Why I am supporting @TonyRobinsonOBE’s petition for a #LivingWage and fair payment terms

Two simple ways for national and local government to boost the UK economy.

If you were at the East Anglia SME Business Forum (#EASMEBF) in Dunston Hall on Thursday 7 Nov (or at similar events earlier this year), you might well have heard me sounding off (to those who would listen) about how the UK government should boost the economy with two simple (and ultimately self-funding) measures: prompt payment of invoices and a Living Wage. Thankfully I am not the only one making these suggestions – and the calls are coming from across the political spectrum, including from many supporters of the free market (like me).

Pay up on time

The first was to ensure that all government departments and government supported organisations (Quangos and such), whether local or national, paid all their suppliers’ invoices within 72 hours.  There are two reasons for this – one moral and the other economic.

The moral case is that these suppliers have provided the goods and services as agreed and should not be left waiting for payment. Government (unlike private enterprise) does not have to worry about cash flow – it can always fund its payments out of borrowing or revenue. Society (all of us) should not be riding on the backs of people who supply it with goods and services (many of us).

The economic case is that cash flow is the big killer of businesses – particularly micro-businesses and Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). So by paying all suppliers faster, the government makes it less likely that those companies (or their suppliers) will have cash flow problems. This would mean fewer companies going into administration, which leaves creditors out of pocket and employees out of work. A more reliable cash flow might also make it easier for some companies to borrow to fund expansion – so boosting growth.

Fair pay for a fair days work

My second point was that all levels of government should ensure that everyone working for the state (whether directly or on contract) is paid a Living Wage (currently put at £7.65 an hour by the Living Wage Foundation) rather than just a subsistence minimum wage (of just £6.31 an hour). Again, there are good moral and economic grounds for this.

The moral justification is that we all benefit from the work of these people and they are often among the most vulnerable in society (many a product of shortcomings in our state education system). We should at least treat them with the decency and respect we’d want for ourselves. We (society) should not be riding on the backs of the weakest, simply because they lack the means to negotiate more equitable rates of pay for themselves.

It also makes good economic sense to pay the lowest paid a Living Wage (which, let’s face it, is still pitifully low). For a start, it would reduce the amount they have to claim in working tax credits and other complex benefits that are costly to administer. People would also be able to plan their lives more effectively, including spending more time with their children, which would mean fewer chaotic and failing families (with all their associated social costs).

According to KPMG, which supports the Living Wage, some 21% of Britain’s 25m workers are paid less than the Living Wage. Of these, some 891,000 would are on the minimum wage. Increasing their pay to £7.65 an hour would make them some £2,500 a year better off.

KPMG UK (which has paid the Living Wage, as a minimum, to all directly employed staff and those employed by its sub-contractors and suppliers since 2006) reports that employee turnover among its contracted cleaning staff has “more than halved since paying the Living Wage.” There is also good evidence to show that paying the Living Wage increases productivity by boosting morale and reducing levels of employee sickness caused by the stress of working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. “Paying the Living Wage is not only morally right,” says Boris Johnson (Mayor of London), “but makes good business sense too.”

Currently, QE is supporting the economy but, in the words of a leading hedge fund manager, it is the “biggest redistribution of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the rich ever.” Paying the poorest workers a Living Wage would help (in a very small way) to redress this. It would also enable them both to save and to spend more, both of which would help boost the economy (since saving is used to fund investment elsewhere) and increase tax revenues.

The government (local and national) should require these things of its suppliers – as part of those suppliers Corporate Social Responsibility (#CSR) commitments – something that many companies seem to go on about, without really understanding what social responsibility means. Apparently the European Commission has clearly stated that applying such socially responsible conditions to public sector contracts, particularly relating to paying the Living Wage, is fine provided they are not discriminatory – so there is nothing stopping this, except a lack of political will.

Now there’s a petition

So I was delighted on Saturday 9 November to see, on twitter, that @TonyRobinsonOBE has started a petition urging the UK government to pay its bills on time and pay the Living Wage as a minimum. But he went further, he urged the government to use its powers of negotiation (rather than legislation) to persuade all government suppliers to commit to paying all invoices within 30 days and all employees the Living Wage as a minimum, if they want to win government contracts in future. In other words, make those bidding for such lucrative contracts “an offer they cannot refuse.”

This approach appeals to me because it is using government as a force for good – setting the agenda/leading by example whatever you like to call it – without going down the complex (and anti-free market) route of legislation. It also doesn’t force an increase in costs on the very smallest companies, which sometimes struggle to employ people on the minimum wage as they start to expand. And it doesn’t deter companies from doing business in the UK (since they don’t have to apply for government contracts if they don’t want to or can’t make them pay on these terms).

Socially Responsible Investment (#SRI)

I am also pleased to see that Socially Responsible Investors, such as CCLA, are now considering a Living Wage as an important factor for their ethical investments.  The more private investors who can put pressure on their SRI fund managers to do this the better. In time, we might hope to see paying a Living Wage as an integral part of all Corporate Social Responsibility (#CSR) policies. So please sign Tony’s petition today and help improve the lives of millions of people.

@HuwSayer

@Business_Write

How do you judge engagement on #Twitter?

Here are some thoughts on how to judge engagement on social media, particularly twitter. I originally posted them in reply to a post by Gary Dickenson (@GaryDickenson on http://www.creospace.co.uk/blog/2009/12/why-you-cant-base-twitter-success-and-expertise-on-stats/) and another by Sean Clark (on @SeanEClark’s blog http://seanclark.com/social-media/roi-in-social-media-taking-the-numbers-out-of-the-equation/) -their original posts are both worth reading.

Engagement means more than having lots of followers, as I have been saying for ages (well since last year). Just because someone follows you doesn’t mean they actively follow you (how can anyone genuinely follow 1000s of people). This habit of automatically following back is a particularly bad one. You should only follow people who interest you.

I follow people who engage with me (positively) – and who don’t fill their tweets with swearing (bit of a prude on that one). I also follow people who I see regularly getting RTs from other people I follow (and whose opinion I value). This is purely personal but I think businesses should apply a similar line of thinking.

Furthermore, I think the best way for a company to judge it’s influence is to look at the number of @ replies it gets – the number of @ tweets it sends in response (rather than the simple broadcast statements) – and, most importantly, the number of RTs it gets (either automatic or modified – MT).

In fact, I think MTs are particularly important indicators, even when a negative comment is added, because it shows that the person sending it is interested in the subject and wants to engage at some level. However, it is vital that the company doesn’t just leave the MT hanging – they have to reciprocate – acknowledge the MT and respond positively – in other words engage, wholeheartedly.

What do you think? Am I right – or is there a better way?

What does it take to be an entrepreneur

Below is a copy of my response to Mary Hamilton’s blog: http://maryhamilton.co.uk/2011/03/journalism-entrepreneurialism-and-failure/.

(You can and should follow Mary on twitter @NewsMary.)

Some thoughts on entrepreneurs

Good post Mary – in some ways, many of the points you raise are common to all industries.

Fear of failure (not just lack of money or opportunity) is what holds many people back from risking all as an entrepreneur.

Not everyone has what it takes to be a successful entrepreneur – or a good journalist, footballer, photographer.

Being freelance doesn’t make you an entrepreneur. I’m a freelancer – I know I am not an entrepreneur.

Entrepreneurs do more than ditch the regular pay cheque – in fact, though some don’t even do that, preferring to work from a more secure footing (hence your point about entrepreneurs tending to be older). Instead they invest time, intellect, energy and money in building a new business or a new way of doing business.

Being an entrepreneur takes certain skills (financial, managerial, and operational). It also requires a certain mindset – being able to face the fear of failure (and “the fear of not enough success” – a nice point of yours) is just one aspect of that.

Success in life mainly depends on the ability to delay gratification (“I want it all and I want it now” doesn’t usually work). That requires tenacity, self belief, and a willingness to make mistakes – to fail and start again and again. “I have not failed 1,000 times: I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways that will not work,” Thomas Edison (apocryphal).

Vision also helps (though sometimes – often? – it can be turn out to be a delusion) – successful entrepreneurs see an opportunity to add value where most other people see risk or inconvenience. Specialising can also help – narrow markets where certain information, services or products are hard to find or use tend to attract premium paying customers.

Most of us at some point have probably looked at an apparently simple business idea and thought – “Oh I could have done that.” The point is: we didn’t. Some businesses are complicated – like Dyson’s 20-years spent developing his cyclone technology. Others appear easier (Twitter – just 140 characters and very few bells or whistles – yet apparently worth $7.7bn). All of them required someone to actually take the plunge.

You are right that success depends to a certain extent on how you define it – freelancing has risks, the financial rewards may not be as great or as secure compared with following a conventional careers  but it has other rewards in terms of variety, freedom, flexibility. Your business might not be the next big thing – but a successful small thing can still bring a lot of personal satisfaction (and the chance to leave home).

Final point – there are people making lots of money in journalism – they just don’t tend to be journalists (think Bloomberg, Murdoch, Huffington, Bill Ziff, Kerry Packer, Tony O’Reilly, Leo Kirch, and John Malone etc). There will be others – media will continue to evolve – someone will find a way to monetize the obvious or the obscure – it might just be you (but don’t lose sleep over it if it’s not).