Paul Jenks

I've been with the FSB for 10+ years and have only had the need to use their services a few times. On these occasions they have provided me with good and timely advice. One of the main benefits is the free banking link with the Co-Op. The Co-Op service was a bit pony for the first year or so though they now seem to have sorted their software and access facilities. Most of our payments are Bacs and we have either 3 or 5 (don't recall exactly),nominated post offices to drop money into, so the girls in the office can do it on the way to or from work. Banks have to make money and as they are mostly PLC's they have to show increases year on year, which is why they look for new ways to make it. PPI is one of them along with LIBOR fixing. Historically, as I understand it, retail customers deposited money and the bank could then lend this to borrowers for a charge, interest. As this lending wheeze became more sophisticated they found they could lend much more than they held on deposit. I believe it was self-regulated at about 10%, i.e. If they had £100 on deposit, they could loan £1000. Over the last 15-20 years this figure came down to about 2%. This worked wonderfully for the banks, as they could lend more and therefore charge interest. It was 'great' for the borrowers as the banks were throwing money around. The crunch came when people began to default on the loans and there was not enough in the kitty to cover the losses. Governments are now endeavouring to get the figure back up to 8% though this will take some time as there is a vested interest for some banks and entire banking sectors to work at a lower figure for competitive advantage. The idea behind seperating the deposit and investment arms of banking is to insulate Joe Publics hard earned cash from the derivitives, hedge funds, speculation and debt bundles that lead to the mess in the first place. Co-Op is a steady and conservative bank. Lloyds used to be until it was pressured by the government into buying HBoS to prevent it failing. Most of the money created by QE has been swallowed up by the banks to re-inforce their balance sheets. Most seem to have forgotten about the powerhouse of the economy, small businesses, and it only the tenacity of the entrepenuer and those he or she employs that continues to keep the wheels of commerce rolling.

We stopped using Timbrel last year. I never liked it as it just smelled horribly 'wrong'. Always used to use Amcide. Now we use Ecoplugs. Yes they are quite pricey and we get through lots. They are very effective and easy to handle and use. Just pass the cost on.

I'd like to listen to Simon's responses, though firstly I cannot abide Jeremy Vine and his self-aggrandisement and secondly his hyperbole to sensationalize a subject that requires reflection and considered discussion.

My thoughts go to the guys and girls at Kew, too. This incident should not reflect badly on their professionalism.

I would say that for a decent 7.5 with a good steel chasis and a tipping body you would end up with a load capacity of 2.5-3 ton. Add a hiab and that'll come down quite a bit. If you go for a lighter built vehicle you'd get better capacity and it'll get beat to s**t in no time. I did see a tree surgeons van for sale a while ago and went to have a look thinking it was a 7.5 and it turned out to be a 3.5 with a hiab and a big tip body. Can't believe it was legal empty let alone with any load. Front axle would have been well over weight. If you run local jobs 2-2.5 tonnes is not too bad but to run backwards and forwards any distance you'd do better to get a 10.5

Not true. There are so many variables. Comparing like for like is ok, though even then leverage, wages, rent etc can skew costs. A weak climber and weak groundie would be cheap, and if they had top end gear they'd be expensive to run. Using sub-contractors with some of their own kit is a cheaper model as their are no training costs, holidays, NI etc. Too many variables. Look at your costs, add profit, new kit and screw-ups divide it into the number of days a year you wish to work. This may give you a fair indicator. Don't forget to factor time spent quoting, marketing, holidays, training and admin. FYI we look for £100k+

Not true. There are so many variables. Comparing like for like is ok, though even then leverage, wages, rent etc can skew costs. A weak climber and weak groundie would be cheap, and if they had top end gear they'd be expensive to run. Using sub-contractors with some of their own kit is a cheaper model as their are no training costs, holidays, NI etc. Too many variables. Look at your costs, add profit, new kit and screw-ups divide it into the number of days a year you wish to work. This may give you a fair indicator. Don't forget to factor time spent quoting, marketing, holidays, training and admin. FYI we look for £100k+

Not sure that would work, Johnny. When looked at in totality H&S is pretty daunting. It's best to break it down and start picking off easy wins, (PPE, LOLER checks, etc), then move on to the more in depth areas once you and your staff are aligned to thinking about it, (SSRA and method statements, tool box talks, training matrices) We used to invite the HSE rep into our yard and offices once a year for a good look round and we acted on his recommendations. Now the gits want to charge us for the privilage. Not the best way to get an industry sector on side.

Diatomaceous earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't mind working for family or friends. The rule is, 'It's free and I'll endeavour to get it done before Christmas, or you pay the market rate and we'll book you in.' I hate working for less than the job is worth. I really enjoy working for people I love, so better to do for nowt but a good meal and a quick snooze on their couch. Moan and I'm gone. Hasn't happened yet. (The moaning that is.)

You do need to find out who owns the land, as, by extension, they own the trees. Land registry should be able to help. It's worth getting in touch with the local highways authority too as these trees may have the potential to obstruct the highway if they fail. Tree owners have a duty of care to maintain the trees on their property where there is the potential to cause harm or damage to others or their property. Ignorance is no defence, and it helps your cause if you know who they are prior to any failures and you have the opportunity to ask them to carry out the works.

A cigarette lighter will sort those out

And whether the incident is reported, rectified, and dealt with in a culture of accountability rather than blame and aggression. I've wanted to punch people in the past and shied away from it as it ultimately doesn't solve a great deal (and generally hurts.)

Very true, Dean. That and the commercial realities of arboricultural contracting. How many sub-contractors on here would ring up and tell their next employer they'll not be in tomorrow as it looks like it might be wet? Do you think you'd get a call next week offering you work? If we, as an industry, sought to control or eliminate all the hazards associated with tree work nothing would get done. Wet weather creates a number of hazards. One only has to look at the road accident statistics spikes in wet weather to see. Should we not drive in the wet. We, sensible drivers, adapt our driving to the conditions. Arborists should do the same. If one persons control system is not to carry out aerial work that's fine. We don't have the luxury of or the inclination to build a sub-section to our business that allows for work redistribution in inclement weather. If someone chooses to work in an outdoor industry they should expect to have to work in all weathers. If they don't want to get wet, they can either get a desk job or set up their own business and ask Dean for the model. Happy days.

When I was employed by others I worked in the rain. (There was one company where I didn't as everyone else sat in the vans. What a dreary way to spend one's time.) Now I'm an employer I still work in the rain and expect others to also. 95% of our work is in trees above ground level so it's a little more challenging to reschedule to other types of work. As for greed and/or desperation, (and I read your comment that it's nothing personal, Dean), virtually all our profits go back into the business to develop the staff and give them a better working environment. Alas, most trees live outside and that is where they are when we work on them come rain or shine. In my view, there is about 8 weeks a year when it's actually pleasant to work on trees. 4 weeks in the autumn and 4 in the spring when it,s cool enough to appreciate ballistics yet warm enough to not get too cold whilst drinking a cup of tea, insects have either yet to emerge or have died off and there is good light to see clearly what your'e doing without being blinded. At all other times it's too hot, too cold, snowing, raining, foggy, windy, icey, muggy etc. I really don't mind all that much and I always carry spare clothes too, rain or shine.

Nice place to be. Pricing cock-ups aside, we have to be commercially viable for both profitability and competitiveness. We price accordingly to get the job done, not to get the job. Some we get, some we don't. If it's wet we commit the resources to get it done on time. If it's dry we can get it done and more or use less resource. With a long-term client relationship we work on a reasonable profit through the year. If we didn't deliver owing to wet weather we wouldn't be called upon to do the peachey jobs, in fact we wouldn't get called. I see you have developed a working model that you like. I have one that I like. Everyone gets hassle. It comes down to how one deals with perceived hassle that develop jaundiced views. I happen to thrive on the logistical, technical and managerial challenges of my company. My guys are happy, have a career path and work in the sun, wind and rain. (I give them sun cream and rain coats)

Great Dean. I too have a load of kit to maintain, and a load of staff to pay too. The choice is simple. Work in the rain or don't get paid. When the weather is really foul we moderate our expectations of what is acheivable. I'm guessing your business model is different to mine. If we have to line up NRSWA, OCC TMA, SSE and have lights camera action on a busy section of road with 8-10 guys, do you really think, 'Sorry everyone, looks like it might rain, we'll have to book everyone for another day. Do you mind if we reschedule?', is going to help our business?

Carelessness is a human trait. Some people are careless, some are careful and some don't seem to know the difference. Managing staff is always a balancing act as there are so many variables. On this particular topic I have a view. Things do get broken in everyday life, finger nails, pencil lead, cupboard handles etc. In tree work the scale of potential breakages is exponentially larger. Sometimes things just break, get damaged or lost. After analysis one can usually work out who or what was responsible for the system failure. If this is fed back into a learning process the hope is that it won't re-occur, or it'll be a long time before it does. Ever since I started employing people I have endeavoured to live by the mantra, 'Before pointing the finger, look at where the other three fingers are pointing.' Often there is a failing on my part to communicate with my staff that has lead to a breakage or loss. The other day we mislaid a grain shovel on a busy site. The clear up kit was left on the back of one of the vehicles and got covered in chip. I turned up on site and managed to dig out the rakes but not the shovel. I knew it was likely to be under the chip and would be easily retrieved when the chip was tipped. Next thing, cup of tea turns up, guy goes to tip off locally and I forget to tell the driver. Result: one mislaid shovel. Who is to blame? The site supervisor, the new start who was asked to get the kit off the truck or me for failing to communicate. (This is a rhetorical question.) I'm as much at fault as I was the last one in the chain of communication. When things get damaged falling out of a tree, whether it's a saw not tied on or an uncontrolled chog there is a safety issue. This has to be addressed and we have robust protocols for reporting so that training and managing performance processes either correct the issue or help the employee find alternative employment. The point here is developing a culture of accountability, ownership and responsibility. It has taken time to get and it starts from the top. A lot of business owners would have a less stressful life if they bought into the idea of working with their staff rather than begrudging the money they paid them each month. BTW. I also understand that there are times when an individuals are directly at fault for incidents and that some of these incidents are caused by carelessness and the individual is a complete cock.

Whether the weather is dry or whether the weather is not we'll weather the weather whatever the weather, whether we like it or not. Put on a coat and crack on.

Of course, if Huck is going to employ his lad for £2.50/hour, the poor blighter won't see any of it for several years until he's paid off his rent arrears. I'd rather be a climber at £8.5/hour than a postie, though postie's must be as hard as nails as they never seem to be bothered with PPE when they walk through a site. To join us a person has to be of the right calibre. Qualifications aren't a good indicator. They help, though they are often rendered invalid by exposure to the real world of commercial arboriculture. A reasonable starting wage would be £60/day for a rookie groundsman. A decent climber or team leader,(not necessarily a climber) should be on £100+/day. This is for FTE staff who are supplied with all the creature comforts, 20 days minimum holiday, (increasing by a day a year of service) + bank holidays, training, occassional days out to arb shows and team building events. A person is measured by their peers and by objective performance criteria. If anyone fails to deliver a reasonable work output they are managed to improve or exit.

We are sub-contractors to the main site maintenance contractors. They know some of the folk who work on the site can be a little challenging and so were quite apologetic when they came to us with the original issue. As it's a long standing and good relationship, we just worked the cost into future jobs. It's not a problem, it served as a good educative process for us and them. Ultimately we didn't loose.

Speak to a qualified insurance broker or two and they will be able to give you some professional advice and source the right product for you. If the sub-contractor is only used occasionally and has their own tools, you may be alright to rely on their insurance, though I would check this out and make sure to get copies of the original. If you use a subbie regularly then, I understand, you will need to have some form of ELI. Speak to HMRC about the legal position as far as the sub-contractor goes. Also make sure they have a CIS card so you don't get chased for their tax liabilities, which you will if they don't pay.

One site we regularly work on had an incident a few years ago. We got stiffed for two car valets at £100 each. Thereafter, on any of their sites the car park we work in has to be empty or we'll not carry out the works on the day of operations and charge for the delay. This does mean that sometimes we work on a Saturday. They pay for the overtime, happy days. Education is a two way street. (Pun intended).

There may be too much grease in the head. I always dribble a bit of petrol over the blades prior to running up as they can get quite bound up with sap. The petrol breaks it down quite well. Obviously don't do this over the clients grass, shrub bed, tarmac drive etc etc.

There are certain events where mechanical failure in the first bit af a race is an acceptable reason for a restart. Knowing the rules is one of the keystones of competing, like getting to the start on time. What the cyclist did and what the lightweight double did was within the rules and you can see by the results and the physical state of them at the end of the race that they worked as hard as they possibly could. The badminton situation addresses the spirit of the olympics. I'll agree that a situation where, by winning a round, you get a trickier draw shouldn't arise and that is something that the IOC should address. However, the relentless serving into the net by the badminton players was at best niave. Their coaches should have known better and the spectators, who, let it be said, are a fundamental part of The Olympic Games, deserved to be treated with more respect than they were and they pretty quickly picked up on the poor performance. To be recognised as the best in a sport you have to beat anyone and everyone on the day of competition. As for Chambers, the UKAA did ban him and fought long and hard to keep him banned. He got back in on a legal, international technicality. Whether he is booed out of the stadium or cheered to the rafters is a decision for the spectators in the stadium at the time of his performance.