I'd Love to Employ Someone — But Can a Small Business Afford To?

Last week I wrote about something I feel quite strongly about.

What if staying small is the business plan?

After more than ten years running Eau Brink Studio, I know that I don't want to build a large company, nor do I want several premises.

Or a workforce.

I don't want to spend my days managing people.

I want to create.

But there is one person I would genuinely love to employ.

An administrator.

Someone who could take some of the paperwork, emails, bookings, website updates, workshop administration and general day-to-day organisation away from me.

Someone who could give me back some of the thing I am constantly short of.

Time.

Time to sit at the sewing machine.

Time to experiment.

Time to develop new textile work.

Time to design workshops.

Time simply to create.

It sounds like a perfectly sensible next step for a business that has been running for more than ten years.

Until you start looking at what employing one person actually involves.

First, you have to find the right person

I wouldn't want just anybody sitting at a computer answering emails.

They would have to understand Eau Brink Studio.

They would need to understand how I work.

They would need to know the workshops, the tutors, the customers, the website, the products, the diary and all the odd little systems that have developed over more than ten years.

They would need to understand my voice when answering customers.

They would need to know that somebody asking about a workshop isn't necessarily just asking about a date and a price.

Sometimes they are nervous.

Sometimes they haven't sewn for years.

Sometimes they don't know which workshop is right for them.

A good administrator becomes part of the business.

That takes time.

And initially, instead of saving me time, employing somebody would take quite a lot of it.

I would have to teach them.

Show them the systems.

Explain why things are done in a particular way.

Answer questions.

Check things.

Correct mistakes.

Gradually hand things over.

Eventually, I hope, I would get that time back.

But first I would have to find it.

Then there is the wage

From April 2026, the National Living Wage for somebody aged 21 or over is £12.71 an hour.

And I have absolutely no argument with people being paid properly.

In fact, I wouldn't want to employ a good administrator and pay them the bare minimum simply because that was all the law required.

If somebody is organised, reliable, understands customers, can manage online systems and can be trusted with a substantial part of my business, they deserve a respectable wage.

But that is where the difficulty begins.

Because the hourly wage isn't the actual cost of employing somebody.

A salary isn't the whole bill

Once you become an employer, there is a list of responsibilities that comes with it.

There is payroll.

There are pension responsibilities.

There is paid holiday.

There can be Statutory Sick Pay.

There is Employers' Liability insurance.

There are employment records and legal responsibilities.

There may be software, equipment and licences needed for the employee to do their job.

And there is the administration involved in administering the administrator.

Most workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks' paid holiday each year.

Eligible employees must also be enrolled into a workplace pension, with employers generally contributing at least 3% of qualifying earnings.

Employers are normally required to have Employers' Liability insurance as well.

None of those things are unreasonable.

An employee should have holidays.

They should have pension provision.

They should have protection if they become ill or are injured through their work.

The issue isn't whether employees deserve these things.

Of course they do.

The issue is whether a very small business can afford to provide all of them.

The government does offer some help

This is where I want to be fair.

There is an Employment Allowance available to eligible employers, currently allowing businesses to reduce their employer National Insurance liability by up to £10,500 a year.

That could make a considerable difference to a very small employer.

There is also government support connected with apprenticeships, younger workers and some recruitment and training.

So it would be wrong to say that there is no help available.

But even government business guidance acknowledges that there are costs beyond wages when somebody is employed.

Recruitment takes time and money.

Training costs money.

Equipment costs money.

Software costs money.

Insurance costs money.

And for a business like mine, the biggest problem remains.

Where does the money to pay the salary come from in the first place?

What about outsourcing instead?

Of course, there is another option.

I could outsource some of the administration rather than employ somebody directly.

On paper, that sounds simpler.

No payroll.

No holiday pay.

No pension contributions.

Fewer of the responsibilities that come with being an employer.

But outsourcing brings a different set of concerns.

I would still need to spend time explaining how Eau Brink Studio works.

I would still need to explain the workshops, the booking systems, the website, the products, the tutors and the way I communicate with customers.

I would still need to hand over knowledge that, at the moment, mostly exists in my head.

And there is also the question of trust.

An administrator could need access to emails, bookings, customer information, website systems and possibly financial or other business information.

That isn't something I would hand over lightly.

There is also the question of availability.

An outsourced administrator may be working for several businesses, which is perfectly reasonable, but that also means they may not be available at the exact moment I suddenly need something sorted.

And, of course, outsourcing still costs money.

It may be more flexible than employing somebody directly, but it does not remove the basic problem.

I would still need to generate enough additional income to pay somebody else to take work away from me.

So yes, outsourcing may be an option.

But it isn't quite the simple solution it can sometimes appear to be.

To employ someone, I would have to grow

And we are back to the problem I wrote about last week.

I would employ an administrator to give myself more time to create.

But to afford the administrator, I would have to generate considerably more income.

To generate considerably more income, I may need to run more workshops.

Sell more products.

Attend more events.

Increase marketing.

Increase production.

Possibly invest in more equipment.

Potentially increase stock.

Perhaps increase advertising.

And suddenly I am growing the business I had already decided I didn't particularly want to grow.

I could end up spending more time running a larger business simply so that I could afford somebody to help me run the business.

There is something slightly ridiculous about that.

There is also the risk

Larger companies can spread risk.

A sole trader can't.

If I employ somebody, that wage has to be paid whether I have had a brilliant month or a terrible one.

It still has to be paid when workshop bookings are quiet.

It still has to be paid when customers tighten their belts.

It still has to be paid when an unexpected bill arrives.

It still has to be paid when something completely outside my control affects trade.

That is a very different decision from buying a new sewing machine or ordering some fabric.

Those purchases can be delayed.

An employee is a person depending on you for their income.

I would take that responsibility very seriously.

I would want to know that I could afford them not just this month, but next month and the month after that.

Then there are changes in employment law

The responsibilities of employers are changing too.

From April 2026, Statutory Sick Pay became payable from the first full day of sickness for eligible employees rather than after a waiting period, and eligibility was widened.

Further employment-law changes are also being introduced.

Again, I am not arguing against protecting employees.

People should have employment rights.

But when government introduces additional responsibilities for employers, perhaps we also need to talk about the difference between a company employing 200 people and somebody considering employing their first ever member of staff.

For one, it is an HR policy.

For the other, it can determine whether employing somebody is financially possible at all.

Government wants SMEs to grow

The government's current Small Business Plan talks repeatedly about helping Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) to start, scale and grow.

And there is that word again.

Grow.

In last week's blog, I asked what happens if staying small is the business plan.

This week I find myself asking something slightly different.

What happens when a small business would like to employ somebody, but doing so requires it to become a bigger business first?

It feels like there is a missing step.

There is support for starting businesses.

There is finance available for businesses that want to expand.

There are initiatives aimed at businesses that want to scale.

But what about helping a one-person business become a sustainable two-person business?

Not ten employees.

Not fifty.

Just two.

Imagine what one person could change

For me, employing an administrator wouldn't be about building an empire.

It would be about freeing me to do the work that actually generates the ideas behind Eau Brink Studio.

While somebody else dealt with some of the administration, I could be creating.

I could develop new work.

I could spend longer experimenting.

I could create new workshops.

I could concentrate properly on my textile art.

Ironically, that might lead to more income.

It might even lead to growth.

But it would be creative growth first, rather than growth being demanded simply to cover the cost of employing somebody.

That feels like quite an important distinction.

Maybe this is where small-business support should begin

Instead of always asking how to turn small businesses into larger ones, perhaps there should be more thought about that first employee.

Could there be meaningful help with the cost of employing somebody for their first year?

Could very small businesses receive support for training that first member of staff?

Could there be specific incentives for established sole traders who want to create one good, properly paid job?

Not because they intend to employ another twenty people afterwards.

Simply because that one job could make an enormous difference.

The government talks about supporting SMEs.

But once again, SME covers an enormous range of businesses.

A company employing 200 people taking on employee number 201 is very different from me taking on employee number one.

I would love an administrator

I really would.

There are days when I think about how much more creative work I could produce if somebody took even part of the administration away.

But I wouldn't employ somebody unless I could pay them properly.

I wouldn't begrudge them paid holidays.

I wouldn't begrudge them a pension.

I wouldn't begrudge them sick pay.

I wouldn't begrudge any of the employment protections they are entitled to.

Quite the opposite.

If somebody works for me, I want them to feel valued.

And perhaps that is exactly why I haven't employed anybody.

Because once all the costs, responsibilities and risks are considered, my little business would need to become considerably bigger to make that one job comfortably affordable.

And outsourcing doesn't completely solve it either.

Whichever route I took, I would still have to find the money, invest the time and trust somebody else with part of the business I have spent more than ten years building.

I don't want a considerably bigger business.

I want more time to create.

Perhaps if government genuinely wants to help Britain's smallest businesses grow, it should start by making that first pair of helping hands easier to afford.

Because for some of us, employing one person would be all the growth we ever needed.