Albion Named and Shamed

[Springal]

Its a bit drastic for the club to decide to bin ALL work experience posts now off the back of this one isolated incident though, isn't it ? Strikes me as being a rather petulant "You did this, so now look what you've gone and done" kind of response.

Kind of agree though. They've been named and shamed with no right to reply or appeal and seemingly were unaware this was being published. Sounds like genuine oversight, but if this kind of thing is more trouble than its worth and generates poor PR, why risk it / bother in the future.

 

[cjd]

I totally understand the clubs decision re work experience. One innocuous error (which was corrected) and you end up on a name and shame list.....so all the posters on here can do exactly what they are doing....i.e. all pretending to be mini HerrTubthumpers.

 

[maltaseagull]

It looks like a storm in a tea cup - even in the article it is ONE employee. I agree with businesses being named and shamed but it's a bit daft when it is one employee!

Also - hot meals twice a day for all staff. The 1901ers will be livid

I bet they get free tea too!

 

[5ways]

oops

 

[Insider]

Er ....

""Unfortunately, in light of this, we are now more risk averse in terms of offering work experience opportunities. This means we are unable to give as many valuable on-the-job work experience opportunities to those looking to further their career or break into this highly competitive industry.”"

So even at the most positive interpretation that means LESS work experience places ?

Yes, rules have really tightened in this area as some businesses have abused the system, sadly this means others suffer. Having personally seen two of my placements go onto work at Liverpool and Bournemouth (there was no opening at BHA) and others working in sports media, I am disappointed we can't continue in the same vein, but sadly the tighter rules make this very difficult. However, we do try where we can to give people opportunities where possible. For example, I have one post-grad who is hourly paid NLW, but I cannot justify a full-time salary.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

I thought the club's response was pretty good. To "shame" us for a dispute with one worker is just unfair. Some of the firms in the list owed money to up to 20 people. The issues between them are clearly different.

Employee disputes are a fact with every firm . I see no reason for us to feel "ashamed"....

 

[Wozza]

More coverage: http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/11/do-yo...-paying-workers-properly-6061574/?ito=twitter

 

[Albion my Albion]

I don't think we need to know all the ins and outs of what happened in this one particular incident, as its clearly been rectified.

The club quite obviously does not have a policy of paying below the minimum wage though, so its ridiculous for them to have been named in this instance when it was clearly an isolated case due to an administrative cock-up. Companies that have MULTIPLE employees on less than the minimum wage are fair game to be named and shamed, but when a business employs hundreds and hundreds of people, and ONE person comes out as having had less than the minimum wage, then surely a more sensible policy would be for HMRC to look into it a bit further, before just arbitrarily naming and shaming. So I can see why BHA are pissed off about this.

It still doesn't excuse or justify abandoning the entire work experience scheme though. That's a ridiculous overreaction.

Why is it any less a shame when only one employee is not paid the minimum wage because the company employs hundreds and hundreds of people. What if you were the one employee who was not paid correctly? 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.

The other decision about further employing those on lower wages has nothing to with being guilty of paying the one employee incorrectly. 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. It seems many other football clubs pay the correct wages without having to suspend their program of employing those on lower wages. Shame, shame, shame on Brighton and Hove Albion!!!!!

 

[BLOCK F]

Over reaction to be named and shamed, and then over reaction on the club's part to issue the statement they did, which came over as rather 'knee jerky' and sulky, whatever they say.
Should have issued a far more measured response.
My youngest has recently finished a year's unpaid placement in London as part of his uni course. No pay as such, but the same expenses allowance paid each month.Certainly not nearly enough to live on and thankfully we could afford to subsidise him.They have been doing it for some time now, and as far as I know, without trouble from the 'authorities'.He loved his time there, grew up, learned a lot and it seems a shame that common -sense cannot always prevail in matters such as this.

 

[Wozza]

Why is it any less a shame when only one employee is not paid the minimum wage because the company employs hundreds and hundreds of people. What if you were the one employee who was not paid correctly? 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.

The other decision about further employing those on lower wages has nothing to with being guilty of paying the one employee incorrectly. 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. It seems many other football clubs pay the correct wages without having to suspend their program of employing those on lower wages. Shame, shame, shame on Brighton and Hove Albion!!!!!

Er... related to the individual by chance?

 

[Easy 10]

Sorry, but please re-read the statement. It does not say that.

OK apologies, a reduction in work experience opportunities. Its the clubs prerogative I suppose, but I still fail to see why this should be the case, off the back one incident.

Personal agenda shining through very brightly there.

Err...
what ?

 

[wellquickwoody]

Why is it any less a shame when only one employee is not paid the minimum wage because the company employs hundreds and hundreds of people. What if you were the one employee who was not paid correctly? 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.

The other decision about further employing those on lower wages has nothing to with being guilty of paying the one employee incorrectly. 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. It seems many other football clubs pay the correct wages without having to suspend their program of employing those on lower wages. Shame, shame, shame on Brighton and Hove Albion!!!!!

WTF?? So you have never, ever made a mistake in your job?

 

[Driver8]

Why is it any less a shame when only one employee is not paid the minimum wage because the company employs hundreds and hundreds of people. What if you were the one employee who was not paid correctly? 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.

The other decision about further employing those on lower wages has nothing to with being guilty of paying the one employee incorrectly. 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. It seems many other football clubs pay the correct wages without having to suspend their program of employing those on lower wages. Shame, shame, shame on Brighton and Hove Albion!!!!!

Talk about the club overreacting......

 

[Albion my Albion]

Er... related to the individual by chance?

I'm not related to anyone on the south coast.

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?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Over reaction to be named and shamed, and then over reaction on the club's part to issue the statement they did, which came over as rather 'knee jerky' and sulky, whatever they say.
Should have issued a far more measured response.
My youngest has recently finished a year's unpaid placement in London as part of his uni course. No pay as such, but the same expenses allowance paid each month.Certainly not nearly enough to live on and thankfully we could afford to subsidise him.They have been doing it for some time now, and as far as I know, without trouble from the 'authorities'.He loved his time there, grew up, learned a lot and it seems a shame that common -sense cannot always prevail in matters such as this.

Reading this, I think I understand what the club have been doing, but HMRC seem to think differently? Have I understood it right?

 

[Albion my Albion]

WTF?? So you have never, ever made a mistake in your job?

Not when it came to someone's wages. That is way too important.

 

[Gazwag]

My youngest has recently finished a year's unpaid placement in London as part of his uni course. No pay as such, but the same expenses allowance paid each month.Certainly not nearly enough to live on and thankfully we could afford to subsidise him.They have been doing it for some time now, and as far as I know, without trouble from the 'authorities'.He loved his time there, grew up, learned a lot and it seems a shame that common -sense cannot always prevail in matters such as this.

Maybe they haven't been subject to a HMRC NMW investigation yet.

 

[Easy 10]

Sorry, but please re-read the statement. It does not say that.

Why is it any less a shame when only one employee is not paid the minimum wage because the company employs hundreds and hundreds of people. What if you were the one employee who was not paid correctly? 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.

The other decision about further employing those on lower wages has nothing to with being guilty of paying the one employee incorrectly. 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. It seems many other football clubs pay the correct wages without having to suspend their program of employing those on lower wages. Shame, shame, shame on Brighton and Hove Albion!!!!!

Read my post. I'm not saying it would be any less a shame if the club was paying one singular employee less than the minimum wage. I'm saying that if it IS only one person, out of hundreds, who is being paid less, then it might be worthwhile HMRC actually looking into it first before just naming and shaming, because there's a good chance that if it was just 1 in a hundred (or whatever), then there may have been an honest mistake. In this instance there had been an administrative error that had been corrected - as the club has now had to publically explain. It should not have been necessary though if HMRC had done some rudimentary checks first and found out.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Read my post. I'm not saying it would be any less a shame if the club was paying one singular employee less than the minimum wage. I'm saying that if it IS only one person, out of hundreds, who is being paid less, then it might be worthwhile HMRC actually looking into it first before just naming and shaming, because there's a good chance that if it was just 1 in a hundred (or whatever), then there may have been an honest mistake. In this instance there had been an administrative error that had been corrected - as the club has now had to publically explain. It should not have been necessary though if HMRC had done some rudimentary checks first and found out.

I just don't think there is ever such a thing as an "honest mistake" when it comes to someone who has "honestly" earned their wages. Simply hire someone who won't make mistakes when their job includes paying people their wages. Payroll is too important to make mistakes.

 

[lost in london]

Sorry, but please re-read the statement. It does not say that.

Yes it does: "As a result of the HMRC's decision (to which there is no right of appeal) the club has suspended its work experience programme..."

Seems very knee jerky to me that one press release re one person from HMRC leads the club to suspending a work experience programme.