This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I've been asked by a friend of mine, who works in the marketing dept of a national transport company, to supply some images for an upcoming online campaign. I was chuffed to bits as you never know where these leads can end up, ....however ....in order to get paid I have to fill in the usual forms with bank/public liability etc etc. This is fine but in addition to all this they require, ISO 9001, an auditable H&S policy, and an auditable CSR plan ( corp social responsibility) and while I'm sure large contractors and suppliers can absorb these costs, small business and sole traders find it uneconomical to conform.
The resulting situation means that large business pays massively inflated prices for goods and services and small businesses, entrepreneurs, and sole traders are excluded from opportunities that would be beneficial to both.
Are we now not drowning under the weight of paper and regulation, snuffing out any chance of new ideas and competition and making us uncompetitive ............oh well, guess I'll just have to jog on,,,,, just saying tho
The resulting situation means that large business pays massively inflated prices for goods and services and small businesses, entrepreneurs, and sole traders are excluded from opportunities that would be beneficial to both.
Are we now not drowning under the weight of paper and regulation, snuffing out any chance of new ideas and competition and making us uncompetitive ............oh well, guess I'll just have to jog on,,,,, just saying tho
3
In reply to paulh.0776:
It is absurd that small businesses have exactly the same regulatory framework as large businesses. Politicians and civil servants have no idea about the reality of running a small business, or all the minutiae that their HR and finance departments take care of that small business owners have to do themselves.
I'm firmly convinced that it is not in fact possible to run a small business and stay technically legal - there are just too many rules to follow.
It is absurd that small businesses have exactly the same regulatory framework as large businesses. Politicians and civil servants have no idea about the reality of running a small business, or all the minutiae that their HR and finance departments take care of that small business owners have to do themselves.
I'm firmly convinced that it is not in fact possible to run a small business and stay technically legal - there are just too many rules to follow.
7
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
A friend who worked for a large charity said they faced the same issues and followed a policy called something like "reasonable endeavour" or such like (Some MBA speak term). IE. They consciously acknowledged that would break laws and regulations but tried to follow the main ones and the spirit of legislation in attempt to balance the ability to run the charity with the risk of breaking a regulation they didn't know about.
> I'm firmly convinced that it is not in fact possible to run a small business and stay technically legal - there are just too many rules to follow.
A friend who worked for a large charity said they faced the same issues and followed a policy called something like "reasonable endeavour" or such like (Some MBA speak term). IE. They consciously acknowledged that would break laws and regulations but tried to follow the main ones and the spirit of legislation in attempt to balance the ability to run the charity with the risk of breaking a regulation they didn't know about.
3
In reply to paulh.0776:
Is there really a law that states you have to be ISO9001 compliant in order to trade with another company? Similarly with regard to the CSR?
Is there really a law that states you have to be ISO9001 compliant in order to trade with another company? Similarly with regard to the CSR?
2
In reply to paulh.0776:
Usually there is a way round these things and I often find that by asking somebody comes up with an answer. I deal with global companys and they always ask for such things 1st off, and then they always find a way to get round it.
Suggest you just say its payment up front via credit card ( assuming you do this) and that usually gets rid of the paperwork.
Usually there is a way round these things and I often find that by asking somebody comes up with an answer. I deal with global companys and they always ask for such things 1st off, and then they always find a way to get round it.
Suggest you just say its payment up front via credit card ( assuming you do this) and that usually gets rid of the paperwork.
In reply to ByEek:
It sounds more like a company policy than a government regulation to me...
> Is there really a law that states you have to be ISO9001 compliant in order to trade with another company? Similarly with regard to the CSR?
It sounds more like a company policy than a government regulation to me...
5
In reply to paulh.0776:
That's not regulations, commercial decision on part of other company. Apart from ISO, probably all things you could write yourself after a wee bit of googling.
That's not regulations, commercial decision on part of other company. Apart from ISO, probably all things you could write yourself after a wee bit of googling.
1
In reply to paulh.0776:
They probably deal with a ton of people, freelancers, sole traders etc who don't meet the requirements of the form. Have a word with them, or get your contact to.
They probably deal with a ton of people, freelancers, sole traders etc who don't meet the requirements of the form. Have a word with them, or get your contact to.
1
In reply to paulh.0776:
I get this kind of thing fairly regularly. Usually these supplier questionnaires come from purchasing in the big company and are one-size-fits-all but once they realise it is a low value transaction they don't really care if you miss out a question or write something not completely responsive. Sometimes you need to get the guy who wants to buy from you to argue with them.
The other approach is to be a subcontractor and put a larger company with the processes between you and the customer or sell through a website so the customer's purchasing people are not involved.
I get this kind of thing fairly regularly. Usually these supplier questionnaires come from purchasing in the big company and are one-size-fits-all but once they realise it is a low value transaction they don't really care if you miss out a question or write something not completely responsive. Sometimes you need to get the guy who wants to buy from you to argue with them.
The other approach is to be a subcontractor and put a larger company with the processes between you and the customer or sell through a website so the customer's purchasing people are not involved.
1
In reply to ByEek:
No, it's an accreditation system, a short cut for business checking that you are meeting legal and regulatory requirements.
No, it's an accreditation system, a short cut for business checking that you are meeting legal and regulatory requirements.
In reply to neilh:
Thanks Neil, I have spoken to them to try and find a way round things but I'm not hopeful. They have systems and you see....
Thanks Neil, I have spoken to them to try and find a way round things but I'm not hopeful. They have systems and you see....
In reply to paulh.0776:
I suspect they are pulling the wool over your eyes.Everybody has systems including national transport companys for paying small accounts quickly.Ask to speak to somebody higher up the chain.
I suspect they are pulling the wool over your eyes.Everybody has systems including national transport companys for paying small accounts quickly.Ask to speak to somebody higher up the chain.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Regulation is either necessary or not. If it isn't necessary for small businesses then it isn't necessary for larger ones and it should be removed altogether rather than just exempting businesses below some arbitrary size.
> It is absurd that small businesses have exactly the same regulatory framework as large businesses. Politicians and civil servants have no idea about the reality of running a small business, or all the minutiae that their HR and finance departments take care of that small business owners have to do themselves.
> I'm firmly convinced that it is not in fact possible to run a small business and stay technically legal - there are just too many rules to follow.
Regulation is either necessary or not. If it isn't necessary for small businesses then it isn't necessary for larger ones and it should be removed altogether rather than just exempting businesses below some arbitrary size.
In reply to timjones:
I will give you a specific example where improvements have been made. This is in respect of employment disputes, where employees now have to contribute upfront to the cost of a dispute. Its something like £500.Until a year ago it was a free for all.
Apparently the number of disputes has dramatically reduced as "try on" claims have been killed off overnight ( and employment law solicitors are now twiddling their thumbs).
I will give you a specific example where improvements have been made. This is in respect of employment disputes, where employees now have to contribute upfront to the cost of a dispute. Its something like £500.Until a year ago it was a free for all.
Apparently the number of disputes has dramatically reduced as "try on" claims have been killed off overnight ( and employment law solicitors are now twiddling their thumbs).
In reply to timjones:
As noted above, this is not 'Regulation', but rather the Company's procurement procedure.
As also noted above, the rules can normally be bent/ waived for special cases.
(I'd just advise filling in the questionnaire, and putting 'N/A' against the things the OP cannot comply with.
They get their piece of paper, the OP gets the gig.)
> Regulation is either necessary or not. If it isn't necessary for small businesses then it isn't necessary for larger ones and it should be removed altogether rather than just exempting businesses below some arbitrary size.
As noted above, this is not 'Regulation', but rather the Company's procurement procedure.
As also noted above, the rules can normally be bent/ waived for special cases.
(I'd just advise filling in the questionnaire, and putting 'N/A' against the things the OP cannot comply with.
They get their piece of paper, the OP gets the gig.)
Post edited at 16:06
In reply to neilh:
Or possibly bad employeers now know that their poorly paid workers can't afford to stand up for there rights?
> Apparently the number of disputes has dramatically reduced as "try on" claims have been killed off overnight ( and employment law solicitors are now twiddling their thumbs).
Or possibly bad employeers now know that their poorly paid workers can't afford to stand up for there rights?
3
2
In reply to paulh.0776:
I run a small business. Every now and then we found out we broke a law here or a regulation there. It's pretty scary.
I run a small business. Every now and then we found out we broke a law here or a regulation there. It's pretty scary.
In reply to Indy:
Yup. Its going to be somewhere in the middle but which side is most disadvantaged is anyones guess.
> Or possibly bad employeers now know that their poorly paid workers can't afford to stand up for there rights?
Yup. Its going to be somewhere in the middle but which side is most disadvantaged is anyones guess.
In reply to timjones:
That's nonsense. If nothing else, the huge majority of so called small businesses are either self employed or small family run businesses - they emphatically do NOT need the same regulation as, say Tescos.
Regulation is as much about a) politicians pulling leavers so they think they're achieving something, b) civil servants gleefully implementing things to give themselves a sense of purpose, however impractical their rules may be, and c) big companies implementing regulations enthusiastically to create barriers to competitors entering the market, who can't afford their infrastructure. That's how it works; that's what the OP is up against.
FWIW I am a great enthusiast for H & S, but the million plus small businesses truly are ground down by the weight of regulations and paper (have you any idea how much documentation I am supposed to wade through to be in top of VAT? Thought not) when there could often be a better and simpler way. But how many politicians or civil servants have ever experienced running small business themselves? Close to zero would be my guess.
That's nonsense. If nothing else, the huge majority of so called small businesses are either self employed or small family run businesses - they emphatically do NOT need the same regulation as, say Tescos.
Regulation is as much about a) politicians pulling leavers so they think they're achieving something, b) civil servants gleefully implementing things to give themselves a sense of purpose, however impractical their rules may be, and c) big companies implementing regulations enthusiastically to create barriers to competitors entering the market, who can't afford their infrastructure. That's how it works; that's what the OP is up against.
FWIW I am a great enthusiast for H & S, but the million plus small businesses truly are ground down by the weight of regulations and paper (have you any idea how much documentation I am supposed to wade through to be in top of VAT? Thought not) when there could often be a better and simpler way. But how many politicians or civil servants have ever experienced running small business themselves? Close to zero would be my guess.
12
In reply to paulh.0776:
My partner and I run a small business and we're almost entirely unhampered by red tape beyond tax reporting requirements. One of the companies we work with does have a set of preferred supplier requirements, but despite being on the preferred supplier list, we haven't done anything about the various policies we're supposed to have in place, and it hasn't affected our working relationship at all.
My partner and I run a small business and we're almost entirely unhampered by red tape beyond tax reporting requirements. One of the companies we work with does have a set of preferred supplier requirements, but despite being on the preferred supplier list, we haven't done anything about the various policies we're supposed to have in place, and it hasn't affected our working relationship at all.
In reply to neilh:
I'm a bit confused by your reply. I never said regulations were all bad. I merely suggested that necessary regulations should be applied to all businesses regardless of their size.
> I will give you a specific example where improvements have been made. This is in respect of employment disputes, where employees now have to contribute upfront to the cost of a dispute. Its something like £500.Until a year ago it was a free for all.
> Apparently the number of disputes has dramatically reduced as "try on" claims have been killed off overnight ( and employment law solicitors are now twiddling their thumbs).
I'm a bit confused by your reply. I never said regulations were all bad. I merely suggested that necessary regulations should be applied to all businesses regardless of their size.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Why you think that Tesco should be subjected to more onerous regulations than smaller businesses?
As a small family farm business I am more than aware of the weight of regulation on small businesses think you. However where regulation is unecessary I believe it should be reviewed for all businesses. Where it is necessary I can see no reason to exempt small businesses.
> That's nonsense. If nothing else, the huge majority of so called small businesses are either self employed or small family run businesses - they emphatically do NOT need the same regulation as, say Tescos.
Why you think that Tesco should be subjected to more onerous regulations than smaller businesses?
> Regulation is as much about a) politicians pulling leavers so they think they're achieving something, b) civil servants gleefully implementing things to give themselves a sense of purpose, however impractical their rules may be, and c) big companies implementing regulations enthusiastically to create barriers to competitors entering the market, who can't afford their infrastructure. That's how it works; that's what the OP is up against.
> FWIW I am a great enthusiast for H & S, but the million plus small businesses truly are ground down by the weight of regulations and paper (have you any idea how much documentation I am supposed to wade through to be in top of VAT? Thought not) when there could often be a better and simpler way. But how many politicians or civil servants have ever experienced running small business themselves? Close to zero would be my guess.
As a small family farm business I am more than aware of the weight of regulation on small businesses think you. However where regulation is unecessary I believe it should be reviewed for all businesses. Where it is necessary I can see no reason to exempt small businesses.
2
In reply to paulh.0776:
Don´t sell anything to a US govt department then, if you haven´t got an IRS number then clearly one is a front man for a disturbing regime so questions will be asked. A lot of questions.
Don´t sell anything to a US govt department then, if you haven´t got an IRS number then clearly one is a front man for a disturbing regime so questions will be asked. A lot of questions.
In reply to paulh.0776:
Come on dont give up!
you can knock these up no problem. CSR is a pretty simple, the iso 9001 is waffle really, the H&S plan shouldnt be too hard if you're relatively low risk, small company with few staff. Public liability is one you can't dodge.
This stuff is a ball ache, but dont let it put you off, unfortunately although we climbers dont mind a bit of risk, and sticking our neck out the average punter doesn't, they like safe, particularly if it covers their arse as well!
This could be your chance go for it!
Come on dont give up!
you can knock these up no problem. CSR is a pretty simple, the iso 9001 is waffle really, the H&S plan shouldnt be too hard if you're relatively low risk, small company with few staff. Public liability is one you can't dodge.
This stuff is a ball ache, but dont let it put you off, unfortunately although we climbers dont mind a bit of risk, and sticking our neck out the average punter doesn't, they like safe, particularly if it covers their arse as well!
This could be your chance go for it!
In reply to timjones:
<sigh>
You're a farmer.
Can you tell me how the regulations regarding MHS inspection introduced in the 1990s were unnecessary and/or fair to *both* low- and high-throughput abattoirs? You can base your answer on the number of low-throughput, high welfare, pre-stun abattoirs you *think* survived.
Not an exciting example, but at least one with which you should be able to identify.
<sigh>
You're a farmer.
Can you tell me how the regulations regarding MHS inspection introduced in the 1990s were unnecessary and/or fair to *both* low- and high-throughput abattoirs? You can base your answer on the number of low-throughput, high welfare, pre-stun abattoirs you *think* survived.
Not an exciting example, but at least one with which you should be able to identify.
1
In reply to Zoro:
Actually, he may be better off doing just that. In dealing with large organisations, both private and public, you can spend as much time jumping through all the hoops as you do actually carrying out the work they need. Then you have to wait 6 months to a year for your invoice to be paid. If you're only doing a one-off job worth less than a £1k it's not worth it. Life's too short to be dealing with all that hassle when there are plenty of smaller organisations run by sane individuals who'll stick to the basic commonsense requirements and pay invoices within a few months.
> Come on dont give up!
Actually, he may be better off doing just that. In dealing with large organisations, both private and public, you can spend as much time jumping through all the hoops as you do actually carrying out the work they need. Then you have to wait 6 months to a year for your invoice to be paid. If you're only doing a one-off job worth less than a £1k it's not worth it. Life's too short to be dealing with all that hassle when there are plenty of smaller organisations run by sane individuals who'll stick to the basic commonsense requirements and pay invoices within a few months.
In reply to paulh.0776:
Having be on both sides of the fence, ie corporate and own business. I would say they are asking to much, ie ISO 9001 and HSE plan, for some great pictures?
For me it's all about risk management and this needs to be a dynamic approach, ie what is the risk to our business and what will our customers think ? Once this is understood, you apply a suitable level of control. Assess this to low and you may get an expensive or business threatening shock. Assess this to high then you will reject low cost providers and pay over the odds.
IMHO the people you are dealing with have gone OTT and it does not make good business sense for you to create all the requested paperwork - as to getting ISO 9001 accreditation, well that's showing how nieve or narrow minded they are.
I hope you can broker a more straightforward deal.
HTH Davey
Having be on both sides of the fence, ie corporate and own business. I would say they are asking to much, ie ISO 9001 and HSE plan, for some great pictures?
For me it's all about risk management and this needs to be a dynamic approach, ie what is the risk to our business and what will our customers think ? Once this is understood, you apply a suitable level of control. Assess this to low and you may get an expensive or business threatening shock. Assess this to high then you will reject low cost providers and pay over the odds.
IMHO the people you are dealing with have gone OTT and it does not make good business sense for you to create all the requested paperwork - as to getting ISO 9001 accreditation, well that's showing how nieve or narrow minded they are.
I hope you can broker a more straightforward deal.
HTH Davey
1
In reply to Martin not maisie:
For crying out loud Martin, why don't you consider what I'm saying instead of trying to drag up old disagreements!
If a regulation is necessary, then it is needed for both large and small businesses. You cannot entirely exempt small businesses. You may be able to come up with simpler systems that ease the administrative burden for smaller businesses.
FWIW I personally was dealing with 2 low-throughput abattoirs in the early '90s. One is still in business, the other took the decision to close down, the final straw that broke the camels back was a total arsehole of a vet.
> <sigh>
> You're a farmer.
> Can you tell me how the regulations regarding MHS inspection introduced in the 1990s were unnecessary and/or fair to *both* low- and high-throughput abattoirs? You can base your answer on the number of low-throughput, high welfare, pre-stun abattoirs you *think* survived.
> Not an exciting example, but at least one with which you should be able to identify.
For crying out loud Martin, why don't you consider what I'm saying instead of trying to drag up old disagreements!
If a regulation is necessary, then it is needed for both large and small businesses. You cannot entirely exempt small businesses. You may be able to come up with simpler systems that ease the administrative burden for smaller businesses.
FWIW I personally was dealing with 2 low-throughput abattoirs in the early '90s. One is still in business, the other took the decision to close down, the final straw that broke the camels back was a total arsehole of a vet.
In reply to timjones:
We've never talked about this before.
Go and look it up: this wasn't a grey area about onerous responsibilities for the low-throughput, but a fundamental misunderstanding about the industry which the government later (privately) conceded to be a massive mistake.
Then apply it to your current reasoning.
> For crying out loud Martin, why don't you consider what I'm saying instead of trying to drag up old disagreements!
We've never talked about this before.
Go and look it up: this wasn't a grey area about onerous responsibilities for the low-throughput, but a fundamental misunderstanding about the industry which the government later (privately) conceded to be a massive mistake.
Then apply it to your current reasoning.
In reply to Martin not maisie:
I think you're being disingenuous, why include "pre-stun" in your description of low throughput abattoirs?
Why do you believe that high throughput abattoirs need greater controls than low throughput ones?
> We've never talked about this before.
I think you're being disingenuous, why include "pre-stun" in your description of low throughput abattoirs?
> Go and look it up: this wasn't a grey area about onerous responsibilities for the low-throughput, but a fundamental misunderstanding about the industry which the government later (privately) conceded to be a massive mistake.
Why do you believe that high throughput abattoirs need greater controls than low throughput ones?
> Then apply it to your current reasoning.
In reply to timjones:
Yes you can and it is done quite well. A few examples:
VAT registration not required for low turn over
De Minimis rules for state aid for SMEs
Industries exempt from the climate levy do not have to have ISO50001 or report figures if their turnover is below £50m
Small manufacturing sites with no emmision to air/water can have low impact status
REACH regulation requires manufacture above 1000kgs / year
Dangerous Goods transportation has derogations for limited quantity
You can find good exemptions in almost every area of regulation.
The problem the OP is describing is more inherent in large companies where those in regulatory roles invent/embellish/misunderstand the requirements. A badly written ISO 9001 system requiring risk assessment ahead of any work and all contractors approved and inducted in advance will really screws you over when you just want a lock smith!
> For crying out loud Martin, why don't you consider what I'm saying instead of trying to drag up old disagreements!
> If a regulation is necessary, then it is needed for both large and small businesses. You cannot entirely exempt small businesses. You may be able to come up with simpler systems that ease the administrative burden for smaller businesses.
Yes you can and it is done quite well. A few examples:
VAT registration not required for low turn over
De Minimis rules for state aid for SMEs
Industries exempt from the climate levy do not have to have ISO50001 or report figures if their turnover is below £50m
Small manufacturing sites with no emmision to air/water can have low impact status
REACH regulation requires manufacture above 1000kgs / year
Dangerous Goods transportation has derogations for limited quantity
You can find good exemptions in almost every area of regulation.
The problem the OP is describing is more inherent in large companies where those in regulatory roles invent/embellish/misunderstand the requirements. A badly written ISO 9001 system requiring risk assessment ahead of any work and all contractors approved and inducted in advance will really screws you over when you just want a lock smith!
6
In reply to paulh.0776: oh shit paulh.0776 I think you might have started something here!
Anybody need a hug?
Anybody need a hug?
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Did a civil servant shit in your dinner or something? WtF have government go to with private company procurement processes?
Did a civil servant shit in your dinner or something? WtF have government go to with private company procurement processes?
In reply to XXXX:
A lot of the crap in large company procurement processes comes from the fact that they deal with government and government dumps requirements on them which they need to pass through to their supply chain. Which also explains why a lot of the time they don't actually care about whether the boxes on their forms are ticked properly.
> Did a civil servant shit in your dinner or something? WtF have government go to with private company procurement processes?
A lot of the crap in large company procurement processes comes from the fact that they deal with government and government dumps requirements on them which they need to pass through to their supply chain. Which also explains why a lot of the time they don't actually care about whether the boxes on their forms are ticked properly.
1
In reply to timjones:
No, no, you have to find this one out for yourself. Understand that when you put poorly thought-through cr*p out there, it's easy to spot.
Love the hopeless jab at vets, but it only betrays your ignorance.
> Why do you believe that high throughput abattoirs need greater controls than low throughput ones?
No, no, you have to find this one out for yourself. Understand that when you put poorly thought-through cr*p out there, it's easy to spot.
Love the hopeless jab at vets, but it only betrays your ignorance.
In reply to timjones:
I would agree, otherwise how do you decide the thresholds, profit, turnover, number of employees...
You should run it right, or close as physically possible from the off.
I find the nordics has far more regulation, but the tax authorities and others are infinitely better at helping you. I had a vat problem/confusion last week, I visited my local tax office on spec, waited 15mins then spoke in person last Thursday, filled in amendments and had a letter confirming my rebate arrive at home Monday, that's service!
That would be a month of my life wasted with hmrc.
> I'm a bit confused by your reply. I never said regulations were all bad. I merely suggested that necessary regulations should be applied to all businesses regardless of their size.
I would agree, otherwise how do you decide the thresholds, profit, turnover, number of employees...
You should run it right, or close as physically possible from the off.
I find the nordics has far more regulation, but the tax authorities and others are infinitely better at helping you. I had a vat problem/confusion last week, I visited my local tax office on spec, waited 15mins then spoke in person last Thursday, filled in amendments and had a letter confirming my rebate arrive at home Monday, that's service!
That would be a month of my life wasted with hmrc.
In reply to paulh.0776:
None of what you have written is a legal requirement including the HS policy, as under the act and regulations, you only need a written policy for an organisation of five or more staff.
This is the customer just telling you what you need to do if you want their work.
I'd go and have a chat, if they're not going to bend, get someone else to pay the wages as that work does not pay, or cost that time into you price... best of luck
None of what you have written is a legal requirement including the HS policy, as under the act and regulations, you only need a written policy for an organisation of five or more staff.
This is the customer just telling you what you need to do if you want their work.
I'd go and have a chat, if they're not going to bend, get someone else to pay the wages as that work does not pay, or cost that time into you price... best of luck
1
In reply to paulh.0776:
I have been in similar situations, and have found that there is usually a pretty simple work-around, once you know what they want i.e. my H&S Policy (as required by one of my customers) is a piece of paper that states that I will conform to all relevant European Legislation and that the number of H&S issues is 0 (as I’ve never felt it necessary to report any incidents in my unit that only I enter). That’s it. It’s silly, and I have no idea of the specifics of the actual legislation, but so long as it exists that is acceptable, as in my case a piece of programming or yours an image, is hardly likely to injure anyone. The CSR plan seems similar, the real killer here seems to be the ISO 9001 requirement.
My advice would be to get hold of a contact in their Marketing/Accounts dept (it may take a few phone calls but if it’s worth it, and you persist, they can be found) and explain the situation and ask them if there is some way around this, as I have found if you can talk to someone with some common sense they will help you around these corporate requirements.
You have already made the first step, as they want your images, so why give up now without exploring all the options?
I have been in similar situations, and have found that there is usually a pretty simple work-around, once you know what they want i.e. my H&S Policy (as required by one of my customers) is a piece of paper that states that I will conform to all relevant European Legislation and that the number of H&S issues is 0 (as I’ve never felt it necessary to report any incidents in my unit that only I enter). That’s it. It’s silly, and I have no idea of the specifics of the actual legislation, but so long as it exists that is acceptable, as in my case a piece of programming or yours an image, is hardly likely to injure anyone. The CSR plan seems similar, the real killer here seems to be the ISO 9001 requirement.
My advice would be to get hold of a contact in their Marketing/Accounts dept (it may take a few phone calls but if it’s worth it, and you persist, they can be found) and explain the situation and ask them if there is some way around this, as I have found if you can talk to someone with some common sense they will help you around these corporate requirements.
You have already made the first step, as they want your images, so why give up now without exploring all the options?
In reply to paulh.0776:
We get this all the time with our clients. ISO 9001 would hinder our business so we don't bother holding it but clients occasionally give us forms to fill in with CSR, H&S, ISO 9001 etc. We just respond that we don't have ISO. By this stage they've already decided to use us, which seems to be similar to the situation you find yourself in. As the value of our projects can run to several £million and we don't get picked up on it, I strongly doubt you will.
I wouldn't follow all the advice to talk to someone in marketing. Raise the issue and some jobsworth in purchasing will potentially throw a spanner in the works.
If you want to comply on other fronts, Google will deliver you the various policies (CSR etc) in an instant as universities tend to publish theirs online and you only then need to find/replace the university name for your own. As for ISO 9001, simply write on the form "N/A for a self employed photographer". ISO 9001 is designed for multi-employee businesses with departments that struggle to talk to each other.
In fact you could probably put N/A in all the boxes except your name and address and it will be fine, but maybe show some willing!!
We get this all the time with our clients. ISO 9001 would hinder our business so we don't bother holding it but clients occasionally give us forms to fill in with CSR, H&S, ISO 9001 etc. We just respond that we don't have ISO. By this stage they've already decided to use us, which seems to be similar to the situation you find yourself in. As the value of our projects can run to several £million and we don't get picked up on it, I strongly doubt you will.
I wouldn't follow all the advice to talk to someone in marketing. Raise the issue and some jobsworth in purchasing will potentially throw a spanner in the works.
If you want to comply on other fronts, Google will deliver you the various policies (CSR etc) in an instant as universities tend to publish theirs online and you only then need to find/replace the university name for your own. As for ISO 9001, simply write on the form "N/A for a self employed photographer". ISO 9001 is designed for multi-employee businesses with departments that struggle to talk to each other.
In fact you could probably put N/A in all the boxes except your name and address and it will be fine, but maybe show some willing!!
2
In reply to XXXX:
Read the thread title.
And yes, I have had a few run-ins with regulation-framing civil servants - to do with asylum seekers, hared tenancies and VAT, amongst other topics. It's rarely been an edifying experience.
Read the thread title.
And yes, I have had a few run-ins with regulation-framing civil servants - to do with asylum seekers, hared tenancies and VAT, amongst other topics. It's rarely been an edifying experience.
1
In reply to jimtitt:
You do not need an IRS no to sell to US govt. You just need form W-8ben which is tax withholding exempt status for foreign companys.
You do not need an IRS no to sell to US govt. You just need form W-8ben which is tax withholding exempt status for foreign companys.
1
In reply to paulh.0776:
As a sole practitioner, property consultant, I have experienced similar red tape nonsense. Only last week on a case where I was acting in a quasi judicial capacity as an Arbitrator in a property dispute, I was asked to fill in one of the companies H&S online questionnaires for them to pay me an abortive fee, so far I have refused because my instructions didn't come from them, I was appointed by the institution. Reminds me I must chase them today for my money.
I also did some work for a local authority and they insisted I had a H&S policy, I was only reviewing some papers at my desk, it took five minutes to prepare the necessary H&S document once I knew what I was doing, silly really considering I did the job sat in my office at home! If you want a copy PM me and I'll send it over. In fact my father in law is a H&S consultant and I've a feeling he said I didn't actually need one, but you try telling that to someone with a tick box form at the other end.
As a sole practitioner, property consultant, I have experienced similar red tape nonsense. Only last week on a case where I was acting in a quasi judicial capacity as an Arbitrator in a property dispute, I was asked to fill in one of the companies H&S online questionnaires for them to pay me an abortive fee, so far I have refused because my instructions didn't come from them, I was appointed by the institution. Reminds me I must chase them today for my money.
I also did some work for a local authority and they insisted I had a H&S policy, I was only reviewing some papers at my desk, it took five minutes to prepare the necessary H&S document once I knew what I was doing, silly really considering I did the job sat in my office at home! If you want a copy PM me and I'll send it over. In fact my father in law is a H&S consultant and I've a feeling he said I didn't actually need one, but you try telling that to someone with a tick box form at the other end.
In reply to BnB:
Likewise. Some of the stuff we make we can't get around not having ISO accreditation (and the rest) so we use a subcontractor that already does and pay them to jump through the extra hoops required where strict compliance is unavoidable. On the whole though we just get away with saying 'no' when asked if we're accredited, by the time they're asking it's too late and they're willing to work around the problems. The rest of the stuff is just a case of making an effort to have something that looks about right that they can rubber stamp and put in a file to be shredded in a few years. Ridiculous but if you price it in who cares.
jk
> We get this all the time with our clients. ISO 9001 would hinder our business so we don't bother holding it but clients occasionally give us forms to fill in with CSR, H&S, ISO 9001 etc. We just respond that we don't have ISO. By this stage they've already decided to use us, which seems to be similar to the situation you find yourself in. As the value of our projects can run to several £million and we don't get picked up on it, I strongly doubt you will.
Likewise. Some of the stuff we make we can't get around not having ISO accreditation (and the rest) so we use a subcontractor that already does and pay them to jump through the extra hoops required where strict compliance is unavoidable. On the whole though we just get away with saying 'no' when asked if we're accredited, by the time they're asking it's too late and they're willing to work around the problems. The rest of the stuff is just a case of making an effort to have something that looks about right that they can rubber stamp and put in a file to be shredded in a few years. Ridiculous but if you price it in who cares.
jk
In reply to Martin not maisie:
So unless I work out what you personally believe I'm putting "poorly thought-through cr*p out there"?
Do you always have problems with people not sharing your view of things?
"Jab at vets"? You asked a question and I gave an honest answer based on personal experience of a poor inspector tipping a small business over the edge.
> No, no, you have to find this one out for yourself. Understand that when you put poorly thought-through cr*p out there, it's easy to spot.
So unless I work out what you personally believe I'm putting "poorly thought-through cr*p out there"?
Do you always have problems with people not sharing your view of things?
> Love the hopeless jab at vets, but it only betrays your ignorance.
"Jab at vets"? You asked a question and I gave an honest answer based on personal experience of a poor inspector tipping a small business over the edge.
In reply to Philip:
I've always thought this about a simple cost/benefit analysis?
You may be right here, but if my memory serves me correctly the regulations surrounding the definitions of SMEs are an overly complex nightmare in their own right ;(
If the industry itself is exempt, why should a turnover greater than £50m trigger any additional regulation?
Does a higher turnover somehow mulitply the risk?
Logically this ought to apply to large manufacturing sites with no emmision as well?
I would hope that large companies can utilise the same derogations as small companies. The risks don't alter just because it is a large company transporting the goods.
Of course you can but surely good exemptions are more likely to be upon the risks posed by an activity than the size of the company carrying out the activity?
I guess it's all down to your definition of regulation, I perceive regulation as being dictated by government.
Poor implementation of regulations by other companies (large or small) borders on restrictive trade practice, I'm sure that there is a regulation about that somewhere
> Yes you can and it is done quite well. A few examples:
> VAT registration not required for low turn over
I've always thought this about a simple cost/benefit analysis?
> De Minimis rules for state aid for SMEs
You may be right here, but if my memory serves me correctly the regulations surrounding the definitions of SMEs are an overly complex nightmare in their own right ;(
> Industries exempt from the climate levy do not have to have ISO50001 or report figures if their turnover is below £50m
If the industry itself is exempt, why should a turnover greater than £50m trigger any additional regulation?
Does a higher turnover somehow mulitply the risk?
> Small manufacturing sites with no emmision to air/water can have low impact status
Logically this ought to apply to large manufacturing sites with no emmision as well?
> REACH regulation requires manufacture above 1000kgs / year
> Dangerous Goods transportation has derogations for limited quantity
I would hope that large companies can utilise the same derogations as small companies. The risks don't alter just because it is a large company transporting the goods.
> You can find good exemptions in almost every area of regulation.
Of course you can but surely good exemptions are more likely to be upon the risks posed by an activity than the size of the company carrying out the activity?
> The problem the OP is describing is more inherent in large companies where those in regulatory roles invent/embellish/misunderstand the requirements. A badly written ISO 9001 system requiring risk assessment ahead of any work and all contractors approved and inducted in advance will really screws you over when you just want a lock smith!
I guess it's all down to your definition of regulation, I perceive regulation as being dictated by government.
Poor implementation of regulations by other companies (large or small) borders on restrictive trade practice, I'm sure that there is a regulation about that somewhere
In reply to timjones:
In some ways, yes, they do.
A large company, transporting lots of dangerous goods, has a higher risk of a problem (simple multiplicative risk analysis).
A small company, transporting a small number of dangerous goods, is less likely to pose a risk within the entire population of transported goods items.
It's playing the numbers game.
The question is: how does the sum of small company dangerous goods transport events compare with the sum of large company dangerous goods transport events? Unless it's negligible, then the policy of exempting a small company is flawed.
> The risks don't alter just because it is a large company transporting the goods.
In some ways, yes, they do.
A large company, transporting lots of dangerous goods, has a higher risk of a problem (simple multiplicative risk analysis).
A small company, transporting a small number of dangerous goods, is less likely to pose a risk within the entire population of transported goods items.
It's playing the numbers game.
The question is: how does the sum of small company dangerous goods transport events compare with the sum of large company dangerous goods transport events? Unless it's negligible, then the policy of exempting a small company is flawed.
In reply to timjones:
Not at all: I really appreciate a well-structured argument. In fact, few things in life give me greater pleasure than a decent challenge to my viewpoint. It's just that you're spouting cr*p.
Woeful. Vets and inspectors are two different - and mutually exclusive - roles in an abattoir. This is what I'm identifying when I'm referring to poorly thought-through arguments.
> So unless I work out what you personally believe I'm putting "poorly thought-through cr*p out there"?
> Do you always have problems with people not sharing your view of things?
Not at all: I really appreciate a well-structured argument. In fact, few things in life give me greater pleasure than a decent challenge to my viewpoint. It's just that you're spouting cr*p.
> "Jab at vets"? You asked a question and I gave an honest answer based on personal experience of a poor inspector tipping a small business over the edge.
Woeful. Vets and inspectors are two different - and mutually exclusive - roles in an abattoir. This is what I'm identifying when I'm referring to poorly thought-through arguments.
In reply to captain paranoia:
No true, scale is irrelevant in your example, probability remains the same ever roll of a dice, or every truck route... Each individual truck encounters the same level of risk.
No true, scale is irrelevant in your example, probability remains the same ever roll of a dice, or every truck route... Each individual truck encounters the same level of risk.
In reply to summo:
Yes, it does. But my point was not individual risk, it was population risk. I even put that it italics to stress my point...
If the numbers involved are very small, their net contribution to population risk is negligible...
In other words: sweat the big stuff.
> Each individual truck encounters the same level of risk.
Yes, it does. But my point was not individual risk, it was population risk. I even put that it italics to stress my point...
If the numbers involved are very small, their net contribution to population risk is negligible...
In other words: sweat the big stuff.
In reply to captain paranoia:
So people living next or working at a small chemical transport company are worth less than those at massive one.
If there are things which should be followed for a giant business, because it is best practice, why not small?
So people living next or working at a small chemical transport company are worth less than those at massive one.
If there are things which should be followed for a giant business, because it is best practice, why not small?
In reply to summo:
We take those decisions every day. Road, pub, petrol station, etc sited next to houses. All pose risks. There isn't an equal risk for everyone. It's a cost/risk/benefit compromise. You might also look up ALARP; your argument heads down the "it doesn't matter how much it costs, as long as it saves one life" path.
BTW, pointing out the argument for something is not the same as supporting that argument.
We take those decisions every day. Road, pub, petrol station, etc sited next to houses. All pose risks. There isn't an equal risk for everyone. It's a cost/risk/benefit compromise. You might also look up ALARP; your argument heads down the "it doesn't matter how much it costs, as long as it saves one life" path.
BTW, pointing out the argument for something is not the same as supporting that argument.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...