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.

Its not fair to bully staff into the loan but the basic idea is not too bad - people seem to overlook that interns are paying to work,oxfam volunteers are paying to work and both stop low paid workers getting a foot in the door .
i know chains are fed to the wolves on here,i hate em too - but if the place was a bespoke shoe maker then everyone would say its nice of the staff to offer cashback to keep these artisan crafts alive.
but waiters are seen as unskilled so should be paid a thousand pounds.Ideally the chain company could pay some of the wage as shares in the company,effectly the same 10% under debate but again its not rolls royce so no body gives a feck.
i know on mumsnet any threat to lower wages is YABU .
Also a lot of london residents are paying to work as their house is increasing in price more than their wage .

Fuck me, does sarcasm completely pass half the thread by?!

@andyoldlabour

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.

I think you have a very odd definition of Trolling if you think that's what this thread is.

@IndecentFeminist

Fuck me, does sarcasm completely pass half the thread by?!

Given how ridiculous the world is, that's not surprising.

Isn't that why Armando Iannucci (sp) said there's no point writing satire?

Awful but totally unsurprising behaviour. We will be entering the wild west in terms of employers trying it on as we move out of the restrictions.

Sounds like it is very much against the terms of the furlough scheme as well as coercive and immoral. They'd have been better to just cut pay properly or even make redundancies if required. Neither are great but at least they are legal.

It's all very well for the furloughed to be lounging around at home brushing up their baking skills.

I know people who were furloughed who were told to take an expensive course, which they had to pay for themselves, and they were then made redundant.

It's not all been baking for everyone.

I don't agree with what this company are doing, glad to read it's illegal.

@DimOndCadwAnadlu

Vote in a Tory government, get Tory hiring practices. Thanks to the Brexit folk this will get worse because the EU can no longer stop them reducing workers rights (or environmental protections but that's another thread).

Contract terms will become a race to the bottom for those working at the bottom of the ladder. Asda were the first to try and use fire/rehire, British Airways and British Gas joined in as major employers but I'm sure there are many smaller businesses using this legislation and more will follow.

Thank you to all the Conservative and Brexit voters - you must be so proud!

Which EU laws/regs actually prevented this stuff?
Plenty of which was going on before Brexit?

I can only assume this is an ironic thread. What a ridiculous stance to take. I don’t completely disagree with providing this option to employees (assuming the “loan” is secured and it is clear that this will be paid as priority debt in the event of the business collapsing), but there should be no penalty for choosing not to participate, it should be entirely separate from performance related decisions. A similar set up is sometimes provided in relation to pension benefits whereby 50% of pension contribution is paid in shares in the company at a reduced rate. If an employee chooses to loan the company money there should be a clear interest rate so that they can benefit too.

If the company is in that much trouble, I wouldn't loan them a brass farthing because I know I probably won't get it back.

And if the company isn't in that much trouble, then the management can all take a 25% paycut, cancel dividends for the next two years and do a rights issue to raise more funding.

@areyoumeop

so if i loan my wages and the business folds , i will have lost my job anyway AND be poorer.

Anyone up for a Crowdfunding to Feed The Rich,

I would imagine that you'd be claiming against the company for this.

I can understand why the company are trying to avoid loans etc, and that hopefully this would be a short-term measure. The issue though is the uncertainty around how long this would last, as though the statement that it would be until the restrictions are lifted and they can trade again, that is unlikely to be as soon as they reopen and could be for an undeterrmined length of time. Will the goalposts move further?

There obviously could be issues if someone wished to have their money and left, would they definitely receive it at the agreed time.

I can see that for many they maybe compensated to some extent with higher uc payments, but not all will gain in this way and it will equally mean they lose uc payments when they're reimbursed, which may cause them an even bigger loss, not being eligible for housing element etc.

I don't see it as abusive, many smaller firms have had to cut salaries etc too to keep staff on. They only have 12 restaurants so don't probably have the same financial backup as larger chains.

Equally, many of the staff may now have some hard decisions to make, benefits and job seeking versus this arrangement thta may also have repercussions...

This is precisely why we need unions.

I would imagine that you'd be claiming against the company for this.

And your chances of getting any of it back in the event of an insolvency are slim to nothing. The chances of getting all or even most of it back are virtually non-existent.

If the company is a decent bet they should be able to get a loan elsewhere to tide them over. If they can't, and have resorted to extorting money out of their employees on a "Give us a loan or we'll sack you" basis then that tells you everything you need to know about how bad the financial situation of the company is.

Wow.

They could always not offer to help out and then lose their jobs when the company goes under.. it’s a two way street, they need to think of the bigger picture. Furlough IME has been a real treat for anyone I’ve spoken to close to me on it.

Paid almost in full to chill and do what ever you want. I know it isn’t the case for every family but some could certainly pick up the slack and help out to ensure the future of the company.

This is precisely why we need unions

It is, yes, but even unions can only do so much if the money just isn't there - and sadly it's not going to be there for an awful lot of businesses

We don't have to like it, but this one isn't the first and it certainly won't be the last

Awful and our companies would never do this but the furlough scheme is not that great for employers. We have to pay and claim back the amount from the government, they're quite slow in repaying. Our company wages bill is £100k per week so when all staff were furloughed we had to pay out £80k then claim back. We often didn't have that much in the bank to cover the wages. We took out loans which took up to 6m to arrive in the bank so weren't much help and have got ourselves in loads of dept now. Can't take anymore. Luckily most of our workers are back, had to lay off some, a couple still furloughed but clients have started paying their overdue invoices so things are easing up slightly. This company has decided on another option, it's this, I guess, or close permanently.

[quote SerendipityJane]^@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.^

Poor people always say that. They have no idea of the stress losing £5,000 a week causes.

Clearly this business is trying to redress the balance between the poor - who hog all the headlines - and the less poor who always get a bum rap. Fair play to them. Someone needs to remember the rich. Thank goodness we finally have a government that does.[/quote]

Surely their pension and NI contributions are already being deducted from their pay by their employer, so what is the company doing with that money?

OP is plainly being sarcastic with the wealth comments. I don't imagine for one minute these are the only employers being threatened with job losses if they don't subsidise a failing company.

This comment is key:

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

If HMRC think they are going bust any money the employees "lend" to the company will be lost money when the company does go bust/restructure with similarly named directors but not the debts etc.

@Newnamefor2021

How come the BBC report this but not the British Gas fire and rehire! Which I personally feel opened the floodgates to so many companies treating their employees like scum.

Is it moral? No of course not. It seems many many companies have tried to screw their employees over due to Covid. Some like British Gas just using it as an excuse, whereas this case I guess there is genuine need, but at the same time, there are options for them to explore without screwing over their staff.

It would be interesting to hear their response which they seem to have refused to do.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55562904

[quote SerendipityJane]^@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.^

Poor people always say that. They have no idea of the stress losing £5,000 a week causes.

Clearly this business is trying to redress the balance between the poor - who hog all the headlines - and the less poor who always get a bum rap. Fair play to them. Someone needs to remember the rich. Thank goodness we finally have a government that does.[/quote]

@ProfessorPootle

Awful and our companies would never do this but the furlough scheme is not that great for employers. We have to pay and claim back the amount from the government, they're quite slow in repaying. Our company wages bill is £100k per week so when all staff were furloughed we had to pay out £80k then claim back. We often didn't have that much in the bank to cover the wages. We took out loans which took up to 6m to arrive in the bank so weren't much help and have got ourselves in loads of dept now. Can't take anymore. Luckily most of our workers are back, had to lay off some, a couple still furloughed but clients have started paying their overdue invoices so things are easing up slightly. This company has decided on another option, it's this, I guess, or close permanently.

But this response is too logical for the people who think every director is a money grabbing asshole or that everyone who isn’t poor is evil😂. HOW DARE YOU HAVE MONEY PROBLEMS WHEN YOURE RICH.

Dynamokev
You had it easy. Sulphuric acid? Positive nectar.

SerendipityJane
It’s apparent there’s no nuance on t’internet.

I don't think the company are going far enough, after all the staff get to go to work and socialise with many people. They should pay a premium for the social life provided.

@DynamoKev

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!

Luxury!