Albion Named and Shamed

Albion my Albion · Aug 11, 2016

Tim Over Whelmed said:
Equally, we know that HMRC will go chasing after a Championship club for one error which must account for around 0.01% of their total HMRC transactions in a year and yet they allow Lords, Ladies & Gentlemen to create tax havens here ther and everyhwere!

The club haven't set up a sweat shop they've tried to give someone some experience to stick on their CV, possibly at more expense than it's worth by the time you write a WE programme, appointment a mentor, conduct an induction etc etc, chill.

It all comes down to this. It was an error made in pay, whether there are complicated rules to follow or not, and when it comes to an employee's pay I believe that if a mistake is made a penalty should be paid. If that is a shaming in the newspaper it is much less than a monetary fine. PR is important to BHA and I'm fairly sure BHA will not make this error in pay again.

Easy 10 · Aug 11, 2016

Albion my Albion said:
Does anyone on this message board truly have better info on this subject than anyone else who has commented. You don't know anymore about there being an error with a player's pay than I do. It's all assumptive bollocks, isn't it?

But I'm not the one on here hurling unfounded accusations around about BHAFC not caring about paying their low wage earners correctly. Based on ONE incident that has come to light.

Baldseagull · Aug 11, 2016

Albion my Albion said:
It all comes down to this. It was an error made in pay, whether there are complicated rules to follow or not, and when it comes to an employee's pay I believe that if a mistake is made a penalty should be paid. If that is a shaming in the newspaper it is much less than a monetary fine. PR is important to BHA and I'm fairly sure BHA will not make this error in pay again.

The error has been described in the clubs statement, they paid someone too much in the way of expenses.

Albion my Albion · Aug 11, 2016

Easy 10 said:
But I'm not the one hurling unfounded accusations around about BHAFC not caring about paying their low wage earners correctly. Based on ONE incident that has come to light.

I never said BHAFC didn't care. Show me my comment that says BHAFC didn't care. But they did make the pay error. It really doesn't matter whether they cared or not. They didn't care enough to make sure the pay was correct for an individual. That error effected the individual greatly, more so because the individual was a lower wage earner.

KingKev · Aug 11, 2016

Looks like a technical breach of some complex rules to me, and then the club has been picked out of a long list (which includes some much more noteworthy examples - £100k owed to 30 people?) to promote the story because it is the most widely recognisable name.
Frankly the HMRC move looks to me to be a complete sham to cover up the fact that they are really not clamping down on the abuse of the NMW rules in any focused manner. If they were then they would be going after the scumbags that make waiting staff pay them to work there, the cash in hand merchants and many many other horrible users and abusers masquerading as employers.

Carry on BHA - the story is a mirage created to threaten the real offenders by publicising random findings against decent organisations that actually comply with their information requests; lazy and unfair, but don't think we'd expect much else from HMRC, government and hacks....

Brovion · Aug 11, 2016

Ernest said:
No kind of work should be unpaid, even work experience. It's unfair on those whose parents can't subsidise them whilst they do it

There is a whole world outside your big corporation, unionised universe. I worked in the TV and film industry for 12 years and unpaid work is very much the norm. Young filmmakers, working on a tight budget, reply on unpaid labour to get their projects off the ground. In return the workers get experience which they can use to get a paid gig next time working for a better-funded project.

Thunder Bolt · Aug 11, 2016

Baldseagull said:
From what I read in the clubs statement, it seems to me that by paying a person on work experience too much in the way of expenses, changed his status from an exempt person to a non exempt person.
There are rules which state that only reasonable and relevant expenses should be paid, otherwise the person becomes someone who is paid and therefore has to be paid minimum wage.
This is not the club being tight, it is the club falling foul of a rule that allows them to pay nothing, but if they pay something they have to pay minimum wage.

Here is an example from HMRC.
Example 3: work experience with a financial reward

David successfully applies for a work experience position in a small graphic design company, after seeing an advert offering £50 ‘travel expenses’ for each week. He receives these ‘travel expenses’ despite walking to work.

David should be paid at least the NMW.

Paying a financial reward which is more than paying back genuine ‘out-of-pocket’ expenses is evidence that David is a worker for NMW purposes.

you can read all about it here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-minimum-wage-work-experience-and-internships

Baldseagull said:
The error has been described in the clubs statement, they paid someone too much in the way of expenses.

Now this is starting to make sense.

Norman Baker suck my lozenge · Aug 11, 2016

Captain Sensible said:
Awaiting Paul Barbers cap in hand poverty pleading response.

He'll blame someone else,shite never sticks to people like him.
Shameful day for the club,no better than sports direct.

Driver8 · Aug 11, 2016

Norman Baker suck my lozenge said:
He'll blame someone else,shite never sticks to people like him.
Shameful day for the club,no better than sports direct.

Another one for the list.

halbpro · Aug 11, 2016

Albion my Albion said:
I never said BHAFC didn't care. Show me my comment that says BHAFC didn't care. But they did make the pay error. It really doesn't matter whether they cared or not. They didn't care enough to make sure the pay was correct for an individual. That error effected the individual greatly, more so because the individual was a lower wage earner.

I'm sorry, the employee was effected greatly because they were paid too much? I mean I suppose they were effected, but not in the negative way you're heavily implying.

halbpro · Aug 11, 2016

Norman Baker suck my lozenge said:
He'll blame someone else,shite never sticks to people like him.
Shameful day for the club,no better than sports direct.

They paid one too much, accidentally, which changed their category of employment. I don't think that's that shameful really?

Easy 10 · Aug 11, 2016

Albion my Albion said:
I never said BHAFC didn't care. Show me my comment that says BHAFC didn't care.

Right-o.

Albion my Albion said:
Why wasn't the club as careful with the way they paid that one employee as they were with paying their other hundreds and hundreds of employees.

Albion my Albion said:
Be more careful with the way you pay all employees in the future and don't punish those who might not be able to gain football employment in the future because of your mistake in paying one of your past employees.

Albion my Albion said:
I am upset that any employer tries to pay any employee less than the correct wage and then uses their careless pay history as an excuse not to employ lower wage earners who might then use their experience with the employer to gain higher wage employment. Why can not the employer be more careful with the way they pay all their employees?

Albion my Albion said:
The "real" reason that BHA are suspending their work experience programme is because they are admitting they are not careful enough in paying their lower earners. All employees should be given the same respect in the area of being paid wages.

Albion my Albion said:
All employees deserve the same respect with the carefulness in which they are paid their wages.

Albion my Albion said:
The club is much more careful when it comes to higher wage earners because if they make an "administrative error" with their higher wage earners to the good of the employee then it could cost the club much more severely.

Albion my Albion said:
AND pay them correctly even though it takes time to carefully study the government requirements for paying these lower wage earners correctly. Something the club has previously not been willing to do

Albion my Albion said:
They didn't care enough to make sure the pay was correct for an individual.

Going by all that, my feeling on it is that you don't think BHAFC cared.

Tom Hark Preston Park · Aug 11, 2016

Blimey! This must be WELL serious for the club to wheel out [MENTION=561]Insider[/MENTION], rather than leave it to Junior Minister of Information [MENTION=24867]chaileyjem[/MENTION] :ohmy:

The_Viper · Aug 11, 2016

Albion my Albion said:
To me it shows that "administrative cock ups" are allowable for lower wage earners but I don't think they happen with higher wage earners. Every employee's pay should be handled with the utmost respect and accuracy. BHA were guilty of not handling an employees pay in this manner and deserved to be shamed for it.

Social Justice Warriors invading NSC. End of days and the eternal victim complex is nigh.

Albion my Albion · Aug 11, 2016

Easy 10 said:
Right-o.

Going by all that, my feeling on it is that you don't think BHAFC cared.

You were wrong. I think BHAFC cared but not enough to get the pay correct through all the complicated rules. Since they paid the employee too much in reimbursed expenses which put the employee in another category to me that says they felt the employee was not getting compensated enough for their employment duties so the club thought they were cheating the employee and tried to circumvent the established rules by paying too much in reimbursed expenses. The club did not care enough to see that the reimbursed expenses violated those complicated rules and therefore threw the employee into the different category of employee.

Easy 10 · Aug 11, 2016

Albion my Albion said:
You were wrong. I think BHAFC cared but not enough to get the pay correct through all the complicated rules. Since they paid the employee too much in reimbursed expenses which put the employee in another category to me that says they felt the employee was not getting compensated enough for their employment duties so the club thought they were cheating the employee and tried to circumvent the established rules by paying too much in reimbursed expenses. The club did not care enough to see that the reimbursed expenses violated those complicated rules and therefore threw the employee into the different category of employee.

Annnnnd yet again, its just one assumption and guess piled up on top of another - to me, you're pissing in the wind old bean.

Still, you carry on.

Knotty · Aug 11, 2016

Why is it that there are a significant number of people who are, seemingly, staunch Albion supporters but who are forever in the starting blocks, waiting to leap gleefully onto any bandwagon which offers them the opportunity to criticise 'their' club? Taking a balanced view or being in possession of the all the facts seems to be unnecessary - they WANT to criticise the club, so they will do so with great relish. I don't understand it.

Neville's Breakfast · Aug 11, 2016

Knotty said:
Why is it that there are a significant number of people who are, seemingly, staunch Albion supporters but who are forever in the starting blocks, waiting to leap gleefully onto any bandwagon which offers them the opportunity to criticise 'their' club? Taking a balanced view or being in possession of the all the facts seems to be unnecessary - they WANT to criticise the club, so they will do so with great relish. I don't understand it.

Completely agree. Too much time on their hands and possession of the internet is a dangerous thing. I think it may say more about those individuals than the club. The club made an honest mistake and have corrected it. That about wraps it up in that respect. Of more interest is the psychology of the anti club brigade.

dazzer6666 · Aug 11, 2016

Jesus there is some nonsense on this thread !

-mistakes happen in all areas believe it or not, including payroll and HR (in fact, in my firm it's a surprise if anything HR-related is right half the time, and that includes pay). Makes no dfifference whether you are a higher or lower wage earner FFS, it's just someone making a mistake, like we all do

-large numbers of kids/grads actively SEEK unpaid work experience, it's not immoral to try to accommodate them (but it is to abuse this). I get multiple requests every year for internships and work experience

-the red tape around trying to bring kids in for work experience has increased exponentially in recent years to the extent it really can be a right pain in the arse now (which is a great shame as it really is discouraging employers from offering it). I'm not surprised the club are limiting (not 'binning') their involvement, particularly in the light of what appears to be a draconian approach by HMRC
[MENTION=7324]Tim Over Whelmed[/MENTION] asks a good question re how do we make it work, as it's really not easy to do so now.

Redundant Gigolo · Aug 11, 2016

Albion my Albion said:
If the "bit of admin error" made your pay 30% less then it should have been I don't think you would call it a "bit of admin error." You would think it a very serious situation with your pay. All employees deserve the same respect with the carefulness in which they are paid their wages.

Have you ever visited planet earth?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Albion Named and Shamed

Well-known member

Brain dead MUG SHEEP

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

New member

On the road...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Brain dead MUG SHEEP

Will Post For Cash

Well-known member

Well-known member

Brain dead MUG SHEEP

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Share this page