Arb Assoc's view on freelancers and small businesses.

[Joe Newton]

Chicken.

[Mick Dempsey]

Bit harsh Joe, let him come back tomorrow.

[Joe Newton]

Just now, Mick Dempsey said:

Bit harsh Joe, let him come back tomorrow.

I look forward to it.

 

If the term chicken is harsh, primary school must have been traumatic for you!

[Puffingbilly413]

If this had been written as a pisstake article it might have been vaguely not shite.

 

But written as it is by someone who markets themselves as a professional advisor to arb businesses, it's dire. 

 

It just smacks of the whole "let's create a myriad of best practice spaff that we can use to encumber firms with a ream of bureaucratic pish that they'll need the paid services of an advisory charlatan to navigate" culture that pervades industry and life in general today.

 

That feels better.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Puffingbilly413
Typo

[Tommy_B]

11 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

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.'

 

 

I think the publication part is the problem. If I got Arb climber to publish a photo of me one handing a chainsaw with a pair of trainers on and a fag on the go, that is the publication endorsing it. By definition, if its in the magazine, it has to be stood by. Or if the AA won't stand by it, that begs the question "Why publish something that you don't believe in?" 

[Puffingbilly413]

2 minutes ago, Tommy_B said:

If I got Arb climber to publish a photo of me one handing a chainsaw with a pair of trainers on and a fag on the go, that is the publication endorsing it. 

I'd love to think you do have said photo!

[Excels1or]

14 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

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.)

 

He does make some good points, however he's as subtle as a bus hitting a toddler

[Joe Newton]

Possibly more embarrassing is how he's demonstrated his lack of knowledge of the industry.

 

Stating that Labour only sub contractors/freelancers should have their own insurance, for one.

 

You'd expect someone who charges a 4 figure consultation fee to know the details.

[dumper]

And most of the points he makes can be levelled at many arb companies

bartletts and the poplar tree, local authority contractors under pricing to get work etc 

[dumper]

2 minutes ago, Joe Newton said:

Possibly more embarrassing is how he's demonstrated his lack of knowledge of the industry.

 

Stating that Labour only sub contractors/freelancers should have their own insurance, for one.

 

You'd expect someone who charges a 4 figure consultation fee to know the details.

One word comes to mind "……………………………………………knob!!