Furlough Scheme abuse

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Dave T said:

On this point, I tried to find details of where it leaves people in these circumstances i.e. do individuals have to accept being furloughed? 

Yes the employee has to agree to be Furloughed through consultation and the employee sets the terms, i.e Whether they can work for other companies etc.

 

[Shadow]

28 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I am well paid.

I have not requested that my manager cut my wages. I am impressed that so many on this forum apparently have requested this for themselves.

Until I do the same, I will not condemn anyone else for not doing so. Even then, I will obviously wait to know their full ciscumstances.

Whilst I am fairly well paid and am still currently being paid my full salary I am by no means on Professional Footballer money I would understand if my employer asked me to take a reduction. I would be less impressed if they reduced the salaries of lower paid staff before mine, if anything I would expect to see a reduction before they did. I would suggest it's the same for football club employees. 

[Bob8]

Just now, Shadow said:

Whilst I am fairly well paid and am still currently being paid my full salary I am by no means on Professional Footballer money I would understand if my employer asked me to take a reduction. I would be less impressed if they reduced the salaries of lower paid staff before mine, if anything I would expect to see a reduction before they did. I would suggest it's the same for football club employees. 

That is a fair point.

The issue is that soccer is an artificial market, as teams are only allowed eleven players rather than taking on more playing staff to improve productivity and quality. It makes the players more like the luxury cars in a garage.

[Spidey]

21 minutes ago, Dave T said:

On this point, I tried to find details of where it leaves people in these circumstances i.e. do individuals have to accept being furloughed? 

I had a “lay off” clause in my contract so was compelled to. In the Government details it encouraged companies to get employees to agree - so I guess it can vary from employer to employer

[Spidey]

20 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

Yes the employee has to agree to be Furloughed through consultation and the employee sets the terms, i.e Whether they can work for other companies etc.

 

See my other post employment contracts vary from company to company

[Shadow]

1 minute ago, Bob8 said:

That is a fair point.

The issue is that soccer is an artificial market, as teams are only allowed eleven players rather than taking on more playing staff to improve productivity and quality. It makes the players more like the luxury cars in a garage.

There is no point in making analgous comparisons to anything, it is a clear case in and of itself.

Companies are asking their lower paid staff to take a pay cut for the good of the company while continuing to pay the best paid staff at their full rate. Either everyone should get the cut or no one should get the cut. Individuals can be Furloughed according to the needs of the business.  It doesn't matter if the company makes cupcakes, ventilators or provides entertainment. 

[Chrispmartha]

8 minutes ago, Spidey said:

See my other post employment contracts vary from company to company

Yes they do, you are indeed correct, lay off clauses do change it.

[Bob8]

2 minutes ago, Shadow said:

There is no point in making analgous comparisons to anything, it is a clear case in and of itself.

Companies are asking their lower paid staff to take a pay cut for the good of the company while continuing to pay the best paid staff at their full rate. Either everyone should get the cut or no one should get the cut. Individuals can be Furloughed according to the needs of the business.  It doesn't matter if the company makes cupcakes, ventilators or provides entertainment. 

The issue is who benefits.

In the case of a major football club, I would suggest the one who benefits from players taking a cut in wages would be the owner who gets some extra pocket money. Roman Abramovich will be fine either way and so will Chelsea FC.

For the administrative staff of any company, I am in agreement. They will be treated more like employees rather than luxury assets.

The question might be, if you were a player who was earning a forture and staff were being let go, would you put your hand in your pocket. I have been on a project that was put on hold, and in meant losing some administrative staff while a few of us who were seen as high performing were kept on and paid big money to wait, so that we were not lost to other projects. Generally, that latter group did make a decent contribution to the former, but it would not have been the business of any newspaper.

[Shadow]

5 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

The issue is who benefits.

In the case of a major football club, I would suggest the one who benefits from players taking a cut in wages would be the owner who gets some extra pocket money. Roman Abramovich will be fine either way and so will Chelsea FC.

For the administrative staff of any company, I am in agreement. They will be treated more like employees rather than luxury assets.

The question might be, if you were a player who was earning a forture and staff were being let go, would you put your hand in your pocket. I have been on a project that was put on hold, and in meant losing some administrative staff while a few of us who were seen as high performing were kept on and paid big money to wait, so that we were not lost to other projects. Generally, that latter group did make a decent contribution to the former, but it would not have been the business of any newspaper.

We need to differentiate then between the principle and the practical here. 

The Principle being, if the disgustingly wealthy owners decide that they cannot support their loss making vanity project while no one is coming through the gate then everyone should get the same conversation about wage cuts. 

If for one of many reasons the players are paid at their full entitled ourageous levels then those players have a decision to make. A number of high profile current and former players have made very clear and principled stands, from the top of my head Gary Neville, Marcus Rashford, Ronaldo and Ryan Giggs have all made extremely generous donations of money and facilities. (imagine that, Ryan Giggs and Principled in the same sentence. We live in strange times)  I would hope if I were fortunate enough to be in the same position I would be more Marcus Rashford than Alex Song. 

[Damien]

Nice to see Man Utd players giving up 30% of their wages to local NHS organisations. I've not heard of the club furloughing anyone either:

Old Trafford stars earning up to £375,000-a-week have agreed to forgo 30 per cent of their wages for one month on the proviso that the money is used to benefit hospitals and health centres throughout Manchester in the fight against the coronavirus. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8184201/Manchester-United-stars-donate-NHS-coronavirus-fight-taking-30-wage-cut.html

[gingerjon]

Just now, Damien said:

Nice to see Man Utd players giving up 30% of their wages to local NHS organisations. I've not heard of the club furloughing anyone either:

Old Trafford stars earning up to £375,000-a-week have agreed to forgo 30 per cent of their wages for one month on the proviso that the money is used to benefit hospitals and health centres throughout Manchester in the fight against the coronavirus. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8184201/Manchester-United-stars-donate-NHS-coronavirus-fight-taking-30-wage-cut.html

The comment I saw on twitter is that by furloughing (or equivalent) the Glazers would benefit, this way the money goes to local hospitals.

[Damien]

13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The comment I saw on twitter is that by furloughing (or equivalent) the Glazers would benefit, this way the money goes to local hospitals.

Yeah which is great.

[LeeF]

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

Nice to see Man Utd players giving up 30% of their wages to local NHS organisations. I've not heard of the club furloughing anyone either:

Old Trafford stars earning up to £375,000-a-week have agreed to forgo 30 per cent of their wages for one month on the proviso that the money is used to benefit hospitals and health centres throughout Manchester in the fight against the coronavirus. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8184201/Manchester-United-stars-donate-NHS-coronavirus-fight-taking-30-wage-cut.html

I remember reading but, as usual, can’t find the link when I want it that they are paying match day staff in full

[Chrispmartha]

£375,000, a week!!! Bloody hell I don’t follow football, I honestly didn’t realise it was that out of control.

That is obscene 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Shadow said:

There is no point in making analgous comparisons to anything, it is a clear case in and of itself.

Companies are asking their lower paid staff to take a pay cut for the good of the company while continuing to pay the best paid staff at their full rate. Either everyone should get the cut or no one should get the cut. Individuals can be Furloughed according to the needs of the business.  It doesn't matter if the company makes cupcakes, ventilators or provides entertainment. 

I don't believe many companies are furloughing 100% of their staff (that is from the limited articles highlighting individual cases). I don't see why it should be everyone or nobody tbh. 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't believe many companies are furloughing 100% of their staff (that is from the limited articles highlighting individual cases). I don't see why it should be everyone or nobody tbh. 

It should by the spirit of the scheme be anyone who would otherwise be made redundant, so in reality, contrary to what I think should happen the football clubs are technically correct.

[Damien]

It seems that Premier League clubs have been stifled into action:

Premier League clubs will ask players to take a 30% pay cut in order to protect jobs as it was announced the season will not resume until "it is safe and appropriate to do so".

All clubs have agreed to put the proposed "combination of conditional reductions and deferrals" to players.

The Premier League will give £125m to the EFL and National League, plus £20m to the NHS and vulnerable groups.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52148955

[Derwent]

3 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Your contract may allow you to jump ship, a footballers contract may not

That would depend on if they could demonstrate that Force Majeure is in effect. The clubs are unable to stage games, the players are unable to participate in games. Neither party is unable to fulfill their contractual obligations as things stand. There would be an argument for either Force Majeure or the contract being Frustrated, but it isn't guaranteed.

[Click]

23 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

And yet as a self employed person , I can 

RL players aren't paid to train , they are payed to play 

Yes they are - It was kind of the point of the new professional era, no?

If the players were only being paid match payments then you maybe right.

[GUBRATS]

38 minutes ago, Click said:

Yes they are - It was kind of the point of the new professional era, no?

If the players were only being paid match payments then you maybe right.

So they are RL trainers then ?

[Shadow]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

I don't believe many companies are furloughing 100% of their staff (that is from the limited articles highlighting individual cases). I don't see why it should be everyone or nobody tbh. 

I didn’t suggest Furloughing all or none, I suggested pay cuts for everyone or no one.

furlough can be applied as per the needs of the business 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Shadow said:

I didn’t suggest Furloughing all or none, I suggested pay cuts for everyone or no one.

furlough can be applied as per the needs of the business 

Ah yes. I don't disagree with that point. I think companies like this should be topping up to 100% anybody they furlough. 

[Damien]

Seems like Liverpool are choosing to use the furlough scheme too, to the outrage of their fans and ex players:

 

[GUBRATS]

On 03/04/2020 at 14:26, Chrispmartha said:

£375,000, a week!!! Bloody hell I don’t follow football, I honestly didn’t realise it was that out of control.

That is obscene 

The average premiership wage is £70K a week apparently 

 

[DavidM]

13 hours ago, Damien said:

Seems like Liverpool are choosing to use the furlough scheme too, to the outrage of their fans and ex players:

 

He’s right . Spurs n Liverpool made 150 million profits . Non playing staff first to take a hit . Looks bad