Jump to content

Named and shamed...............


FTOF

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Zero hours contracts are an abomination and should be banned permanently.

Employees have a right to know they can pay their bills each month and put food on the table.

We can't be running an economy for the benefit of students or those who don't really mind if their hours vary wildly each week.

We have about 1 million people stuck on these things and they are the people who are most vulnerable.

Most contracts that aren't zero hour have a caveat that the working hours can be changed as per the needs of the business anyway.

Edited by slapsalmon
Link to comment
Share on other sites


20 minutes ago, slapsalmon said:

Is that not a contradiction to your earlier post?

Maybe I have been misunderstood ? Minimum hourly rate can only be reached at 25 years and over. The Scottish government name and shame those companies that don't play by that so called rule. It's not law ( I think ) I'm all for worker's rights , however it seems a bit one way as some small business are struggling . There does not seem to be a balance. Certainly there are companies out there that took full advantage of zero working hours one sports company in particular which was rightly never off the news. Then we have some of our population working and using food banks. The system is all screwed up in my book. Mean while billionaires grow at a fast rate in the last 10 years while normal workers are earning less while paying off the financial mess that this world is in. Another reason why voting habits are changing with right wing party's are growing strong in mainland Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Zero hours contracts are an abomination and should be banned permanently.

Employees have a right to know they can pay their bills each month and put food on the table.

We can't be running an economy for the benefit of students or those who don't really mind if their hours vary wildly each week.

We have about 1 million people stuck on these things and they are the people who are most vulnerable.

I kind of agree but there are situations (a small football club is a perfect example) where such contracts are ethical and sensible. They definitely shouldn't be used by massive full time employers a la Amazon and Sports Direct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
I kind of agree but there are situations (a small football club is a perfect example) where such contracts are ethical and sensible. They definitely shouldn't be used by massive full time employers a la Amazon and Sports Direct.

Sorry but that doesn't work.

You can't exempt some companies and not others.

 

Also not sure what's ethical about them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Sorry but that doesn't work.

You can't exempt some companies and not others.

 

Also not sure what's ethical about them?

Yes, I am not necessarily persuaded by that argument either but I am a little conflicted.

In the past I have made good use of offering my services for free to gain experience which has then led to a job offer elsewhere.

The problem is that companies can't seem to stop abusing employees at every turn.

I think there might be a case if players are working paid jobs elsewhere and train with the club at night or for a few hours.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

I kind of agree but there are situations (a small football club is a perfect example) where such contracts are ethical and sensible. They definitely shouldn't be used by massive full time employers a la Amazon and Sports Direct.

 

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

Sorry but that doesn't work.

You can't exempt some companies and not others.

 

Also not sure what's ethical about them?

Are the matchday stewards employees of the club? Surely they would be candidates for a zero hours contract, when there is sometimes 3 weeks between home matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony's response is a joke. Disappointed in the club statement on this.

We need to come out and confirm that was the case and no longer is for all employees. His statement strikes me as if he's no clue about this stuff. He's a director and more importantly CEO. Nothing like this should be a surprise to him.

Loopholes in legislation is not what we should be seeking. We're a professional club that should be fair to our staff whether there a steward, kit man or star player. Pay a living wage but if that isn't feasible pay the minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Sorry but that doesn't work.

You can't exempt some companies and not others.

 

Also not sure what's ethical about them?

Why ?

 

Zero hour contracts make perfect sense in a small business who's core focus is a match day every second week. I'm clearly not talking playing contracts here but there is an obvious requirement for staff to work on an occasional basis. This scenario is light years away from the big multi nationals who we all know exploit staff via these contracts. I'm talking about staff who are happy with irregular part time work here, not the blatant exploitation of a person struggling to make ends meet who is desperate for a regular full time contract. Anyway we were abusing the national minimum wage which is completely unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly was the player in question only on a holding contract as he never did anything to earn a wage as he. Was in Edinburgh. Also were one of the OF not looking at him so we kept him on contract to stop him going and leaving us with no development fee. I did not think we were doing anything wrong as we allowed him to play part time for another team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mcdowell76 said:

Why?

As a football club, we play matches every so often. Sometimes the games are cancelled and rearranged at different times. Sometimes we get cup matches or replays, sometimes we don't.

In other words, we need extra staff for certain unspecified dates and times.

If we have a bank of people, we call someone up and offer them work as required. If they can't manage then we call up the next person and so on.

What is wrong with that?

What you have said is the whole basis of the latest circumstances in employment law that's been in the news now for the last few weeks. It's why firms are finding themselves in court as they have been breaking the law for years. Let me explain quickly ....if you are a so called "freelancer" / "self employed" "now and again "  or ''as required" employee .... basically there is no such thing. You are an EMPLOYEE and the people employing you are liable for your contributions, pension and holiday pay, insurance etc.... WHY you may ask ?? Because of the fact you cannot go and play for six other clubs at the same time (then you WOULD be freelance) It's like the taxi drivers ....because they cannot drive for ten other firms they are "tied" to the one company even if that company only uses them one a week. The whole law is now becoming very clear. Self Employed is you and YOU alone !! The moment you are under the umbrella of a firm of plumbers or whatever then you are an EMPLOYEE and they must pay you a living wage and they must be responsible for ALL I mentioned above. There is going to be massive repercussions in the world of work and it is beginning to now erupt in a big way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

Sorry but that doesn't work.

You can't exempt some companies and not others.

 

Also not sure what's ethical about them?

Yes you are spot on ............. It's why firms are finding themselves in court as they have been breaking the law for years. Let me explain quickly ....if you are a so called "freelancer" / "self employed" "now and again "  or ''as required" employee .... basically there is no such thing. You are an EMPLOYEE and the people employing you are liable for your contributions, pension and holiday pay, insurance etc.... WHY you may ask ?? Because of the fact you cannot go and play for six other clubs at the same time (then you WOULD be freelance) It's like the taxi drivers ....because they cannot drive for ten other firms they are "tied" to the one company even if that company only uses them one a week. The whole law is now becoming very clear. Self Employed is you and YOU alone !! The moment you are under the umbrella of a firm of plumbers or whatever then you are an EMPLOYEE and they must pay you a living wage and they must be responsible for ALL I mentioned above. There is going to be massive repercussions in the world of work and it is beginning to now erupt in a big way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Highland Saint said:

Tony's response is a joke. Disappointed in the club statement on this.

His statement strikes me as if he's no clue about this stuff. He's a director and more importantly CEO. Nothing like this should be a surprise to him.
 

Indeed, a pathetic statement from the SMFC CEO. 

Quote

Tony Fitzpatrick, chief executive of St Mirren said: “I don’t know why we are on the list. All of this was dealt with some time ago.

“It must have been before we came in or before the take-over.”

 First he says he "doesn't know why we are on the list", then says he does know why we are on the list, the says again he doesn't know why we are on the list. Not to mention the complete lack of empathy or apology on behalf of the club.

 

Is this the best leadership we can get?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Why ?
 
Zero hour contracts make perfect sense in a small business who's core focus is a match day every second week. I'm clearly not talking playing contracts here but there is an obvious requirement for staff to work on an occasional basis. This scenario is light years away from the big multi nationals who we all know exploit staff via these contracts. I'm talking about staff who are happy with irregular part time work here, not the blatant exploitation of a person struggling to make ends meet who is desperate for a regular full time contract. Anyway we were abusing the national minimum wage which is completely unacceptable.

It only makes perfect sense to the employer, not to the employees ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Maybe I have been misunderstood ? Minimum hourly rate can only be reached at 25 years and over. The Scottish government name and shame those companies that don't play by that so called rule. It's not law ( I think ) I'm all for worker's rights , however it seems a bit one way as some small business are struggling . There does not seem to be a balance. Certainly there are companies out there that took full advantage of zero working hours one sports company in particular which was rightly never off the news. Then we have some of our population working and using food banks. The system is all screwed up in my book. Mean while billionaires grow at a fast rate in the last 10 years while normal workers are earning less while paying off the financial mess that this world is in. Another reason why voting habits are changing with right wing party's are growing strong in mainland Europe.

Your not misunderstood, your wrong. There are 3 tiers of minimum wage depending on age. It is also law and not a so called rule.

 

What's one way about it? By law there is a minimum per hour to be paid for an employees services. Doesnt matter wether people work for a small company or a big company they should be paid minimum wage at least.

 

The original point I made was that there are hospitality companies paying less than minimum wage all over the place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sandy said:

Yes you are spot on ............. It's why firms are finding themselves in court as they have been breaking the law for years. Let me explain quickly ....if you are a so called "freelancer" / "self employed" "now and again "  or ''as required" employee .... basically there is no such thing. You are an EMPLOYEE and the people employing you are liable for your contributions, pension and holiday pay, insurance etc.... WHY you may ask ?? Because of the fact you cannot go and play for six other clubs at the same time (then you WOULD be freelance) It's like the taxi drivers ....because they cannot drive for ten other firms they are "tied" to the one company even if that company only uses them one a week. The whole law is now becoming very clear. Self Employed is you and YOU alone !! The moment you are under the umbrella of a firm of plumbers or whatever then you are an EMPLOYEE and they must pay you a living wage and they must be responsible for ALL I mentioned above. There is going to be massive repercussions in the world of work and it is beginning to now erupt in a big way.

I think you are mixing up zero hours "employment" contracts and self-employed "contracts for service" here.......a lot of what you are saying is correct but all contributions for hours worked should be met under "zero hours" contracts as they are "employed" for the hours they work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

Why ?

 

Zero hour contracts make perfect sense in a small business who's core focus is a match day every second week. I'm clearly not talking playing contracts here but there is an obvious requirement for staff to work on an occasional basis. This scenario is light years away from the big multi nationals who we all know exploit staff via these contracts. I'm talking about staff who are happy with irregular part time work here, not the blatant exploitation of a person struggling to make ends meet who is desperate for a regular full time contract. Anyway we were abusing the national minimum wage which is completely unacceptable.

You get around that by not employing the worker directly.

You employ them through their agency. The agency is then responsible for finding them work elsewhere during the week.

OR you pay them as self employed with the extra cost associated with that.

Both those options are expensive but taking the cheap option has the potential to ruin people's lives and our club should have nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oaksoft said:

You get around that by not employing the worker directly.

You employ them through their agency. The agency is then responsible for finding them work elsewhere during the week.

OR you pay them as self employed with the extra cost associated with that.

Both those options are expensive but taking the cheap option has the potential to ruin people's lives and our club should have nothing to do with it.

Except you can't be self-employed if you are working under supervision, direction or control and that the agency has no obligation to find them other work. You end up paying a "premium" on top of wages and only achieve an increase to your costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sandy said:

What you have said is the whole basis of the latest circumstances in employment law that's been in the news now for the last few weeks. It's why firms are finding themselves in court as they have been breaking the law for years. Let me explain quickly ....if you are a so called "freelancer" / "self employed" "now and again "  or ''as required" employee .... basically there is no such thing. You are an EMPLOYEE and the people employing you are liable for your contributions, pension and holiday pay, insurance etc.... WHY you may ask ?? Because of the fact you cannot go and play for six other clubs at the same time (then you WOULD be freelance) It's like the taxi drivers ....because they cannot drive for ten other firms they are "tied" to the one company even if that company only uses them one a week. The whole law is now becoming very clear. Self Employed is you and YOU alone !! The moment you are under the umbrella of a firm of plumbers or whatever then you are an EMPLOYEE and they must pay you a living wage and they must be responsible for ALL I mentioned above. There is going to be massive repercussions in the world of work and it is beginning to now erupt in a big way.

This is excellent.

More importantly than being able to work for one employer, the problem is that the worker can't exercise a Right of Substitution - he can't send his mate to play for the club.

There is clear direction and control exercised by the club and obviously mutuality of obligation.

This is as crystal clear a case of employment as it is possible to have IMO and therefore the club MIUST abide by the relevant laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WeeBud said:

Except you can't be self-employed if you are working under supervision, direction or control and that the agency has no obligation to find them other work. You end up paying a "premium" on top of wages and only achieve an increase to your costs.

The worker becomes an employee of the agency and THEY are responsible for employees rights.

This is how Capita works for example.

If the person was self employed the club would have to accept a right of substutition or accept a huge loss of direction and control.

They would also need to be hired on a contract which was for a specific task.

All sorts of considerations like this would need to be undertaken.

The whole thing is a minefield for employer and employee alike (see IR35 legislation for example).

Both parties know exactly whether the relationship is employment or self employment.

When you start taking the piss or attempting to grey an area which is absolutely black and white then you quite rightly run the risk of expensive court cases.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The worker becomes an employee of the agency and THEY are responsible for employees rights.

This is how Capita works for example.

If the person was self employed the club would have to accept a right of substutition or accept a huge loss of direction and control.

They would also need to be hired on a contract which was for a specific task.

All sorts of considerations like this would need to be undertaken.

The whole thing is a minefield for employer and employee alike (see IR35 legislation for example).

Both parties know exactly whether the relationship is employment or self employment.

When you start taking the piss or attempting to grey an area which is absolutely black and white then you quite rightly run the risk of expensive court cases.

The costs of which they add to the hourly rate of pay..........they are an employee on a temporary basis and in the very vast majority of "agency" situations they are on zero hours contracts.

Not direction AND control but direction OR control in your third sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...