Rupe

Exactly Adam, that's why the contractor has to do more to protect the public, because they are idiots, and cyclists (not all of course) are capable of being idiots as well. I've been cycling for 30 plus years and I'm a total ****! I'd have cycled round that worksite with no intention of stopping for the inept groundie. Incidentally he (the groundie) isn't really meant to stop traffic anyway. Two groundies with full sleeve vests and stop go boards are required, so he's lucky the van stopped.

To be fair mick you weren't the cyclist in the video.

Well put. The work site looks ok really, only ok, not great. But however it's set up, if the cyclist got injured then it's the contractors fault. It's quite simple. If he did EVERYTHING to make it safe then he won't be liable but he has definately not done everything. If the cyclist road between the cones and got hit then it would still be the contractors fault.

Probably doesnt.

Not the cyclist fault at all!!! The set up was not good, one groundie in the road AT the work area (not 10m before) is not sufficient. Plus he has a HI VIZ vest without sleeves so thats not suitable on a highway. If you want branches to land in you work area then use a lowering rope! Climber can lower small stuff himself. The fact that the cyclist got that far shows the workers were wrong, and if it had hit him they would have lost any claim made against them. PLus theres very little in the way of barriers, one at either end and some tape? Cones are not sufficient, Its never possible to barrier off a whole site but some barriers would be usefull and they could have been put in the road while the branches were being dropped. Its difficult for the groundies to watch for cyclist and pedestrians on his own, so barrier or more ground crew would help. All in all it looked amatuer ish to me, but probably a contract won cheap. Ultimatly no one got hurt so its not a problem, carry on, but dont be daft enough to think thats the cyclist fault.

I'm not saying that you said anything of the sort. I'm really trying to answer the queries to the original poster, and I'm agreeign with you your way is good. And then I'm saying small print etc is not a good idea, but only to point out that putting it in the quote is a good idea!

My last post above is in response to yaffle trees post.

A good firm NO goes a long way. But you may have misunderstood me, I think the good customers would (in some cases) be upset to sign some kind of contract, and the bad ones will just go with someone else who doesnt have a contract, so t&c's are a bit pointless IMO. If you ever meet someone you just dont want to work for then put them off by pulling out a contract that they have to sign, but not for every single person you work for. But the quote shoudl be specific about what your going to do and if they ask for extras that mess up your day (2hrs is bit more than a favour) then you need to tell them how much extra thats going to cost. My usual method is to say we can do the extra work but it would mean I would have to cancel my next £200 job that I was going to fit in that day so if they are happy to cover that then I'll do it. they usually say no! Of course I only say that when I dont like them enough to do any extra work, if I did like them (and their tea and cakes) and I had time I woudl do it for maybe a few quid extra or nothing at all. So I dont think you need to get them to sign anything unless you are really unsure about them, but you do need the work written down and explained well in a quote, if you email them the quotes and ask them to e mail you back with a yes if they want you to go ahead, then their email will count as an acceptance of your quote. I do sometimes get a bit annoyed with customers who I have emailed a quote to then phoning me on my mobile to accept but with some alterations/ommisions and I often ask to please write it all in an email, not because I dont trust them (I dont) but because I'm "up a tree" or "walking the dog" and dont have a pen!!

He's in France though? Nothing to do with us what he advocates.

Yes, I'm agreeing with you that it is perfectly acceptable to put terms like that in as part of the quotation, especially as its been discussed while quoting. What I was sceptical about was having t&c's sent along with the quote that contains a section relating to nesting birds. What customers would call "the small print". If you look at a job, give a price and then back out due to birds and try and point out a paragraph in your terms and conditions thats says you want paying then I think (rightly) you would be laughed at. With tree work you have to complete the work to get paid, anything else is a fail. Its quite simple, if you dont think the work is correct for the time of year then put that in your quote and maybe it would be best not to accept the work, but if you get it and they have agreed to pay you to not complete it then fair enough. Them signing that they have read some blanket t&c's wont help much. IMO.

It would be ok for a silky but not a chainsaw. But for a silky a small retractable dog (or cat) lead would do the same for a fraction of the cost. Bungees for silkys to be avoided at all costs though!!!

So in that case you can write those terms into the quotation, rather than on a seperate t&C's. Thats quite normal, any problem that came up during the site visit should be written into the quote, so if they want a hedge fell in summer and you say about birds and then add that into the quote then thats fine. But you cant really have a t&c that stated you will charge for incompleted work due to nesting birds. It would be upto you to plan the work around nesting season or survey the trees for nests beforehand where possible. Thats why most site clearance happen in jan/feb/march. If the client insists on it being done in summer then you can add as many clauses as you like to the quote or just put in a higher price.

I have a terms and conditions but have never used it. If I met someone who I thought needed to be told the t&c's then I probably wouldnt want to work for them but work is work. Trouble is that kind of person will always go with the cheapest quote and from the company that doesnt do a t&c's, so by using t&c's you are going to lose the customers that want to mess you around an potentially upsetting those that never would mess you around. As for "while your here" and "can you just" I dotn mind doing extra things if they can be done within the time that I planned to be on that job, AND as long as the debris from them doesnt take up space on the truck that might prevent us from fitting the next job in. I'm quite happy to say NO, but if they made tea etc. and asked nicely then extras can be done. I do however write proper quotes that explain exactly what we do, and I'm not the cheapest around so I guess anyone getting me to do the work isnt going to be too much of a pain but yes it does happen. T&C's wont make much or any difference in a small claims court. A written quote is all thats needed really, unless you t&C's are written by a lawyer then they are unlilkely to help but if you try and contract get customers to sign somethign beforehand you'll lose the good ones and the bad ones IMO. There has to be an element of handshake/trust (for domestic work) this is a service industry, but the back up of a decent quote is needed these days, and evidence that the work has been done but no quote is no good in a claims court. So if you are felling a tree, a quote saying "fell oak tree £300" is not much good. Try and elaborate more on what you are going to do. "we would dismantle the Oak tree and remove to ground level, taking care not to damage the lawn £300" sounds a lot better IMO. But then its important to stick to your side too. I know a lot of firms who quote for a dismantle/rigging job and then on the day they stunt fell it in half the time and expect the customer to pay the same amount. It works both ways, deliver waht you said you would do and the customer should (hopefully) do the same.

Employees don't need to take a hit. It's not a team effort. The boss needs a team but he's the manager not a team member. My old boss used to say that we are all in the same boat! I said no we are not, I can go and get in another boat whenever I want and I did as soon as his boat starting sinking!

What do you mean by risk? I used the word risk earlier and I meant financial risk. So a self employed climber sets their own rates, day rate or fixed for individual jobs, and if they set them too high they then "risk" not having future work/income. Whereas an employee doesnt take on that risk, they are employed and once past any trial period they are on contract which can be broken by dismissal (subject to proper procedure) or redundancy if work dries up. In this instance the word risk is totally different to the risk of the job itself, i.e. the dangers. This is another big confusion. The word risk is used by insurance companies, they say "who takes the risk of the job". And by this they mean the financial risk of it not going well (taking two days instead of one) that is what risk is in this instance and you do not need insurance for it.

Was the worst thing I've heard on the radio for ages, total idiots talking rubbish and being of no help at all, but it was what 99% of the country will have wanted to hear and they will have forgotten it by now anyway. ALL that was really said was "chainsaws are dangerous". If the public continue to think that then thats fine for us. It really doesnt matter that she said some saws are designed to be used one handed, we know waht she meant, they are one handed of necessary but there was no point her talking about work position and all that stuff.

Remember the boss doesnt pay people when on holiday, he simply spreads their money out over a year so they still get the same amount while on holiday. Now, in this case you need to know if he intends to pay you or not. And if he does pay you then is he expecting the days to come out of your holiday entitlement or not. He is NOT allowed to pay you nothing! He IS allowed to make you take it out of your holiday or to make up the time throughout the year. As you have only just started you dont know what kind of person he is. If (throughought a year) you never get a penny for any hours worked past 3.30 (I dont believe you will be packed away and finished by 3.30 every day) then making you lose holiday time would be really unfair. If however you never get paid any overtime but he pays you the snow time and calls it quits then thats better. If you get paid for every hour of overtime you work then you are very lucky and if you lose some holiday when it snows then fair enough. So you need to see how it all pans out rather than take this one event too seriously. We all know the bosses dont get paid if the work is not getting done but they are the ones with freedom to do waht they want and they take the "risk" on jobs that dont go to plan. That risk does not get passed down to employees, they need paying whatever happens and if he's losing too much to snow then some better vehicles would be a good investment.

Every employer (good or bad) needs to be making profit on each persons work, thats normal. He coudl be making 2-300 out of him. The employee only needs to getting a good living wage and holidays etc and his tax paid, and then the employer is free and moraly free, to make as much profit as he wants.

If you could get through a year or two on this fake self employed basis then you would be well set to get a proper job or take on your own work but I doubt you will make it that long at that rate. YOu could tell him that he needs to pay your tax, but he wont and you'll be out of work.

Your about right. The self employed thing has many grey areas, working for 2 people wont really count as self employed, working for one upto 80% of your time and then 20 others a year might be better. And if you charge the same per day, day in and day out, then thats not good. But ultimatly if you are in charge of who you work for and when (you have a diary and people book you in advance for specific job for example) then you can be self employed, and as long as the tax is paid then its not too much of an issue.

Not read all this but if you price jobs against other people then it could be safe to assume that the job goes to the one that underpriced it the most. I ahve often thought that every yellow pages derived job must go to the one who made a mistake with the pricing, so thats a whole market share of work lost to underpricing. All these jobs mentioned in this thread would have gone to someone else if you had all priced it correctly and put in a correct price and in most cases the correct price wont win the job.

This is yet another case of someone who thinks they are a "subby" but is actually being shafted by an employer that doesnt want to employ anyone. Five days a week for the same person is NOT self employment, your boss should take you on with an employment contract. Self employment means that you get your work from wherever you choose and you choose the rates. So if you have 5 companies that you work for you might choose to charge one more than others, or if one gives you better/more work then you might charge them less. And if you put your price up with one company a bit too much and they stop using you then at least you have all the others. Self employment means it is you setting the rates, but you also have some "risk" for your future income if you mess anybody around or try and charge too much. Workign for one person 5 days a week is not right. If you put your prices up and he says no thanks and gets someone else then your screwed, the next guy he gets at £60 a day is screwed and so it goes on. the only person benefitting is the guy your working for and employment law says he is not allowed to benefit from others in that way, its immoral and plain wrong. But our indusrty seems to be more interested in who insured, or whos done a risk assessment or who got loler when in fact the industry is wrotten at it core due so many keen lads who think they are getting somewhere by this kind of employment. IMO a self employed climber (ro groundie for that matter) needs 5years of experience full time with a company and be so good at their job that they can get work anywhere, and so they go self employed and see what they can earn. A much better description is freelance, your free to go and work wherever you choose. And everyone wants to be a climber? Whats that all about? Groundies, I agree, are worth more.

I can see the appeal of driving, definately! My last flying trip has made me think twice about it and I don't have kids to deal with as well. If you've done it before them you know where is best. Some of the tour operators give a discount for not flying. I went with ski Olympic and there was a couple in the chalet who had driven over. But Olympic are not great IMO.

If your driving then no part of the Alps is magically closer than any other!!! An easy drive would be calais or paris at a push. Loads of good chalets all over the "alps" but best to actually decide on a resort that suits your style, your skiing and your budget, closeness is not really a factor as its cheaper to fly, train is next best and driving is fun if you want to make it part of the holiday but expensive if you want to just rush to get there. Just go with a basic tour operator like Neilson, simples, no frills.

I've not read all this thread. Lance Arstrong was the best/fittest/strongest and most dedicated to his sport of ALL the cheating drug users in that era. If he hadnt done all the training that he did then he wouldnt have won and so another person (or persons) would now be takign the wrap for the cheating. Its cheating yes, I agree, and I agree they should all be stripped of titles and their respective positions but should Lance take the wrap for all of them? Not sure about that. He was just the best cyclist in the world during a bad period in the sport. He still had to train and work as hard as anybody else, no different to the work that wiggins put in last year, and he is a supreme athlete. Without the drugs he would have come about 20th each year in the tour and no one would ever have heard of him. Having said all that I am so glad that the sport has changed, and that the man whos name is no famous is British. I've gone out and bought a road bike again for the first time in years and I'm sure many others will take up the sport and hopefully drugs will or performance enhancers of any kind will no longer be the standard by which everyone is measured.