Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Charlton fined for illegally underpaying workers?

2»

Comments

  • SporadicAddick
    SporadicAddick Posts: 7,223
    TelMc32 said:
    I think it also shows that even big corporates like KPMG fly very close to the wind in terms of trying to pay minimum wage, or as close as possible, and then get caught out by small errors in recording time/age/changes in legislation. Perhaps, in their cases, knock a few quid off your high earners and be known as an employer that doesn’t just pay minimum wage. 
  • jose
    jose Posts: 1,100
    SporadicAddick said:
    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.  
    I think that expecting work out of staff but underpaying them is both avoiding liability and exploiting them.

  • BalladMan
    BalladMan Posts: 1,311
    Is anyone surprised that this breach may have occured under the trimuvate of Roland, ESI, Sandgaard (unless a member of his family)?  Crooks the lot of them (even if Saandgard did save us from extinction) 
  • SporadicAddick
    SporadicAddick Posts: 7,223
    jose said:
    SporadicAddick said:
    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.  
    I think that expecting work out of staff but underpaying them is both avoiding liability and exploiting them.

    Everything I've read, across all media, suggests there was no "expectation" in the cases reported on - invariably technical or administrative issue, followed by self reporting or highlighting, followed by resolution.

    In the examples i shared above, there is no big business conspiracy against the workers, and no exploitation. Comrade, no-one has any chains to lose. 
  • Jints
    Jints Posts: 3,562
    SporadicAddick said:
    TelMc32 said:
    I think it also shows that even big corporates like KPMG fly very close to the wind in terms of trying to pay minimum wage, or as close as possible, and then get caught out by small errors in recording time/age/changes in legislation. Perhaps, in their cases, knock a few quid off your high earners and be known as an employer that doesn’t just pay minimum wage. 
    Of course KPMG won't be  paying their accountants/consultants etc minimum wage but they have a lot of big offices which require cleaners, receptionists, caterers etc as well as lots of business support staff (admin assistants etc)
  • ateamofcorygibbs
    ateamofcorygibbs Posts: 1,265
    AFKABartram said:

    according to this report…

    40. Charlton Athletic Football Company Limited, Royal Borough of Greenwich, SE7, failed to pay £17,983.18 to 45 workers.

    You'll never sing that
  • Radostanradical
    Radostanradical Posts: 1,061
    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.
    Yes but its much harder to stand on the moral grandstand when you dont get to imagine what others may or may not think.
  • eastterrace6168
    eastterrace6168 Posts: 25,378
    edited 2:56PM
    Can we claim back on people criminally OVERPAID...i can think of one for starters...

    .....🤦‍♂️

  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 71,366
    As someone who has had to deal with payroll, tax and employment issues on the other side,  it's horribly complicated. 

    While there are crooks out there,  in most of the cases on that list it will be genuine errors,  whether due to misunderstanding the law, or not being 100% up to date with every change made in the budget.

    Especially in under resourced Finance or HR departments.
  • T_C_E
    T_C_E Posts: 16,547

    eastterrace6168 said:
    Can we claim back on people criminally OVERPAID...i can think of one for starters...

    .....🤦‍♂️







  • Sponsored links:



  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 21,464
    edited 4:12PM
    msomerton said:
    I would suggest most football clubs do this, sorry it ours. But cannot be surprised when you remember how the losses at the club are, and that owner after owner has talked of cutting the costs, of course football players are not included in this.

    So you believe that most football clubs deliberately underpay employees below minimum wage because of ongoing losses sustained by the club? Even though with real time reporting on payroll HMRC are almost certain to spot it.

    As @TelMc32 says above, paying at or very close to minimum wage (which is pefectly lawful) opens up the possibility of error in for example timesheet data. It shouldn't happen, of course, but it doesn't mean the employer is deliberately breaking the law.


  • Sage
    Sage Posts: 7,348
    For years and years the club have been a business that pays staff incredibly poorly. Even recent advertisement for what they’re asking for and is expected to do is awful money. Pay people properly and you have a better chance of getting and keeping good staff.
  • bobmunro
    bobmunro Posts: 21,464
    Sage said:
    For years and years the club have been a business that pays staff incredibly poorly. Even recent advertisement for what they’re asking for and is expected to do is awful money. Pay people properly and you have a better chance of getting and keeping good staff.

    It's not Charlton - it's the whole industry.
  • fenaddick
    fenaddick Posts: 17,041
    bobmunro said:
    Sage said:
    For years and years the club have been a business that pays staff incredibly poorly. Even recent advertisement for what they’re asking for and is expected to do is awful money. Pay people properly and you have a better chance of getting and keeping good staff.

    It's not Charlton - it's the whole industry.
    It’s not just that either, it’s any industry that relies on passion as motivating factor. I work in the charity sector, everyone is underpaid and expected to accept it because you are passionate about your work.
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,895
    bobmunro said:
    Sage said:
    For years and years the club have been a business that pays staff incredibly poorly. Even recent advertisement for what they’re asking for and is expected to do is awful money. Pay people properly and you have a better chance of getting and keeping good staff.

    It's not Charlton - it's the whole industry.
    I can quite believe it but we can, and should IMHO, be better than that.

    Low pay is demotivating (Hertzberg) and leads to added costs such as poor performance and high turnover.


  • thenewbie
    thenewbie Posts: 11,325
    Henry Irving said:
    bobmunro said:
    Sage said:
    For years and years the club have been a business that pays staff incredibly poorly. Even recent advertisement for what they’re asking for and is expected to do is awful money. Pay people properly and you have a better chance of getting and keeping good staff.

    It's not Charlton - it's the whole industry.
    I can quite believe it but we can, and should IMHO, be better than that.

    Low pay is demotivating (Hertzberg) and leads to added costs such as poor performance and high turnover.


    Exactly, saying "well everyone else does it so it's fine" is not a line I'd like to see the club taking.
  • Stig
    Stig Posts: 29,570
    T_C_E said:

    eastterrace6168 said:
    Can we claim back on people criminally OVERPAID...i can think of one for starters...

    .....🤦‍♂️






    I wonder whatever became of Burger Boy? Did he ever drop back down to his level of competence, or does he continue to be the personal embodiment of the Peter Principle?  I presume that the one known is that he still hates being called Burger Boy, for which I congratulate you TCE.
  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,749
    This is embarrassing…..to say the least.🙁
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,895
    Stig said:
    T_C_E said:

    eastterrace6168 said:
    Can we claim back on people criminally OVERPAID...i can think of one for starters...

    .....🤦‍♂️






    I wonder whatever became of Burger Boy? Did he ever drop back down to his level of competence, or does he continue to be the personal embodiment of the Peter Principle?  I presume that the one known is that he still hates being called Burger Boy, for which I congratulate you TCE.
    Last heard he was at Bath Rugger Club
  • SporadicAddick
    SporadicAddick Posts: 7,223
    edited 8:34PM
    .

  • Sponsored links:



  • Making_all_the_noise
    Making_all_the_noise Posts: 244
    The rules re minimum pay are astonishingly knotty and complex when you get into the weeds of it. Almost every company on the list will have fallen foul of a technical breach. Given that KPMG have a team that consults on NMW, and they are on the list, it gives you an idea of how easy it is to get this wrong in certain circumstances. It is likely that the affected employees were unaware of the breach because their base pay would in all likelihood appear to them to have been aligned to NMW. I wouldn’t get too upset about this finding. The employees will all be recompensed and the club will learn its lesson but I very much doubt the infractions were intentional.

Categories

“Marketplace”