Arb Assoc's view on freelancers and small businesses.

[Joe Newton]

36 minutes ago, Retired Climber said:

Anyone wanting to see the original version should be quick. It's showing as having been edited already this morning. 

I imagine it would be quite inconvenient for them if someone had copied the original article.

[Retired Climber]

1 minute ago, Joe Newton said:

I imagine it would be quite inconvenient for them if someone had copied the original article.

haha, that's 2 of us with an original then. 😉

[Stephen Arb Association]

Thanks everyone for your feedback on this.

 

The article in question was originally published two years ago in the Spring 2020 edition of the ARB Magazine. Along with science focused content, opinion pieces are a heavy focus of every edition of the magazine. For this reason, when we re-publish some ARB Magazine articles to the website, we always include the disclaimer: ‘The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Arboricultural Association.’

 

That disclaimer is certainly the case here and we’d like to acknowledge your concerns and accept that there are issues with the article, which was posted 2 years ago.

 

The authors views and opinions raised within the article may have changed. But unless requested to do so, we won’t remove or edit the article. An update was made this morning – highlighting the disclaimer which already appeared on the side of the page on desktop versions, and adding it to the top of the article. That's why it now says 'Last updated at xx'

 

However, contributions to the ARB Magazine are always welcome and encouraged. As such, if anyone would like to produce a response to be published in the next issue of the ARB Magazine and then on the website, we would be happy to do so. Contributions for the ARB Magazine can be sent to [email protected]

 

The industry faces a lot of issues which the association is working to address. But we need and want to have an open dialogue and consider all your feedback, to address them and deliver for the needs, and represent the interests of, the tree care community.

Our CEO John Parker always welcomes feedback and has said that if you would like to address your concerns to him in writing, please feel free to contact him on [email protected]

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Stephen Arb Association

[Andrew caves]

Basically everyone just assimilate the role and stay in the big arb approved company and wait for your gold watch ….. oh wait . How about no . 😂 can’t beat an early finish and choosing when where and who you work for , has its “ ups and downs “ 😂😉. 

[Patrick goulding]

I think they have burned there bridges they don’t even care. It’s seems as though the emphasis is being put on the people who have taken offence to the article not the person or persons who writ the article. Never right. They Sound like government talking.

[Retired Climber]

To hide behind ‘The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Arboricultural Association.’ is just a polite way to stick two fingers up to anyone who thinks the AA should have higher standards than to post such rubbish on their website. 

 

Personally, I think this is going to be the AA's 'Ratner' moment. Many of their members will have started out as the bottom feeders they detest, and many future members will, at this moment, be trying to drag themselves out of the gutter to become AA Approved.😉

 

To hide behind T's and C's to call a sizeable portion of their current and future membership scum, is a very, very bad move. 

 

The bloke who wrote the article is clueless, and seems to have spent his career gaining qualifications rather than actually building his business. However, the AA should know better. 

[Joe Newton]

Basically the same weak sauce bureaucratic rubbish. "Yes we published it but won't take any responsibility for what was said".

 

I'm frankly embarrassed for the AA, that they published such inflammatory and condescending content in the first place, but more so that they refuse to stand by it or act on it.

 

An apology for giving such insulting material a platform would be appropriate, as would taking down the article.

 

Sadly I'm not surprised by the reaction though.

 

This isn't the first time the AA has failed to represent the industry how they should be. Unsurprising that they are widely held in such low regard. 

[Retired Climber]

2 minutes ago, Joe Newton said:

Basically the same weak sauce bureaucratic rubbish. "Yes we published it but won't take any responsibility for what was said".

 

I'm frankly embarrassed for the AA, that they published such inflammatory and condescending content in the first place, but more so that they refuse to stand by it or act on it.

 

An apology for giving such insulting material a platform would be appropriate, as would taking down the article.

 

Sadly I'm not surprised by the reaction though.

 

This isn't the first time the AA has failed to represent the industry how they should be. Unsurprising that they are widely held in such low regard. 

I'd have more respect for them if they had come back and said "yep, that's what we think of you all, now do one". 😁

[Joe Newton]

12 minutes ago, Retired Climber said:

I'd have more respect for them if they had come back and said "yep, that's what we think of you all, now do one". 😁

Genuinely

[Patrick goulding]

I just can’t believe they published the article and thought it wouldn’t offend folk. They lit a fire 🔥 and poured petrol on it to.