Finchley Seagull
New member
Great. This thread is going to descend into anyone who ever had an issue with the club having their moan. Did you not read the rest of the thread, it is old news and has already been explained clearly.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Albion main headline on Guardian homepage
- Thread starter bhafc99
- Start date
Great. This thread is going to descend into anyone who ever had an issue with the club having their moan. Did you not read the rest of the thread, it is old news and has already been explained clearly.
Do you seriously think the likes of Minto Guest House, Salon Sienna, Staintons Joinery and Legends Hairdressers are better known names to the general public than Brighton and Hove Albion? Seriously?
1
1066gull
Guest
I'm don't just single out the club, I am highlighting the absurdity of using agencies which is a false economy of employment. It discriminates workers and often it is those who are marginalised who lose out more.
And its not just the club who practices this regime, it is a widespread practice that is undermining workers rights across the country.
Also if anybody verbal abuses me I will not tolerate it. I have had to deal with employment issues my entire adult life as somebody who has autism and anybody who wishes to abuse me will be blocked.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
Finchley Seagull
New member
I'm not going to get into an argument but it clearly seems like you singled out the club, as you mentioned them and nobody else. What you get paid by the agency is down to the agency, not the club.
What do you mean about verbal abuse? Do you mean me? If so, that wasn't abuse it was just frustration at where this thread was heading and it definitely wasn't verbal (as that would have been spoken)
Yoda
English & European
Surely if working for they club via an agency, it would've been the agency paying you your wages and not the club so your beef should've been with them.
At least that's how it works here with NHS Temps.
1
1066gull
Guest
The use of agencies means the business you're working for has no responsibility for that employee. Employees who represent agencies can work for multiple companies so the work is often short shifts. Travel can be factored in but often is never the case. This means agency employees could potentionally face travelling out of town for a short shift. Employers who recruit agency staff will say its not the responsibility of them but between
the individual and agency.
In theory the employee could get lots of different work from different employers in any given week but I have never found anybody who has been given enough hours so they got more than the minimum wage.
Again, it's not the club who are alonr in this practice but they're complicit in condoning it.
Staff are expected to arrive at least an hour before shifts, but they're not actually clocked in getting paid when they're in place behind the till, in the kitchen or so on. This mean the time it takes to walk to the cloakroom, sign in, check out is all unpaid time.
Sports Direct is another company that was investigated using this practice and I have worked at Wembley, Arsenal, and Spurs who all use the same practice as Brighton.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
the individual and agency.
In theory the employee could get lots of different work from different employers in any given week but I have never found anybody who has been given enough hours so they got more than the minimum wage.
Again, it's not the club who are alonr in this practice but they're complicit in condoning it.
Staff are expected to arrive at least an hour before shifts, but they're not actually clocked in getting paid when they're in place behind the till, in the kitchen or so on. This mean the time it takes to walk to the cloakroom, sign in, check out is all unpaid time.
Sports Direct is another company that was investigated using this practice and I have worked at Wembley, Arsenal, and Spurs who all use the same practice as Brighton.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
Give it a rest, you ****ing ****
1
1066gull
Guest
Yes, you are exactly right. It is still wrong though and it abuses and discriminates agaisnt workers who are more likely to incur greater expenses than in house staff.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
Norman Baker suck my lozenge
New member
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
Well, my company used to employ enough people on a full time basis to cover the busy periods and nearly went bust.
Now we only employ enough on a full time basis for normal workloads and are financially much better off, so hardly a false economy.
Also, if you weren't getting minimum wage working through an agency then as the agency employ you it's hardly the Clubs fault is it.
For what it's worth, the agency we use has a minimum of 4 hours work for any of their staff in any one shift.
SK1NT
Well-known member
Wasn't it W. Shakespeare who first reported this for his day job ?
This story came out when i fell off my dinosaur
1
1066gull
Guest
I hope it has improved in the last 18 months but the last Chancellor before he disappeared stopped anybody claiming money back in tax from work related expenses. So I can see evidence of it getting worse.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
The club using agency staff has absolutely nothing to do with the issue this thread is about.
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
What exactly has that got to do with me pointing out that the club using agency staff is not a "False Economy" and that you getting less than min wage is everything to do with your agency and nothing to do with the club?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Read the article very carefully. It is about work experience. The club got into trouble for paying out too much money.
It is nothing to do with agency staff, zero hours or minimum wage.
- Jan 19, 2010
- 1,190
If they only needed short term cover, then employing agency staff is exactly the right thing to do and not a false economy - in this case the false economy would be going to the expense of directly employing someone on a short fixed term contract. Like it or not, there are times when agency is the right way to go.
I'm far from an expert, but I do know some of the basics here. I would guess the HMRC argument here is that by paying out expenses above a certain level, the club was de-facto treating the volunteer as an employee. As such, the volunteer was ruled to be an employee and therefore entitled to NMW. But the expenses paid out would almost certainly not be to that level. There's some other potential issues the club may have stumbled into as well, such as rules that don't allow an employer to use volunteers to do the same work that paid employees do (so for eg if they have a full paid employee whose responsibilities include washing the dishes, they then cannot use volunteers to wash dishes). I'm unsure how "work experience" falls into the volunteer vs employee structure.
If the club has since rectified the error (ie, paying out expenses that shouldn't have been), then the HMRC should have taken that into account. Sounds like they decided to take the hard line, though - which is easy for them to do if their decision can't be appealed.
Given the guy has said he has autism and consequent employment don't you think your reply is a bit, well, shitty?
- Jan 19, 2010
- 1,190
Wouldn't be the first excremental post on NSC. I'm sure some of your 36,153 have given off a certain aroma over the years.