Recently, I was asked if I was going to fire an employee who made a mistake that cost the company $600,000. No, I replied, I just spent $600,000 training him. Why would I want somebody to hire his experience?
Before the last Olympics, we had meat raffles at the local surf club to get petrol money to go to training, to help out with the bills. But I know there are a lot of athletes worse off and that all athletes, at some stage of their careers, have made sacrifices.
I pay people very, very well - probably more than I have to. But that costs me less money in the long run because I'm not having to constantly train somebody. I pay them enough that they don't go seeking a higher scale at the next restaurant.
Stunt performing is a highly structured career path - you have to gain qualifications in six different sports to a high standard. It takes four or five years and costs at least £20,000; a black belt in a martial art from scratch costs a fortune.
Companies are recognizing that paid leave reduces training and turnover costs, that it's a formula for recruiting and retaining good workers.
The New Labour doctrine that skills training was the responsibility of employers was flawed. The idea that employers should take on a bigger role ignores the reality that employers have no incentive to train staff to leave. We can hardly expect Tesco to train checkout staff to become dental nurses.
Turnover can be one of the most expensive problems at a company.
My parents always tell me that they never would have let me start if they had known how expensive and difficult figure skating is.
In skating or any amateur sport, as athletes we share something in common: the cost of training is quite a burden on our parents or on the athletes themselves trying to find a way to pay for their costs.
