Tomahawk - to avoid after lockdown

Andy_W said:
Of course, I know that, it's economically a very sound thing to do, to save the economy and save jobs, which is exactly the thing I'm trying to explain/ protect. My point is the people getting the money are not doing anything for it, currently.

Might be "here nor there" to you, but it won't be to them. It's also to have a job to go back to, to not have to sell the house, or car. Having everyone on furlough is unsustainable, so would eventually have to drop and as would benefits, or other services. If furlough prolonged, then the furlough and benefits would not go up, money runs out.

Furlough does not come directly from the government, the company pays it and claims it back (weeks later), this is a cashflow problem.

Funny how you cut out/ ignore the outlay/ losses that the business has had.........and that they pay the loan back, and then also provide future employment.

Nothing to do with the business or ower, or have any link in any way whatsoever. I wouldn't touch hospitality with a barge pole to be honest, wouldn't have done this pre-pandemic either. But during the pandemic, as I've seen first hand the damage done in other sectors and it's brutal, but nothing compared to what hospitality is dealing with.

The staff have a lot more to gain in percentage/ real terms and the loan is not a loss, not permanently.
You again talk about a minor shareholder, with assets (probably not fully owned), which are likely mainly achieved from wealth gained away from this business (which is a limited company). His interest in this business is probably equally limited, he (and the other number of shareholders) might eventually just cut their losses (which are likely substantial).
Click to expand...
And you again show a complete lack of understanding. He's a director of the business asking others to give up a portion of their meagre income whilst he's living the high life, it is immoral.

Obviously we don't want to see businesses go to the wall and people unemployed but if they've been expanding and taking on additional liabilities throughout the pandemic then they can't now turn round and plead poverty such that they need interest free loans from their staff.

There's loads of ways they could have rewarded staff for their loyalty at very little cost to them, the fact they haven't even considered that says what kind of an employer they are.

Regardless of there being a lag on furlough payments the scheme is for the benefit of EMPLOYEES. Employers already derive a benefit from this by the wages being covered by the Government.

A relative was asked to give up a portion of his salary during the pandemic (he's by no means on minimum wage). They were promised it would be returned along with enhanced bonuses. He's already had the money returned, they've paid a thank you one off bonus and upped his commission rate - that's how you look after your staff. It was entirely optional and it was made clear how much of a favour they were doing the business and how the business would remember that at the appropriate times. He also wasn't on furlough and they gave all staff who gave up that portion of their salary an additional day off per week for the full duration of that sacrifice.
 
Andy_W said:
That question has been answered, it looks like they had private investment for the expansion (separate company too, which complicates things) and by expanding they increased the number of jobs available.

So by having that investment, that's more people going on 70/80%, than being on 0%. No investor was going to come in and just invest liquid cash, during a pandemic, into hospitality, straight after brexit. The risk would be astronomical, for a tiny reward, there are a million better alternatives.

The shares sound fine on paper but if you think about it in detail, shares lock in money, into hospitality, like private investment, no investor would advise investing in a company which could easily go to zero. No investor would advise investing anything unless the investor had 3-6 months worth of wages saved up. Most low paid people would rather have the cash in 6 months, rather than maybe a tiny share of profits when the business recovers in 3,5,10 years etc. Then there's the admin cost, who buys the shares if they want to sell, what value is £200k loan for 3 month, compared to what the company is/ was worth and what the private investors/ directors have pumped in etc?
Click to expand...
On balance, most people would expect or make sure this was thought of beforehand.
 
Some more information to pull the statement released apart.
I was speaking to an old buddy of mine this morning who's a manager at a very popular restaurant in York and she also confirmed that the staff had been asked to give up 10% of their wages, the thinly veiled threat of been made redundant was indeed true and that not every member of staff had signed up to the scheme. She was told that the owner of the Tomahawk group of restaurants doesn't need to raise as much money as what the scheme would give the company.
 
Primus84 said:
And you again show a complete lack of understanding. He's a director of the business asking others to give up a portion of their meagre income whilst he's living the high life, it is immoral.

Obviously we don't want to see businesses go to the wall and people unemployed but if they've been expanding and taking on additional liabilities throughout the pandemic then they can't now turn round and plead poverty such that they need interest free loans from their staff.

There's loads of ways they could have rewarded staff for their loyalty at very little cost to them, the fact they haven't even considered that says what kind of an employer they are.

Regardless of there being a lag on furlough payments the scheme is for the benefit of EMPLOYEES. Employers already derive a benefit from this by the wages being covered by the Government.

A relative was asked to give up a portion of his salary during the pandemic (he's by no means on minimum wage). They were promised it would be returned along with enhanced bonuses. He's already had the money returned, they've paid a thank you one off bonus and upped his commission rate - that's how you look after your staff. It was entirely optional and it was made clear how much of a favour they were doing the business and how the business would remember that at the appropriate times. He also wasn't on furlough and they gave all staff who gave up that portion of their salary an additional day off per week for the full duration of that sacrifice.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly. They would not have that income if the business goes under, can you just acknowledge that, please?
Like I've said 100 times, it's crap, but sometimes you have to deal with absolute crap to hopefully have it better in the future.

The expansion is different companies, seemingly funded by outside investment, and different shareholdings and shareholders, as per the accounts which lefty looked at. The expansion may have been badly timed, but that's for that company independently, which will also be providing more jobs.

They probably have discussed rewards and promotions, but more importantly, keeping jobs. I wouldn't give a $hit about shares or 10% interest, I would be more bothered about my job, but hey ho.
They probably just didn't realise about giving say 5% interest, or maybe did think about it and though people will have seen through it. I don't think 90% would have seen through it, and nobody on here seems to have either, seeing as most have said this would have made it all ok.

500k loan/ cash issue is "regardless"? rightio......:rolleyes:
The employers don't have to pay staff when they are not in work, and they have been shut by the government/ pandemic, which is a pretty fair reason not to have to pay people. Or they could have just paid everyone and gone broke, or could just fold or could get dragged under like a lot have.

What was the company? What industry? How long had it been going? What were the enhanced bonuses or commission increases?
How much did he loan them, how many months was he in the red for and for how long?
That does sound like a better deal, maybe they have more cash, or a much better situation? Hard to say without knowing the details, same as here. Seems like they have worded it a bit better, although I've not seen what either of them has written.

I paid my staff the full 100%, and even had them in work when I could have just had them off and on furlough. I know loads of companies that furloughed staff which has been nothing to do with the pandemic (just because what they do is seasonal/ boom/ bust anyway), they've not been getting any bad press of course.
 
Andy_W said:
I understand perfectly. They would not have that income if the business goes under, can you just acknowledge that, please?
Like I've said 100 times, it's crap, but sometimes you have to deal with absolute crap to hopefully have it better in the future.

The expansion is different companies, seemingly funded by outside investment, and different shareholdings and shareholders, as per the accounts which lefty looked at. The expansion may have been badly timed, but that's for that company independently, which will also be providing more jobs.

They probably have discussed rewards and promotions, but more importantly, keeping jobs. I wouldn't give a $hit about shares or 10% interest, I would be more bothered about my job, but hey ho.
They probably just didn't realise about giving say 5% interest, or maybe did think about it and though people will have seen through it. I don't think 90% would have seen through it, and nobody on here seems to have either, seeing as most have said this would have made it all ok.

500k loan/ cash issue is "regardless"? rightio......:rolleyes:
The employers don't have to pay staff when they are not in work, and they have been shut by the government/ pandemic, which is a pretty fair reason not to have to pay people. Or they could have just paid everyone and gone broke, or could just fold or could get dragged under like a lot have.

What was the company? What industry? How long had it been going? What were the enhanced bonuses or commission increases?
How much did he loan them, how many months was he in the red for and for how long?
That does sound like a better deal, maybe they have more cash, or a much better situation? Hard to say without knowing the details, same as here. Seems like they have worded it a bit better, although I've not seen what either of them has written.

I paid my staff the full 100%, and even had them in work when I could have just had them off and on furlough. I know loads of companies that furloughed staff which has been nothing to do with the pandemic (just because what they do is seasonal/ boom/ bust anyway), they've not been getting any bad press of course.
Click to expand...
You're completely unable to see the situation of the normal working person aren't you?

They are not responsible for keeping the business afloat - they don't benefit from the successes and profits of the business, if the owners of the business cannot fund it properly then they don't deserve to derive the enormous benefits they seem to have with their Ferraris etc.

If the business continues then the workers who kept the business afloat at great financial hardship to themselves go back to their minimum wage jobs. Meanwhile the directors take even more money out of a business that only exists because people earning minimum wage stepped in to keep it afloat.

You have every excuse under the sun why well off directors shouldn't contribute into the pot but you seem to expect people without a pot to pee in should contribute to their own detriment - you're talking about people who will struggle to make ends meet.
 
Randy said:
Some more information to pull the statement released apart.
I was speaking to an old buddy of mine this morning who's a manager at a very popular restaurant in York and she also confirmed that the staff had been asked to give up 10% of their wages, the thinly veiled threat of been made redundant was indeed true and that not every member of staff had signed up to the scheme. She was told that the owner of the Tomahawk group of restaurants doesn't need to raise as much money as what the scheme would give the company.
Click to expand...
This is like Chinese whispers though isn't it?

I wouldn't be surprised if there was also a bit of "one business bad-mouths other business". How would she know all that detail, even the actual staff wouldn't know that detail, especially not those at the lowest levels?

She doesn't seem to know that there are multiple owners of each restaurant, and no "group" owns all the restaurants (this is simple to see by the accounts/ share structure).
 
Primus84 said:
You're completely unable to see the situation of the normal working person aren't you?

They are not responsible for keeping the business afloat - they don't benefit from the successes and profits of the business, if the owners of the business cannot fund it properly then they don't deserve to derive the enormous benefits they seem to have with their Ferraris etc.

If the business continues then the workers who kept the business afloat at great financial hardship to themselves go back to their minimum wage jobs. Meanwhile the directors take even more money out of a business that only exists because people earning minimum wage stepped in to keep it afloat.

You have every excuse under the sun why well off directors shouldn't contribute into the pot but you seem to expect people without a pot to pee in should contribute to their own detriment - you're talking about people who will struggle to make ends meet.
Click to expand...
I've been the "normal working person" for 15 years, so you could say I understand it.

They are responsible, all employees can affect how a business runs, whether it makes money or whether it doesn't. They're all in together whether you like it or not. If the business has "success" they stay employed, maybe even get promoted, they likely don't end up on the dole. If the employee does well, then maybe they can go elsewhere and get a better role, or more money, and so on. To think an employee does not benefit from employment, and time in employment is ludicrous.

You just seem jealous of "one of" the owner's personal wealth to me, which he probably worked for decades to get, over 20 different businesses or jobs. It's not a directors job to personally roll every single company they're part of, this is not how the "limited company" system works. You may not like that, but it's how it's been for a long time, it's the law, and will stay that way for a long time. The director also isn't likely fully reliant on that business, hence why his risk with it is a lot lower than the staffs. It might not be nice, but it's just the truth.

The business wouldn't be afloat if it's cash and likely the director's personal cash hadn't been propping it up for a year, it would have went under, which ou seem to prefer. The owners, the staff, the assets, the stock, the cash, they're all linked and in it together.

The directors have contributed to the pot, they've been building the "pot" for decades (likely form other work and businesses, with other employed staff), and "the pot" has been hammered by a pandemic, and seemingly can't sustain itself.
 
Andy_W said:
I've been the "normal working person" for 15 years, so you could say I understand it.

They are responsible, all employees can affect how a business runs, whether it makes money or whether it doesn't. They're all in together whether you like it or not. If the business has "success" they stay employed, maybe even get promoted, they likely don't end up on the dole. If the employee does well, then maybe they can go elsewhere and get a better role, or more money, and so on. To think an employee does not benefit from employment, and time in employment is ludicrous.

You just seem jealous of "one of" the owner's personal wealth to me, which he probably worked for decades to get, over 20 different businesses or jobs. It's not a directors job to personally roll every single company they're part of, this is not how the "limited company" system works. You may not like that, but it's how it's been for a long time, it's the law, and will stay that way for a long time. The director also isn't likely fully reliant on that business, hence why his risk with it is a lot lower than the staffs. It might not be nice, but it's just the truth.

The business wouldn't be afloat if it's cash and likely the director's personal cash hadn't been propping it up for a year, it would have went under, which ou seem to prefer. The owners, the staff, the assets, the stock, the cash, they're all linked and in it together.

The directors have contributed to the pot, they've been building the "pot" for decades (likely form other work and businesses, with other employed staff), and "the pot" has been hammered by a pandemic, and seemingly can't sustain itself.
Click to expand...
Haha oh I'm jealous am I?

To respond more fully - if it's not the directors' responsibility to put money into the business then it also isn't the employees' responsibility to put money into the business.

You want directors to have their cake and eat it - take money out of the business in good times and rely on people on minimum wage to keep the business afloat in the bad - that is immoral.
 
hewielewie said:
I might be seeming a little thick here but why can't they get a loan from a bank?
Click to expand...
It's hard to get loans if you've already maxed out all the loans
Plenty of businesses have been unable to get any loans (despite what non-business owners seem to believe)
It's hard to get loans for "cash", not secured against assets
They probably don't have many assets (only been going 3-4 years)
Their accounts are late (probably because they don't want to file and wreck possible credit they will need with suppliers in the coming months)
 
Andy_W said:
It's hard to get loans if you've already maxed out all the loans
Plenty of businesses have been unable to get any loans (despite what non-business owners seem to believe)
It's hard to get loans for "cash", not secured against assets
They probably don't have many assets (only been going 3-4 years)
Their accounts are late (probably because they don't want to file and wreck possible credit they will need with suppliers in the coming months)
Click to expand...
Then are they going to be secure going forward even if the get the money from the employees?
 
Primus84 said:
Haha oh I'm jealous am I?

To respond more fully - if it's not the directors' responsibility to put money into the business then it also isn't the employees' responsibility to put money into the business.

You want directors to have their cake and eat it - take money out of the business in good times and rely on people on minimum wage to keep the business afloat in the bad - that is immoral.
Click to expand...
The staff don't have to, they have a choice, it's not a great choice, but still, a choice and most have seemingly chosen it. You seem to want to go against the actual choice of the staff, who seemingly know their own risk and reward.

If they don't choose this, they likely won't have a job because the business won't exist or one of the 1.5miliion unemployed will take their place.

Most directors lose the cake at some point, and then everything else along with that, usually within the first 5 years. Then end up blacklisted for however long afterwards. Risk and reward.
 
Andy_W said:
The staff don't have to, they have a choice, it's not a great choice, but still, a choice and most have seemingly chosen it. You seem to want to go against the actual choice of the staff, who seemingly know their own risk and reward.

If they don't choose this, they likely won't have a job because the business won't exist or one of the 1.5miliion unemployed will take their place.

Most directors lose the cake at some point, and then everything else along with that, usually within the first 5 years. Then end up blacklisted for however long afterwards. Risk and reward.
Click to expand...
It's not a choice when you're told if you don't you'll be let go.

In this instance though the directors are going to take the rewards if the business continues having had the people on minimum wage take the risk.

It is a risk, if they loan this money and the business goes pop they lose it.
 
hewielewie said:
Then are they going to be secure going forward even if the get the money from the employees?
Click to expand...
Short term cash flow problem by the sounds of things, but nobody really knows, other than the owners.
Ultimately they sound like they would be secure enough long enough to pay it back, assuming summer pandemic numbers will be low/good, and vaccine helping etc. A new strain that could overcome the vaccine might sink them, but it would sink millions.

Nothing much in hospitality is secure though, not for small businesses or those that rely on internal footfall, they look like they're having a nightmare :(
 
Primus84 said:
It's not a choice when you're told if you don't you'll be let go.

In this instance though the directors are going to take the rewards if the business continues having had the people on minimum wage take the risk.

It is a risk, if they loan this money and the business goes pop they lose it.
Click to expand...
What if there is no company, so everyone is "let go". It's not the staff's, business, or business owners fault we're in a pandemic, but that industry is paying the biggest price for it, and it will hurt them all, they're all linked.

If the business goes pop, within the three months of it being re-opened this would be a surprise, especially considering the expected boom over summer. I would think they would like have gone under or folded before it got to that stage. It is a risk though, but the bigger risk is the pandemic, another strain or wave and the industry going pop.
 
Andy_W said:
What if there is no company, so everyone is "let go". It's not the staff's, business, or business owners fault we're in a pandemic, but that industry is paying the biggest price for it, and it will hurt them all, they're all linked.

If the business goes pop, within the three months of it being re-opened this would be a surprise, especially considering the expected boom over summer. I would think they would like have gone under or folded before it got to that stage. It is a risk though, but the bigger risk is the pandemic, another strain or wave and the industry going pop.
Click to expand...
Andy you can't have it both ways, your argument cannot be that the directors do not need to contribute but the employees do.
 
Wouldn't even bother wasting your time. If he can't see why it's a **** thing to do by now then he never will. Was amused when he tried to frame this discussion around you being jealous of the owner's wealth though.
 
Andy_W said:
This is like Chinese whispers though isn't it?

I wouldn't be surprised if there was also a bit of "one business bad-mouths other business". How would she know all that detail, even the actual staff wouldn't know that detail, especially not those at the lowest levels?

She doesn't seem to know that there are multiple owners of each restaurant, and no "group" owns all the restaurants (this is simple to see by the accounts/ share structure).
Click to expand...
Is it though. I told you at the beginning of the thread that I personally know two people who work there who have both told me the reports in the paper are correct and that the official statement is wrong.
The restaurants are franchised are they not?

You claim my friend doesn't know the actual detaila, you don't even know who she is or who she works for or how she knows these details. Let's just say hospitality circles ar close circles.
Also someone earlier in the thread mentioned a connection with a place in Stokesley, I know what that place is now and I'm not at all surprised they would be linked to this fella.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top