Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

Why shouldn't employees pay to work ?

94 replies

SerendipityJane · 01/03/2021 10:46

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.

OP posts:

islockdownoveryet · 01/03/2021 14:09

Yep more than happy to do so but when up and running and turning a profit I’d like a share of those profits . I mean we are in this together aren’t we so I should get a share of the profits as I’m clearly a share holder not a employee.

TheyIsMyFamily · 01/03/2021 14:12

A new way to race to the bottom by the sounds of it ...

titchy · 01/03/2021 14:13

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

The directors won't be losing money though will they. The company is. It's a stupid director that doesn't separate out personal and business assets.

The employees almost certainly wouldn't get their money back if this scheme was legal - the company will be bankrupt within a few weeks.

CorianderBee · 01/03/2021 14:44

Not sure why you tagged yourself in reply to my post serendipity? Odd

LivingDeadGirlUK · 01/03/2021 14:45

@user1497207191 What difference does it make if some people are not eligible for furlough or are self employed? This isn't a race to the bottom, people who are on 80% of the minimum wage are going to struggle even more on 70% and its unreasonable for the company to ask them to do that.

LivingDeadGirlUK · 01/03/2021 14:50

@Puzzledandpissedoff

But what about the bosses ? Someone has to think of them

I'd say someone already is; very possibly the place is on the skids, so it'll be a case of grab what you can, raid the pension fund and head off over the horizon

Trouble is, I doubt they'll be alone in doing this

I think this is it tbh. Restaurants are always popping up and closing, no doubt the pandemic is having a cataclysmic effect on them but the workers could give up this 'loan' and the business still go under. I think other posters have touched on the fact that they must have exhausted every other loan possibility to consider this.

Also I know all publicity is supposed to be good publicity, but I've no idea how they were expecting to come across in the article.

waitingpatientlyforspring · 01/03/2021 15:56

I have a friend who was asked (along with everyone) so take a 20% cut at the start of the last recession or they faces redundancy's. They all agreed.

I'm not sure this is massively different.

I'm not saying it is right or I agree with it. Its a terrible time for those industries that haven't been able to trade for the best part of this last year. There are still many costs employers have while staff are on furlough and if they are not actually making any money I can see while they are struggling.

Allergictoironing · 01/03/2021 16:20

I have a friend who was asked (along with everyone) so take a 20% cut at the start of the last recession or they faces redundancy's. They all agreed.

That's fine, assuming that they were all earning more than 20% above minimum wage. But a company can't cut wages by any percentage if it takes the staff member below minimum wage as that would be illegal.

The staff being cited here (and many others) will be on minimum wage as it is or little more, and as furloughed only 80% of that. Hence why the bosses in this case are asking for a "loan" from the staff rather than a pay cut, as they have to pay them the full 80% by law.

DogsAreShit · 02/03/2021 09:37

I agree with you OP.

This chain have opened two new restaurants in the past three months and one of the directors bought himself a Ferrari to share with us all on his Instagram. So times are obviously biting harder for them than they are for the peasants on £8.75 an hour minus 20%. If you can't sponge off minimum wage employees in such circumstances, just when will you be able to?

user1497207191 · 02/03/2021 11:09

[quote LivingDeadGirlUK]@user1497207191 What difference does it make if some people are not eligible for furlough or are self employed? This isn't a race to the bottom, people who are on 80% of the minimum wage are going to struggle even more on 70% and its unreasonable for the company to ask them to do that.[/quote]
They'd struggle even more if they were made redundant at the moment, wouldn't they?

DogsAreShit · 02/03/2021 11:17

I don't know how to make this any clearer, so I'll just ask: if they're in danger of going bust, why the fuck are they buying themselves Ferraris and opening new restaurants?

LakieLady · 02/03/2021 11:31

Unless they're on a decent hourly rate, it may reduce the rate of pay to below NMW.

DogsAreShit · 02/03/2021 11:43

Which is illegal. As is making any deductions from wages that are to do with employment costs, which this is. And they know this, so they're trying to get away with it by calling it a loan. Which is clearly bullshit. A deduction is a deduction, regardless of whether you call it a loan or not. If the employee doesn't have the money in their hand, it's a deduction.

Banks lend to employers. The government lends to employers. This is how employers get loans that are actual loans, with interest rates, repayment terms etc written into the agreement and issued after risk analysis and other statistical and fiscal consideration. Cutting wages is not a loan.

DogsAreShit · 02/03/2021 11:45

And crucially, a loan involves transfer of monies. These employees aren't transferring monies: they have never had the money. They're having money taken from them.

RootyT00t · 02/03/2021 11:52

They are being unreasonable for presenting it as optional in an airy fairy way which basically means you'll be sacked if you don't.

QuestionableMouse · 02/03/2021 11:53

@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.

People who work in this sort of role aren't claiming expenses so that's a bit of a misdirection.

user1497207191 · 02/03/2021 12:26

@LakieLady

Unless they're on a decent hourly rate, it may reduce the rate of pay to below NMW.

They're not working though, so NMW doesn't apply. Lots of people are getting only 80% of NMW at the moment if they're on furlough.

DogsAreShit · 02/03/2021 13:22

Yes, and when another 10% is taken off they'll be on 70%. Which is illegal. Plus the 10% is coming from the furlough pay, which is from the government (ie taxpayers is us). The government has expressly stipulated that furlough can't be used towards costs associated with employment eg employer ni contributions, so it's a misuse of public funds and, if I need say it again, illegal.

I mean this is quite apart from it being a piss taking load of brassneck bollocks.

Donotfeedthebears · 02/03/2021 13:47

I’m always surprised that more jobs don’t want you to pay for the “honour and privilege” of working there.

Flip

1 2 3 4