faraway saint Posted March 27, 2018 Report Share Posted March 27, 2018 15 hours ago, oaksoft said: I am not "back". There hasn't been a decent discussion on here for months so no reason to get involved. I almost didn't post on this thread but employee benefits are something taken for granted and apparently beyond being questioned. I thought I would ask some fairly simple questions because a lot of this stuff leaves me scratching my head. I think our entire culture is based on dependency. Our schools and universities are specifically designed to produce employees. We distrust business owners and the self employed and use derogatory phrases like "gig economy". That is a serious problem for anyone who thinks we can be an independent country. We need far more entrepeneurs and self employed people. I retract my welcome, feck right off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) On 3/26/2018 at 9:05 PM, civilsaint said: Why bother employers with the burden of holiday pay? Why bother employers with the burden of maternity/paternity? Quite agree. Why should a small company have to pay for anyone to go on holiday? Why should a small company have to pay someone maternity pay when having a baby is their personal choice? There is no logic to this at all. Not sure why you are conflating employee benefits with both safety at work legislation and also payment of a living wage though. Edited March 28, 2018 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 On 3/26/2018 at 9:20 PM, beyond our ken said: If you think that contracts of employment should not contain the standard Ts &Cs then fair enough. But remember the self-employed usually factor in the cost of their holidays, pensions, etc into their contracts, often at the behest of the client. Are you saying every employer should be further burdened with negotiating a personal contract on bespoke terms with every single employee? Why would you think the self employed can do this? They are governed by the laws of supply and demand just like employees negotiating salaries. The negotiations you talk about in your last sentence would be based solely on salary. That is already done so why would it be a burden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 On 3/26/2018 at 9:23 PM, beyond our ken said: employers depend on employees turning up and doing work, there is nothing wrong with dependency. Most of the self-employed do work that is outwith the scope of an employer's core business, or work that cannot be guaranteed. Fine, if everyone is paid enough to see them through the peaks and troughs, but if you are tied to one business for your work then you are essentially an employee. I agree that SOME dependency is necessary but not to the extent where it stifles business. If you screw with business, you lose jobs. Self employed businesses also offer services which are core to the business of the client where the client lacks experience and cannot find it using permanent employees. Software engineering is one key example but there are countless others. That bit in bold is not true in law or in reality. Plenty of businesses of all sizes have a single client. I am unaware of any case law where employment status was determined solely or largely on that basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) On 3/26/2018 at 9:44 PM, St.Ricky said: Margaret Hilda Thatcher: "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families." Some contributors to the topic seem to favour this argument whilst others don't. I am somewhere in the middle. I worked in a large organisation for 26 years and largely enjoyed it and benefited from good conditions. I have run my own businesses for 26 years and largely enjoyed it and made my own provisions for pension etc Much to be said on both sides and I think that a mixed economy is preferable. Changes in tax, pensions and benefits are underway to level the playing field between the employed and self employed. Agree that the Greed is Good mantra espoused in the film Wall Street has shifted the balance in favour of Capital, Time to balance that out. If "society" exits then it will force the change but I expect resistance. When "Labour" held the upper hand in the 70's change was needed but resisted. To be fair I don't see anyone mentioning Thatcher at all except for your good self. I can tell you why I am thinking about this at the moment. My company only has family members in it. Everyone is involved. We are now in the position of having to turn customers away because we are now overloaded. I have the choice to stick to this size, which I am tempted to do, or to start expanding by hiring employees - obviously tempting financially. Here's the thought process. If I hire someone, I instantly lose money because it will take time to increase the client base sufficiently to cover their wages without me losing sleep. That is part and parcel of the risk of hiring and I can accept that. BUT. I will be in the position of having to cover the wages of that employee. I'll have to set aside money for their holiday pay, any sickness they suffer, national insurance, employee insurance and their bloody pension pot as well. All of this is mandatory by law before I take a penny for my own food. I have no problem with paying someone the market wage for their services but asking me to sort out their pension before I can feed my own family is completely out of order IMO. That's before we get onto performing HMRCs role by collecting their tax and national insurance via PAYE with a subsequently more complicated set of accounts (or I could pay someone to do this for me - more expense). Lots of small businesses are in this position and I would suggest it is in everyone's interest - government, employees and employers - that this is sorted. Job creation should be the overriding principle here, not job security because without job creation you cannot have job security either. If you have lots of jobs then job security is less pressing because if you lose one job there are plenty of others. It used to be like this not that long ago in historical terms before every employee benefit that could be dreamt up was forced into law and upon businesses. Anyway, just some thoughts. Right now I won't be hiring but I really would like to. Turning down clients is a pain in the arse. Edited March 28, 2018 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 Oh for the days when you could delete a thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St.Ricky Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 1 hour ago, oaksoft said: To be fair I don't see anyone mentioning Thatcher at all except for your good self. I can tell you why I am thinking about this at the moment. My company only has family members in it. Everyone is involved. We are now in the position of having to turn customers away because we are now overloaded. I have the choice to stick to this size, which I am tempted to do, or to start expanding by hiring employees - obviously tempting financially. Here's the thought process. If I hire someone, I instantly lose money because it will take time to increase the client base sufficiently to cover their wages without me losing sleep. That is part and parcel of the risk of hiring and I can accept that. BUT. I will be in the position of having to cover the wages of that employee. I'll have to set aside money for their holiday pay, any sickness they suffer, national insurance, employee insurance and their bloody pension pot as well. All of this is mandatory by law before I take a penny for my own food. I have no problem with paying someone the market wage for their services but asking me to sort out their pension before I can feed my own family is completely out of order IMO. That's before we get onto performing HMRCs role by collecting their tax and national insurance via PAYE with a subsequently more complicated set of accounts (or I could pay someone to do this for me - more expense). Lots of small businesses are in this position and I would suggest it is in everyone's interest - government, employees and employers - that this is sorted. Job creation should be the overriding principle here, not job security because without job creation you cannot have job security either. If you have lots of jobs then job security is less pressing because if you lose one job there are plenty of others. It used to be like this not that long ago in historical terms before every employee benefit that could be dreamt up was forced into law and upon businesses. Anyway, just some thoughts. Right now I won't be hiring but I really would like to. Turning down clients is a pain in the arse. I think you understand quite well the context in which I mentioned the lady. The two sides of this argument come at things from completely different angles. Risk is inherent in every business decision and there is always a lag between making the investment (in your case potential recruitment of staff) and the expected increase in income. Mind the gap doesn't only apply to the underground! Difficult choice. I guess what you decide to do depends on how big you want your business to be and whether you want to grow income or an exit value amongst other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whydowebother Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 Oh for the days when you could delete a thread! I’d be delighted to delete people that start lots of pointless threads [emoji849] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Blair Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 Thatcher was a c**t and hopefully she's being slow roasted for eternity in hell. Not that I believe in such theological non-entities, but she did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.