Sylvia Tidy-Harris in 'Same Old Crap' Shocker...

Last week, the Sunday Times gave us a lovely regional supplement about entrepreneurship. I spent a happy few minutes flipping through all the inspiring stories of successful businesses, when I saw her photo. That Bloody Woman. Sylvia Tidy-Harris.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the name, Sylvia Tidy-Harris is a reasonably well-known British female entrepreneur. She runs her own public speaking company, whose USP is that all of the speakers are women. So far, so good. She is also a fine example of a tedious, one-trick media pony. The 'trick' being that she refuses on principle to employ any woman of child-bearing age, and the 'pony' being the load of old crap that she trots out to back up the decision.

Lazy journalists trot her out on the same point over and over (and over) again when they feel that what is essentially quite a dull topic needs a bit of controversy. 'I know', they think, 'let's saddle up that female misogynist, Sylvia Hyphen What's-Her-Chops, she's always good for about 750 words that we'd never get past the editor if a man had said them'.

So back to the point, the only point that STH ever makes, that 'small businesses should be exempt from employing women of child-bearing age because the cost of dealing with maternity leave could cripple them'.

This is what I call a 'Daily Mail' argument. Her rhetoric is seductively facile; she states an unquestionable truth to get you on side, and then backs it up with flimsy, laughable crap.

Let me spell it out. As a small business, it is unquestionably true that (the sum total of) your employees must consistently bring in a good deal more money than it costs you to employ them. It's not arguable - if they don't, you'll go under and lose everything you will have put on the line to get the business started in the first place. This will include, but is not restricted to your house, your livelihood, your social life, your holidays, some of your friendships and probably your marriage/relationship as well. It really is that harsh.

Of course maternity leave is hard on small businesses. I know this only too well - The Husband and I worked together in our own business before I left to look after our little boy. But why be so belligerent about this particular issue?

There are many and varied reasons why an employee might need to take more than their statutory 28 days and not all of them include having babies. Serious long-term illness, sick parents, sick spouses, male employees becoming fathers and needing to get a job 'up the City' so wives can stay at home; they're all there, they're all risks, and if you choose entrepreneurship, then I'm afraid you don't get to just opt out of dealing with them.

What this means in practice is that an entrepreneur must assess their (perceived) immediate risks against the current legislation, and making sure that between the two, their tiny corporate arse is covered. An employee is an investment; the reality of small business is that you're not just paying someone a straight fee in exchange for work done, you're paying them for what they're going to be worth to you in the future.

That's why The Husband spends hours over each and every candidate we see, assessing their potential, and structuring their remuneration packages accordingly. It's time-consuming and tough, but it's not rocket science and I cannot entertain any argument that small businesses should be exempt from the process. If you're not able to deal with every aspect opf running a business, including employment legislation, then perhaps it's not for you.

My favourite piece of mendaciousness from Ms Tidy-Harris was this;

'And some women...may say are coming back - so the owner gets rid of the person they have trained up over the year to do the woman's job - and then, after a couple of weeks back at work demand to be allowed to work part time. But there may not be scope in a new and growing business for a part-time vacancy. Why should the business have to change?'

Er...they don't. An employee has the right to ask. The employer has the right to say no, providing they have sound business reasons, and can follow a tedious but straightforward procedure set out by the government guidelines. Again, it's not rocket science, and if you can't deal with it, then perhaps entrepreneurship isn't for you.

Any ideas for a gloriously fatuous political line I could sell to lazy journalists to get our business mentioned in the rags gratefully accepted. Free canvas print or vehicle graphic to any suggestion that gets us a mention in a national!