BHA fined for paying minimum wage

Cheshire Cat · Jan 7, 2017

Correction - NOT paying mimimum wage.

I recall we were done for this a couple of years ago. Have we been caught again or is this an old story being repeated?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/firms-fined-minimum-wage-football-clubs-restaurants

"Directors at Brighton and Hove Albion, which was found to have owed one worker £2,861.64, are still angry about being named.

They argued there was a simple administrative error regarding expenses paid to someone on work experience and received external legal advice that the club was not in breach of employment regulation – yet still saw the Seagulls’ image “unfairly tarnished”. "

Bakero · Jan 7, 2017

Old story.

Blue Valkyrie · Jan 7, 2017

From Ancient Times.

Bakero · Jan 7, 2017

http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?346913-Albion-main-headline-on-Guardian-homepage

Guy Fawkes · Jan 7, 2017

They are using that old example as a part of their new story as a demonstration of the types of businesses that have failed to pay employees properly at some point in the past

I suspect that this type of story is going to be repeated every few years & with our clubs name being used as an example every time. It's wrong imo, especially if it was a genuine admin error in bonus payments to a person on work experience - why should this get continually highlighted every few years and potentially damaging the club, especially when it's not that clear that it happened quite a while ago?

Justice · Jan 7, 2017

We pay what we want we pay what we want .....

drew · Jan 7, 2017

Cheshire Cat said:
Correction - NOT paying mimimum wage.

I recall we were done for this a couple of years ago. Have we been caught again or is this an old story being repeated?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/firms-fined-minimum-wage-football-clubs-restaurants

"Directors at Brighton and Hove Albion, which was found to have owed one worker £2,861.64, are still angry about being named.

They argued there was a simple administrative error regarding expenses paid to someone on work experience and received external legal advice that the club was not in breach of employment regulation – yet still saw the Seagulls’ image “unfairly tarnished”. "

Keep up at the back!!!!!

Thunder Bolt · Jan 7, 2017

Rehashed, and it was nothing to do with the minimum wage, but a mistake over a work experience expenses.

TottonSeagull · Jan 7, 2017

Has Peter Ward been sold to Forest, just heard a rumour!!!

dingodan · Jan 7, 2017

Nothing hurts the young & low skilled worker more than the minimum wage does.

I will never understand why people accept the idea that a minimum wage tackles poverty, it creates poverty.

atomised · Jan 7, 2017

Again, since yesterdays Guardian rehash of last years story? We must be more careful

lost in london · Jan 7, 2017

dingodan said:
Nothing hurts the young & low skilled worker more than the minimum wage does.

I will never understand why people accept the idea that a minimum wage tackles poverty, it creates poverty.

What absolute f*cking cobblers. Friedman assumes companies pay people exactly what they deserve based on their skill set. That's patently not true. Companies on the whole pay as little as they can get away with to keep their business profitable.

dingodan · Jan 7, 2017

lost in london said:
What absolute f*cking cobblers. Friedman assumes companies pay people exactly what they deserve based on their skill set. That's patently not true. Companies on the whole pay as little as they can get away with to keep their business profitable.

Interesting that you chose to say "to keep their business profitable.". Should they allow their business to no longer be profitable for the sake of paying higher wages? What happens if a business is no longer profitable? It's no longer a business. Nobody gets paid anything.

Let's assume that what you meant to say was, "to make their business as profiable as possible." That's the goal of any business though isn't it? That's where investment and jobs come from, isn't it?

Companies do not pay people "exactly what they deserve". What does anyone deserve? If you are talking about paying people what their labour is worth, that's what I am suggesting we should do, and it is what the minimum wage prevents.

Imagine a summer job working a stall at a fair, or something. It's low skilled, possibly doesn't produce significant profit. It is an opportunity though for someone with low skills to develop their skills, earn some money, and improve their future prospects. In a system without a mimimum wage that low skilled young person has that opportunity to get those important things. In a system like ours with a minimum wage that low skilled young person isn't allowed to compete. The employer must pay 7,8,9GBP per hour or whatever the minimum wage is. The employer will choose someone whose skills and experience can command that wage, and probably fewer of them too. Less jobs overall, and none for the very people who are most in need of one, and whom the minimum wage was meant to help.

I understand that minimum wage laws (and you) are well meaning and trying to be compassionate and caring. But you have to look at what the outcomes are of a policy at least as closely as you look at it's intentions and sentiment.

marlowe · Jan 7, 2017

dingodan said:
Imagine a summer job working a stall at a fair, or something. It's low skilled, possibly doesn't produce significant profit. It is an opportunity though for someone with low skills to develop their skills, earn some money, and improve their future prospects. In a system without a mimimum wage that low skilled young person has that opportunity to get those important things. In a system like ours with a minimum wage that low skilled young person isn't allowed to compete. The employer must pay 7,8,9GBP per hour or whatever the minimum wage is. The employer will choose someone whose skills and experience can command that wage, and probably fewer of them too. Less jobs overall, and none for the very people who are most in need of one, and whom the minimum wage was meant to help.

There's a flaw in your argument because the national minimum wage is currently £7.20 per hour but that only applies to people over 25. For people under 18 the minimum wage is £4 per hour. So your concern that the low skilled young person will be frozen out in favour of an older more experienced person is not valid. In the fairground scenario you put forward the young inexperienced person will have the advantage because he will cost £3.20 per hour less to employ

Triggaaar · Jan 7, 2017

Again!

GT49er · Jan 7, 2017

There's a football match going on at the moment somewhere.............................................

dingodan · Jan 7, 2017

marlowe said:
There's a flaw in your argument because the national minimum wage is currently £7.20 per hour but that only applies to people over 25. For people under 18 the minimum wage is £4 per hour. So your concern that the low skilled young person will be frozen out in favour of an older more experienced person is not valid. In the fairground scenario you put forward the young inexperienced person will have the advantage because he will cost £3.20 per hour less to employ

I must admit I wasn't aware that we have tiered minimum wage, that's certainly preferable. Although whatever the numbers might be, the point remains the same. While you have a minimum wage, you will have people who are unable to compete for work. What about a low skilled person who is over 25?

You must understand my point because like you say, the young person who can be paid less has an advantage (or rather, a means to compete) in the employment market.

beorhthelm · Jan 7, 2017

lost in london said:
What absolute f*cking cobblers. Friedman assumes companies pay people exactly what they deserve based on their skill set. That's patently not true. Companies on the whole pay as little as they can get away with to keep their business profitable.

you say its not true then agree with the premise. of course they pay as little as necessary, do you pay more than you need to for anything? largely pay reflects the market for skills combined with the productivity of their labour. funny thing is exactly the same principle is applied by unions, trying to lock out non-union labour, insisting their better skilled members get the work, for more pay.

marlowe · Jan 7, 2017

dingodan said:
You must understand my point because like you say, the young person who can be paid less has an advantage (or rather, a means to compete) in the employment market.

In so far that an older person would not be able to legally offer his services for £4 an hour even if he was prepared to work for that I suppose it is unfair. Maybe a fairer system would be if it wasn't tiered and there was a level playing field but I think the lower rate is there to give the employer who might struggle to pay the full rate an alternative option.

Your Mum · Jan 7, 2017

dingodan said:
Nothing hurts the young & low skilled worker more than.....

....your mum.

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

BHA fined for paying minimum wage

The most curious thing..

Languidly clinical

Not seen such Bravery!

Languidly clinical

The voice of treason

Dangerous Idiot

Drew

Silly old bat

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page