Skip to main content

Why is it always about employing people?

Whenever we get stories on the news about the recession, there is always stress on the need for companies to create jobs so more people can be employed. I can see why this is important - but what I don't understand is why they don't also mention the benefits of people employing themselves.

I left British Airways in 1994 to set up my own creativity training company and later to get into writing. Since then I haven't been a drain on the state,  and I have been paying taxes and all those good things. But I don't employ anyone (except myself). I do work with several others, but we all have our own companies. They are resources I can call on if I need several trainers for an event (say), but I don't have all the hassle of employing people.

Now I'm not getting into hyper-Tebbit mode and saying everyone should get on their bikes and work for themselves. It doesn't suit everyone - that's fine. But I do think we could do with a bit more recognition, when the media and the government are droning on about how important it is for companies to take on more workers.

This message has been brought to you by the Federation of Small Businesses. (No, it hasn't, in case they complain. But you know what I mean.)

Comments

  1. Absolutely spot on. In my 'mini Tebbitt' moment, it does rather inflame me when, as soon as some threat of Darwinian cuts comes into the public sector, they all get their placards out and strike.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Having been an employee for 22 years and then an employer (of up to 100 staff) for a further 10, I've decided never, ever, to be an employer again.

    My business is now a true SME with one employee (me) and if anyone wants to come and work with me, or even for me, they can sort out their own tax, NI and pension and have whatever time off and holidays they want knowing that if they don't perform there will be another earnest, willing and probably keener, worker ready to take their place.

    Plus, big benefit for me, the knowledge that I won't be taken to an industrial tribunal for some casual remark made to a member of staff in a stressful moment. And I don't have to be nice to anyone simply because I'm their employer...

    I've had enough of the bureaucracy, petty rules and form filling plus general state interference and union busybodies with personal and political agendas who act as a leach on their employers

    And neither will I ever bid for any work in the public sector again....that's even worse than being an employer.!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. My view entirely, Ian, as far as not employing people goes, though I am currently doing some sort-of public sector work that is very enjoyable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I recently discovered a wonderful TED talk about raising our children to be entrepreneurs -- a really beautiful and inspiring speech about making the world a better place through better business practice. Hope you enjoy!

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/cameron_herold_let_s_raise_kids_to_be_entrepreneurs.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou