Why are you not AAAC?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Just a point I've had in mind for a while Paul.

 

On co's with less than 5 staff.

 

We talk as if the norm is big co's with lots of staff, like Tree Care in London for example.

 

My impression of the industry is that the bulk of domestic work is done by co's with 2 staff. To me 3 or 4 staff is a big outfit.

 

Perhaps some quantification along these lines might be useful. I.e. are the majority of tree co's in the uk of a size of 3 or less? Or perhaps I've been in my rural/domestic treework bubble too long.

 

 

It's a fair point, trouble is the 'stats' just aren't available BUT both anecdotally and looking around my local region (and others have concurred here) the 'lions share' of arb companies are 'small', i.e. less than 5, and yes many are one or two.

 

Trouble is, in terms of moving the AA scheme forward, I don't beleive we can have any distinction between companies / firms having less than 5, in a sense it's academic...what's important IMO is recognising the 'less than 5s', whihc we don't really do currently, and addressing this.

 

Hope I've not missed your point?

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Albedo]

No real point or axe to grind here Paul. You are already addressing the problem.

 

I think I felt that the language used, i.e AAAC's with more than 5 employees have the AA's attention, maybe because they do bigger contracts.

 

Kind of, by the way, we intend to include you less than 5's too. It just occured to me that we small outfits may constitute a majority.

 

There's no more you can do than you are already doing, but I felt that if this is the case, then its worth bearing in mind. Could be a teaching you to suck eggs situation, but no harm done by 'thinking aloud' aye

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

It's a fair point, trouble is the 'stats' just aren't available BUT both anecdotally and looking around my local region (and others have concurred here) the 'lions share' of arb companies are 'small', i.e. less than 5, and yes many are one or two.

 

Trouble is, in terms of moving the AA scheme forward, I don't beleive we can have any distinction between companies / firms having less than 5, in a sense it's academic...what's important IMO is recognising the 'less than 5s', whihc we don't really do currently, and addressing this.

 

Hope I've not missed your point?

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

were four and AAAC:thumbup1: