I don't read the UK press so I know nothing about mr Dyson, but Mat is right, exploitation is the job description for a businessman.
Here ar 2 definitions of exploit:
- make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
- make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand.
Whilst both can be done in business I prefer my exploits to be of the former type. People are resources just like commodities or money. Hiring departments are even called human resources, so why on earth wouldn't every business " make full use of and derive benefit from (them)"?
From my perspective hearing people complain about exploited staff, especially in the UK which is essentially a socialist country triggers my whinge detector. As usual, people who say this stuff have no idea how to create money on their own and think that both employers and governments for that matter have a limitless trove of treasures, and their only purpose is to find more ways to prevent the whinger from his human rights: Namely having a wage which supports all his material desires.
Please take a look beyond the ends of your noses and see that an employer should owe you nothing more than the conditions written in your employment contract. Any other legal benefits endowed by the law are just a hinderance to the employer and employee reaching an optimal agreement. For example I had a business in Spain that I could not save because the law made it so expensive to let staff go, we were forced to close rather than restructure. And a few months later... government realised too late businesses had folded everywhere and changed the law. Too little too late.
And one more rant, sorry
Even if Dyson voted stay (Mat said it was the opposite) what difference does that make to his ability to dispense sound commercial advice? He's not a six year old who needs to be taught a lesson. Wouldn't it be petty to deny someone qualified for the job because of a personal opinion?