Why shouldn't employees pay to work ?

[SerendipityJane]

After all, we're all in this together ...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-56213042

A restaurant chain has asked furloughed staff to loan the firm part of their wages or face the sack, a union claims.

Tomahawk Steakhouse wants employees to sign an agreement to lend 10% of their wages each month to cover their pension and national insurance contributions, the GMB Union says.

Staff who refuse have been told their "suitability for the role will have to be reviewed", it is claimed.

(contd)

YABU: Not in favour.
YANBU: Spiffing idea.

Wank. But there will probably be some willing serfs. This won't stop until people stop it.

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN:
Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah
FIRST YORKSHIREMAN:
And you try and tell the young people of today that ... they won't believe you
ALL:
They won't!

Ha ha. Well most employers do this already when they take weeks to refund employees' expense claims, and make it as complicated as possible to fill in a claim.

@DynamoKev

Wank. But there will probably be some willing serfs. This won't stop until people stop it.

I don't know. It might have legs. It's all very well for the furloughed to be lounging around at home brushing up their baking skills. But what about the bosses ? Someone has to think of them.

What people rarely realise is that if you only get £100 a week, then even if you lose 50%, that's only £50. Whereas if you are used to £10,000 a week, then that 50% is £5,000. So real suffering. These guys need our help.

I may struggle to continue in this vein. I can easily see it becoming official Tory policy. Especially with Iain "killer" Duncan Smith in charge of more than the pencil sharpening these days.

JFC. Fortunately, it's illegal for the company to do that (unless they're topping up wages beyond the 80%, which they won't be); one of the main terms of the CJRS is that you have to pay all the money you claim from HMRC to the employees so this will be a non-starter for these shysters.

@poppycat10

Ha ha. Well most employers do this already when they take weeks to refund employees' expense claims, and make it as complicated as possible to fill in a claim.

He he - I once emailed finance at an old job (in the days when people still had a sense of humour) and asked when I might expect repayment of the interest-free loan I'd given them (my expenses).

If they're loaning part of their wages to their employers, when do the employers intend to pay them back and will it be with interest (I put some of my wage into a high interest ISA each month)?

I understand employers are in a difficult position, particularly those who can't trade at all during lockdowns however they're far from alone. The end is also in sight.

Also, just because numerically 50% of £100,000 is higher than 50% of £100 doesn't mean that anyone is suffering any less. They're suggesting their low paid (likely at or near minimum wage) staff and potentially only getting 80% anyway to give them money. I don't think most people can live on 70% of their wage without having to make serious changes to their lifestyle. How is it fair to ask your lowest paid staff to give you a loan or you'll lose your job? It doesn't seem to have been phrased as if you don't pay we might lose the business and there will be no job but that they'll sack you instead.

The article lists other options they have, GMB is also my union and I'm glad they're sticking up for their union members. Imagine being forced to fund your employer's business (will you seen any profits?) Or lose your job?

Tbf, it would be reasonable if, and only IF:

The owners/shareholders stopped all dividend payments.

Shareholders/owners injected further capital.

All directors are made to loan 90% of their salary.

I'd really been looking forward to a Tomahawk Steak when the restaurants open back up.

I'll look for somewhere else now.

Why could they not reduce hours by 10%- I am sure this could be done and come April 12th or whenever they can open, then just open a bit later on some days, or close on the quietest days of the month/year?

These employees, they want the moon on a stick. Keep all their salary? Some folk don't know they're born...

Not sure what else businesses are supposed to do. They've mostly got pretty pathetically small amounts of support to cover their (often huge) fixed costs (rents, utilities, security, etc) and the furlough goes straight to their staff. How else can they pay the employers NIC, pensions, etc?

Why could they not reduce hours by 10%

Because that would reduce takings - if you're open 10% fewer hours you serve 10% fewer customers and take 10% less income. By ripping off your employees under threat of the sack asking for a loan you have the same takings but are paying less out in the form of ill gotten gains salaries.

So they are furloughed, on a lower wage and they're expected to loan the company even more of their wage to basically avoid being sacked?

It's not like they've got bills to pay for is it?

Nah

I think its a crap thing to ask of people who are in a minimum wage job and already receiving less than minimum wage via the furlough scheme.

In 2008 the whole company I worked at took a 20% paycut for 4 months. They paid it back in salary overpayments for the 4 months after that. I continued to work there until 2020. Honestly the short term pain was worth it but when they are already furloughed it's too much to ask!

Problem is the chain is properly on the brink of collapse paying out for months and nothing coming it .

It's also completely unnecessary as HMRC allows them to defer payments of NIC (the reason they're giving for needing the cash). They can only be turned down for a tax deferral if HMRC doesn't think the business will be able repay it in future. If they have been turned down by HMRC for an NIC payment deferral on the basis that HMRC doesn't think they'll be able to pay up in future, it makes this request even more despicable.

The cheek of employees already in low income roles needing as close to a full wage to live on eh?

@LivingDeadGirlUK

I think its a crap thing to ask of people who are in a minimum wage job and already receiving less than minimum wage via the furlough scheme.

But they're not actually working are they? I know it's not their fault. But lots of people aren't even eligible for furlough or the self employed scheme, and are basically languishing on next to nothing at all.

I'm sorry, what?
Have I read this correctly?
Think I need to go to Spec Savers.

I mean sure if they return the fund to me as shares in the company...

@SerendipityJane your point about £100 a week vs £10,000 a week doesn't really stand because at the end of the day one person still only has £50 to live on and the other has £5,000. Last time I checked base rent and food still cost the same.

I should clarify - shares worth more than I put in

is it just me who thinks this is a trolling thread?
I have a great idea, let's bring back workhouses and sending 8 year olds down the mines.