through an online platform or app’ was key in determining which screening survey section (employee section or incorporated/self-employed section) a respondent was directed to. If sent to the correct screening section and subsequently identified, a respondent would not be directed into the main survey.

This misinterpretation of terminology occurred for some respondents despite the survey being cognitively tested. More information on the survey testing approach can be found in the [Technical Appendix] (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-status-in-the-uk-2023-survey-and-follow-up-qualitative-research/employment-status-in-the-uk-2023-survey)of the the survey findings. This suggests that further development of the survey questions, including these terms and concepts, should be undertaken in future, such as carrying out further cognitive testing or providing additional definitions in the survey questions.

5. Conclusion

HMRC commissioned NatCen to undertake research on employment status in the UK. This included a quantitative survey to produce an updated estimate of the total ‘worker’ population in the UK, and follow-up qualitative research with survey respondents who were found ‘highly likely to be a worker’ (limb (a) workers or limb (b) workers).

Those who were ‘highly likely to be a worker’ and took part in this qualitative research included ‘more traditional workers’, who had jobs with permanent contracts with stable hours and were entitled to paid annual leave, and ‘less traditional workers’, who had jobs on fixed term or minimum hours contracts, were paid by an intermediary or app, and either accrued annual leave or had no contractual annual leave.  

More traditional workers described 2 key motivations for entering the job they were interviewed about: it fit with their career aspirations and skills, and had desirable pay and conditions. Less traditional workers described more diverse, specific motivations for entering the job they were interviewed about. Four main types of jobs were identified amongst less traditional workers: skilled freelance jobs, stop-gap jobs, flexible part-time jobs, and ‘fun’ jobs. These jobs tended to offer certain working arrangements or practices which met individuals’ needs, but could come with limitations, such as insecure hours or not being their ‘ideal’ job.

Employment status was not well understood by participants – both in a general sense and in relation to their job. Participants were not always clear about the specific terms and conditions, Income Tax and NI arrangements, or employment rights related to their job. These were often assumed to be correct, and participants trusted the person or organisation they worked for to ensure their terms and conditions were right.

Despite this, more traditional workers were generally confident to describe their employment status as an ‘employee’ for their job. In contrast, less traditional workers provided mixed responses: whilst some described their employment status as an ‘employee’ for their job, others described their employment status as ‘freelancer’ or ‘contractor’.

Meeting their financial commitments, such as paying bills and mortgages, was the key concern of participants when considering how they would respond to any future change to working practices or employment status rules. Participants also demonstrated more specific concerns: any behaviour change as a result of working practices or employment status rules changing would also depend on how much an individual valued their job, how important they considered certain rights to be, and how risky they considered the change in working practices or employment status rules to be.

Since participants had limited understanding about their employment status for their job, effective communication of any future change to employment status rules would be key. Targeting the workplace would be most beneficial in this event, since participants’ key sources of information about the terms and conditions, tax or employment rights for their job were co-workers, payslips or employment contracts, as well

---

1. Annual leave is a legal right for all workers (limb (a) (employees) and limb (b)). A small number of participants in the less traditional worker group, while being identified as ‘highly likely to be a worker’ by the main survey, indicated that they had no contractual annual leave, leaving their working arrangement unclear. ↩

2. To generate diversity amongst the qualitative sample by more or less traditional working practices, participants were purposively selected to include a mix of those who had answered screening questions relevant to employees (limb (a) workers) or the self-employed or those with incorporated businesses. ↩

3. Annual leave is a legal right for all workers (limb (a) (employees) and limb (b)). A small number of participants in the less traditional worker group, while being identified as ‘highly likely to be a worker’ by the main survey, indicated that they had no contractual annual leave, leaving their working arrangement unclear. ↩