Charlton fined for illegally underpaying workers?

I blame @PaddyP17 for his recent exposé

Embarrassing, though the sums are small when divided by the 45 employees. I imagine it relates to part time workers,  and a misinterpretation of the rules, rather than a deliberate attempt to underpay.

This is not the first time - we got "named and shamed" previously.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/employers-named-and-shamed-for-paying-less-than-minimum-wage

I can’t see anywhere on that report the time period this relates to. The Club needs to confirm as soon as possible that this has been addressed and the 45 individuals affected have all been paid and compensated.  We seem to have been hiring a lot of staff into the operational areas, but this is a Finance/HR issue and something that should be overseen by a CEO. No idea if we outsource HR in any way, but good to see that the report also advises that this is the last “name/shame” list before the new Fair Work Agency starts up and should make it easier for all honourable/ethical businesses to keep on top of any requirements. 

jose said:

I imagine there are people who think nobody forced those workers into exploitation, they didn’t have to take the job(s), and anyway they’re lucky to have jobs at all.
Worth bearing in mind when posting tales of unmotivated ‘hospitality’ staff, or stewards.
I don’t know the finances of the situation, but it would be nice to think the club would track down those workers and offer them treble what they have lost, plus a personal and public apology.

Great imagination (and even better to bring in "exploitation" without any insight into what has happened, to whom and over what period). 

I would imagine there aren't many that would think this.

I was having a chat with somebody who works for the U18s team earlier this season and he told me that they were criminally underpaid. I didn't realise he meant that literally.

SporadicAddick said:

jose said:

I imagine there are people who think nobody forced those workers into exploitation, they didn’t have to take the job(s), and anyway they’re lucky to have jobs at all.
Worth bearing in mind when posting tales of unmotivated ‘hospitality’ staff, or stewards.
I don’t know the finances of the situation, but it would be nice to think the club would track down those workers and offer them treble what they have lost, plus a personal and public apology.

Great imagination (and even better to bring in "exploitation" without any insight into what has happened, to whom and over what period). 

I would imagine there aren't many that would think this.

The report itself indicates what happened was illegal.
That says exploitation to me.
If that is a product of my imagination then so be it.

jose said:

SporadicAddick said:

jose said:

I imagine there are people who think nobody forced those workers into exploitation, they didn’t have to take the job(s), and anyway they’re lucky to have jobs at all.
Worth bearing in mind when posting tales of unmotivated ‘hospitality’ staff, or stewards.
I don’t know the finances of the situation, but it would be nice to think the club would track down those workers and offer them treble what they have lost, plus a personal and public apology.

Great imagination (and even better to bring in "exploitation" without any insight into what has happened, to whom and over what period). 

I would imagine there aren't many that would think this.

The report itself indicates what happened was illegal.
That says exploitation to me.
If that is a product of my imagination then so be it.

Strict liability doesn't automatically translate to" exploitation" (the unfair treatment of someone to benefit from their work). 

In your imagination it does, because it fits your narrative. 

 

Shameful. Hope we compensate those who have been underpaid and communicate publicly that we’ve put in place controls to make sure it never happens again.

AFKABartram said:

msomerton said:

I would suggest most football clubs do this,.

Two clubs. Us and Norwich 

And Bedford Town

BalladMan said:

Stig said:

I was looking for a timescale on this. It might just be me not looking properly (if so, I'm claiming man flu as my excuse), but I couldn't find one. I was wondering just how current/historical these underpayments are and how much blame lies with the current owners compared to some of those past regimes who, frankly, I'd expect to have spirited away far more from under the workers noses.

"The review looked at employees’ pay from September 2017 to September 2023. It found, while ISS (one of the companies 'caught') has always paid its employees at the appropriate rate, there were unintentional errors in the way it calculated paid time for some current and former employees during this period.

"During 2023, we contacted affected employees and former employees to arrange remediation. We have taken action to ensure future compliance with appropriate working practices.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/hundreds-firms-including-famous-brands-36889036 (I feel dirty looking at that site, but it did answer the question)

From FT - a couple of examples from the current release that seem to be historical.

As I would have imagined, technical breaches caused by process / admin, rather than any attempt at exploitation. Raised and remedied, as should be the case. Given the scrutiny in place and the access to data that will highlight gaps, the view that this is deliberate exploitation of workers is decent conspiracy, but little else.

The accountancy firm KPMG said it was included on the list because of “a very small number of process errors” affecting 59 employees, which it had spotted and corrected after notifying HM Revenue & Customs in 2022.  Travel agent Hays Travel also said it had “rectified” a 2019 technical issue as soon as it became aware of it, while health insurer Bupa said it had corrected mistakes “relating to items such as uniforms, footwear and accommodation” after being notified by HMRC in 2019.  Breaches of minimum wage rules by big companies tend to affect a large number of staff but involve relatively small sums of money.

SporadicAddick said:

jose said:

SporadicAddick said:

jose said:

I imagine there are people who think nobody forced those workers into exploitation, they didn’t have to take the job(s), and anyway they’re lucky to have jobs at all.
Worth bearing in mind when posting tales of unmotivated ‘hospitality’ staff, or stewards.
I don’t know the finances of the situation, but it would be nice to think the club would track down those workers and offer them treble what they have lost, plus a personal and public apology.

Great imagination (and even better to bring in "exploitation" without any insight into what has happened, to whom and over what period). 

I would imagine there aren't many that would think this.

The report itself indicates what happened was illegal.
That says exploitation to me.
If that is a product of my imagination then so be it.

Strict liability doesn't automatically translate to" exploitation" (the unfair treatment of someone to benefit from their work). 

In your imagination it does, because it fits your narrative. 

 

The narrative is fixed by authorities that set the minimum wage or the London living wage.
I believe that being an employer it is either reasonable or incumbent to know what those amounts are, and to pay them.
Maybe that conclusion comes from an unreasonable or fetid imagination.

jose said:

SporadicAddick said:

jose said:

SporadicAddick said:

jose said:

I imagine there are people who think nobody forced those workers into exploitation, they didn’t have to take the job(s), and anyway they’re lucky to have jobs at all.
Worth bearing in mind when posting tales of unmotivated ‘hospitality’ staff, or stewards.
I don’t know the finances of the situation, but it would be nice to think the club would track down those workers and offer them treble what they have lost, plus a personal and public apology.

Great imagination (and even better to bring in "exploitation" without any insight into what has happened, to whom and over what period). 

I would imagine there aren't many that would think this.

The report itself indicates what happened was illegal.
That says exploitation to me.
If that is a product of my imagination then so be it.

Strict liability doesn't automatically translate to" exploitation" (the unfair treatment of someone to benefit from their work). 

In your imagination it does, because it fits your narrative. 

 

The narrative is fixed by authorities that set the minimum wage or the London living wage.
I believe that being an employer it is either reasonable or incumbent to know what those amounts are, and to pay them.
Maybe that conclusion comes from an unreasonable or fetid imagination.

No, the narrative of exploitation is fixed by you, strict liability is fixed in law. The two are not linked.