"Debilitating"
"Unsustainable"
"Obstructive"
“Pettifogging”
“Damaging”
“Unworkable”
“Unrealistic”
“Bureaucratic”
Employment rights and taxation make the jump to employing someone VERY costly. Between the amount of time required to be spent sorting contracts, PAYE, holidays, training and recruiting/administering staff - it looks easier to DIY
Anon
Picture the scene. Businesses around the country, closed for the holidays from mid July to early September thanks to annualised hours and the outcome: GB Ltd files for bankruptcy. Will someone ask Trevor Phillips, when his dream comes true and all businesses close down for the summer in order to accommodate working parents, who is going to answer the phones?
F W Harris
Why is most red tape totally biased towards the employee and never towards the employer. Business owners are constantly walking on egg shells, terrified of offending their workers. I heard a story of an owner of a large company walking past a room where a woman employee was trying to move heavy furniture. He stopped and told her to hang on whilst he went to get some guys to help her. She is suing the company for discrimination. Need I say more?
Sylvia Tidy-Harris - MD of T.H.Entertainment Ltd.
The step from a one man band to having employees is huge even without lots of red tape involved - recruitment, trust, new systems to cope with employees in general, etc. The additional burden of all the red tape that suddenly applies means that although I can expand, I don't bother. With some kind of flexibility I would have tried to see if it worked out, but given all the extra red tape that applies, my first hire would have to be someone to deal with all the additional red tape and systems. And that means it's just not worth it. I've spoken with a few entrepreneurs who have mad that shift. And basically they all have in common that they just went ahead ignoring all the red tape, figuring that they would deal with that later. So you take a huge risk - if successful you can "back fill" the paperwork, systems, etc, and since your first few employees work really closely with you, you can head off any problems that in a larger company would end up going through formal procedures or tribunals. It's a level of risk that I'm not comfortable to take - why should I since I can tick the business over without it. So the end result is that I'm comfortable, but the country misses out on a potentially larger business and several more jobs. Not an issue if it's just me. But if a few hundred thousand feel the same way (likely given the millions of one-man bands in the economy), red tape is costing the country billions of pounds and millions of jobs.
Jack Shirazi
Increasing amounts of Health & Safety legislation seems to be driven by box ticking and the need to protect your backside in case of litigation. In many ways this hinders genuine attempts to improve the health and safety of the workplace. The regulations are often put forward with the best intentions as guidelines or best practice, but end up being gold plated and cast in concrete to provide ammunition for the next "no win no fee" lawyer to pick up. I have a small office with 4 staff, and we will often pop into the local supermarket to buy some household detergent and bleach for the staff toilet. I have just been reprimanded by a H&S auditor for not undertaking a suitable risk assessment and retaining COSH assessments on these items. Apparently everyday household items that can be bought in the high street by anyone of any age without any controls, become dangerous and noxious chemicals when brought into the workplace. Can we have a bit of common sense please!
Anon
Recently, trying to update our maternity policy I waded through the DTI (now called BERR) web site. Having completed the task I was directed to 'Other Entitlements' which included parental leave and the right to request flexible working. In the case of the former the 'right' exists for parents with children up to the age of five; for the latter entitlement the child can be aged up to six. All these rules are complicated enough but surely those making the rules can try to keep them as simple as possible by making them consistent. Is it any surprise business managers are frustrated?
Anon
All these employment rights are mainly given under the banner of equality. There doesn’t seem to be any equality in who pays for them. Could somebody tell me how it can be good business for a business not only to deal with disruption caused by maternity leave, but to then have to pay someone whilst they go to anti-natal classes and, when they are on leave, pay them for holidays, any other benefits they had and, within a few years, pension contributions when the person is not even contributing to the company and may not return from maternity leave?
Anon
Last week I asked my local tax office to de-register my business from the construction Industry Scheme (CIS). This is after I received an update letter telling me of penalties for nil return late filing will be automatic. I already spend a lot of time dealing with various government department affairs. Why should I be collecting tax on the government’s behalf? I would rather loose the business than lose any hard won profits of this business in penalties. More businesses should complain about the burden of red tape and the draconian measures and penalties imposed on small business. Congratulations on this new site. I have been asking the FSB and the FPB to do such a site.
M J Namih
On a similar note to the earlier posting, I was told this by a friend who used to work for Our Price records at Heathrow Airport. A Jamaican lady had bought a faulty CD in Jamaica and wanted to change it at Our Price. My friend explained that as she had not bought the CD from his company that she needed to go "back where she came from" to exchange the CD. He meant of course she needed to return to the place where she bought the CD. She took the comment as offensive and my friend was disciplined for being racially abusive. He failed to win his appeal and resigned soon afterwards
Anon
We employed a lady for many years and fell over ourselves to accommodate her requirements for changes in working hours as her children grew up. Despite the inconvenience we went from full time to part time then back to full time and back to full time. There came a point when the work required a permanent full-time employee. We offered her the job but she declined it because she wanted the flexibility. With much regret, therefore, we had to terminate her employment in order to take on a full-time employee. Everything was done by the book. She took us to ACAS for unfair dismissal. I contacted ACAS and was advised there was no point in contesting the claim because she was bound to win. Off the record I was advised that our "mistake" had been to be so flexible in the first place - apparently we should have fired her as soon as she asked for part time hours on the first occasion. ACAS advised us to settle out of court. We did and decided never to be flexible ever again to our employees. Whatever lunatic thought the system up should be made to run a business with his house as the bank's security as a reward. They haven't got a clue!
Dr John Benussi, Director Russell Benussi Associates
We run a care home for adults with a learning disability and/or challenging behaviour, our registered body CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspections) have this wonderful idea of how to make more money as their budget has been cut, they are also due to be axed in 2009/10. They want every care home owner large or small to re-register completely, new business plan etc just to open a new home or in our case, to move from one house to another clients and staff to remain the same and of course to pay the fee again. This is regulations gone mad, we need this like a hole in the head. Care is about the only business where there is not benchmarking in place, care is a growth industry but we do not have much of a voice, the people in care have but not the providers.
Anon