Arb Assoc's view on freelancers and small businesses.

[Joe Newton]

This article is worth a read for those interested in hearing how our industry representatives view freelance specialists and small startup businesses:

 

Arboricultural Association - ‘Subbies’

TREES.ORG.UK

---

<p class= lead brown bold >I like to try to pick up on topical issues in my articles so in the last edition...

 

It's a pretty disappointing read with gross generalisations and hyperbole aplenty.

 

Terms such as bottom feeders and parasites thrown about freely. See for yourself. 

[Retired Climber]

It was written by some fat bloke who looks like he'd have a heart attack if he tried to do a day's work.  A self appointed expert who's very poor attempt at sales copy is just embarrassing. 

[Mick Dempsey]

Extraordinary.

2 years old but nevertheless.

 

@AA Teccie (Paul) care to explain?

[treevolution]

Where did I go wrong, I should have stayed working for an aa approved firm (one that pays this guy who wrote the article to do all the paperwork to become arb approved and then on the day of the assessment has to call in a freelance climber to even be able to pass) rather then making a go at earning a decent living with a good work life balance. 

 

If working for an aa approve company was so good why did this guy go and start his own company 🤔

 

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

It's one person's view and an article which appeared in a previous issue of the Arb Mag.

 

Paul's view (Mr Elcoat) is clearly that arborists would be better employed by businesses directly to relieve the shortage of trained, skilled and experience staff, i.e. in the context of the article, and allow for better work planning and service delivery.

In practice many choose self-employment as their preferred option, and most quite successfully (I think), but we would hope if it doesn't work out for them they would consider re-employment rather than leave the industry which just adds further to the current staffing problem for businesses.

 

[Excels1or]

Read the article. This guys a c u next Tuesday. He managed to obliterate any good points he tried to make by being a massive Fud

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

3 minutes ago, treevolution said:

 

If working for an aa approve company was so good why did this guy go and start his own company 🤔

 

 

Personal / professional development, and a new challenge, and he's been very successful and helped many businesses to develop and meet their fuller potential (as I see it.)

 

To clarify we're talking about Paul Elcoat here, of Elcoat Ltd., who is an industry based H&S advisor and business management consultant, i.e. he's not a contractor. 

 

(Apologies in advance if I've got the wrong end of the stick here....put it down to post-Covid brain fog  ) 

 

Cheers..

[Joe Newton]

7 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

It's one person's view and an article which appeared in a previous issue of the Arb Mag.

 

Paul's view (Mr Elcoat) is clearly that arborists would be better employed by businesses directly to relieve the shortage of trained, skilled and experience staff, i.e. in the context of the article, and allow for better work planning and service delivery.

In practice many choose self-employment as their preferred option, and most quite successfully (I think), but we would hope if it doesn't work out for them they would consider re-employment rather than leave the industry which just adds further to the current staffing problem for businesses.

 

Nice try Paul, but by publishing it on your website you're not only giving Mr Elcoat's views a platform, but you're endorsing them.

 

Do you agree that the blanket use of terms like I mentioned above (parasites, bottom feeders and tax evaders) is appropriate?

 

Perhaps you'd like to invite the author to justify himself?

[Joe Newton]

6 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Personal / professional development, and a new challenge

 So the exact same reasons as those people he vilifies then?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

11 minutes ago, Joe Newton said:

Nice try Paul, but by publishing it on your website you're not only giving Mr Elcoat's views a platform, but you're endorsing them.

 

Do you agree that the blanket use of terms like I mentioned above (parasites, bottom feeders and tax evaders) is appropriate?

 

Perhaps you'd like to invite the author to justify himself?

It wasn't a "try" Joe, I was just stating the facts, and I don't think we have endorsed it but we have published it and thereby given a platform for Paul to 'air his views.'

 

Yes, personally, I do agree some of the terminology used isn't helpful, nor appropriate, but I think it has to be read in context because he does make some very valid points. 

 

I will let Paul know this thread is active.

 

(It's a pity readers didn't write to the Arb Mag editor at the time and perhaps that would have been published in the following edition along with a reply from Paul.)

 

Cheers (and I'm logging off now so will pick any further comments up tomorrow.)