Tomahawk - to avoid after lockdown

So what did suitability for the role to be reviewed mean?
Did they say that? Who said? What exactly was said?

But, even if they did, it could be:
1) Staff costing 100% means the company goes broke - so all roles then become not suitable/ viable in that state, ie at 100% the company and job will not exist, the role at that rate could become redundant. If the company knows it will go broke it would just fold instantly, to save the bleeding.
2) Staff contribute 10% (which they get back) means the company doesn't go broke - so the future of that position is viable

Seems to me they're panicking and are scrambling to try and save their reputation that has rightly been badly damaged.

All 500 staff have accepted the offer. I trust that the staff and the owners have more information than we do on here, and know what the risk of the alternative is.
 
All 500 staff have accepted the offer. I trust that the staff and the owners have more information than we do on here, and know what the risk of the alternative is.

Of course they have.
It was get most of your wages or get the sack.

The business will use weasel words and say that they never specifically mentioned sacking them, but the implication is clear.
 
Assuming they can't get finance (likely)
Assuming the business is unviable or severely weaker without the loan (seems that way)
Assuming that directors do not have to prop up unviable businesses with personal cash (which has been earned and taxed), which are outside the umbrella of the limited company (UK law, and this law encourages people to start businesses and create jobs)

Would you all prefer the business to just fold, and all 500 staff go on the dole?
 
It's not going to happen though, is it?

You can guarantee they're not going to carry on with the blackmail scheme after this bad publicity, and I bet that the business miraculously doesn't go under.
 
Of course they have.
It was get most of your wages or get the sack.

The business will use weasel words and say that they never specifically mentioned sacking them, but the implication is clear.
It might be:
If you want 100% then it could end up 100% of nothing, as we might not be here to pay you.

Why does everyone assume every single business owner is bad, some are but most want to thrive and create more jobs.

There are thousands of businesses getting no stick when they've done the below (none of which these seem to have done)
Asking for a permanent pay cut
Folding, and starting up again
Making everyone redundant

It's not going to happen though, is it?

You can guarantee they're not going to carry on with the blackmail scheme after this bad publicity, and I bet that the business miraculously doesn't go under.

You don't know that neither do the business owners in all probability, as they cannot forecast exact takings for the next year.

They might not go ahead with the scheme, and it might not go under, but what is the percentage chance of this happening, baring in mind tons have already gone under.

It has to be worked out on the balance of probability, what is the risk and what is the reward (or what is least bad).

Say if they don't do the loan, if there's a 50% chance of survival then overall the staff would lose out, well on average 250 staff would lose everything.

If there's a 10% chance of going broke, without the loan, it still ends up worse than the staff borrowing the company 10%. As on average 50 lose everything.

The chance of the staff keeping 100% and the company keeping all of it's staff and locations is likely less than 90%.

They're asking for 10%, and offering to give that back. The staff still get 100% over a year if the company survives, if the company doesn't survive with the 10% loan then it had zero chance without the loan.

I think if it's the only viable option for the company, then it's not a bad idea if it keeps them afloat if the staff are ok with it. To be honest I would also be offering the staff a stake in the business or some kind of bonus a year or two down the line as well mind.
 
Assuming they can't get finance (likely)
Assuming the business is unviable or severely weaker without the loan (seems that way)
Assuming that directors do not have to prop up unviable businesses with personal cash (which has been earned and taxed), which are outside the umbrella of the limited company (UK law, and this law encourages people to start businesses and create jobs)

Would you all prefer the business to just fold, and all 500 staff go on the dole?
I don't think anyone wants 500 people to lose their jobs, but at best this approach by Tomahawk is misguided and at worst it's unlawful and immoral.

I have as much or as little information as everybody else, but I think there is a reasonable chance that HMRC will deem this arrangement to be an abuse of the furlough scheme. The financial penalties that might arise from that, coupled with even more bad publicity could see the business go under. What then happens to the money that 500 employees have "loaned" to their employer?

Also, the fact that every single person has signed up to the loan scheme, yet at least one of those has blown the whistle on this via their union, would suggest that not everybody is happy despite agreeing to it. That proves nothing of course, but it does lend some plausibility to the claim that people were told expressly or implicitly to agree or else.

Finally, aside from not being sacked, where is the incentive for staff to bail out their employer? If there had been some kind of profit related bonus attached, or even a healthy interest rate, I would be more inclined to think this is a caring employer trying to foster an "all in this together" culture, however in the absence of any such benefits, it smacks of a company that will happily pocket the spoils once everything is back to normal. Meanwhile staff should be grateful that they have a job at all.

I hope that my worst suspicions are wrong and that Tomahawk and their staff go on to benefit from a post lockdown boom in the hospitality sector, but I fear this is the worst of own goals which could be very damaging to the business and their staff.
 
I see they've finally put out a statement:

In response to the article the BBC ran today about Tomahawk, we issue the following:
“At no point has Tomahawk Steakhouse ever suggested that members of staff would be sacked if they did not sign a loan agreement.
“Like the rest of the hospitality industry, we have faced a challenging year, and our priority throughout has been to protect our people and our business. As part of this and in order to survive the coming months, we asked our staff to sign up to a voluntary agreement to help us cover the cost of Employer NIC/Pension amounts, in the form of a loan. Every single employee chose to sign up to this agreement.”
We were trying to keep all 500 plus staff in a job not out of one like it has been reported.


Seems to me to have been blown out of proportion and people getting the wrong end of the stick.
It hasn't been blown out of the proportion and frankly that statement is full of holes.

Every single employee has NOT signed up.
 
I don't think anyone wants 500 people to lose their jobs, but at best this approach by Tomahawk is misguided and at worst it's unlawful and immoral.
It might be, but being guided, lawful and moral might not save 500 jobs.

I have as much or as little information as everybody else, but I think there is a reasonable chance that HMRC will deem this arrangement to be an abuse of the furlough scheme. The financial penalties that might arise from that, coupled with even more bad publicity could see the business go under. What then happens to the money that 500 employees have "loaned" to their employer?

It's a loan, from an employee, HMRC can't stop employees loaning companies money. Even if they could, then they could just do it another number of ways.

Also, the fact that every single person has signed up to the loan scheme, yet at least one of those has blown the whistle on this via their union, would suggest that not everybody is happy despite agreeing to it. That proves nothing of course, but it does lend some plausibility to the claim that people were told expressly or implicitly to agree or else.
There are people on social media who also work for them, saying it's been completely misreported too.
I don't doubt that some staff might have got the wrong end of the stick or not understood the loan system, I bet some do not understand in full the absolute nightmare situation hospitality is in, they probably think the company is in a better situation than it is (common for employees) or that there's an endless supply of cash.
Finally, aside from not being sacked, where is the incentive for staff to bail out their employer? If there had been some kind of profit related bonus attached, or even a healthy interest rate, I would be more inclined to think this is a caring employer trying to foster an "all in this together" culture, however in the absence of any such benefits, it smacks of a company that will happily pocket the spoils once everything is back to normal. Meanwhile staff should be grateful that they have a job at all.

The incentive is that their employer still exists, end hence still exists to employ them in the future at 100% pay plus their loan back, at a time when there's likely to be 2 million out of work.

I agree about the bonus or some sort of interest, to be honest, this has probably not been thought through and would be overly complex. But the typical interest on 3 months x 10% pay, over 9 months is probably less than £20. It would cost more to calculate it, than to pay it. They would probably be better handing out vouchers or discounts off meals for family.

They're asking for 10% for 3 months and hoping to pay it back by the end of the year, likely sooner, it's not ideal but do you not accept that it could get infinitely worse if the company went under? The furlough scheme could have even been worse if the government got their 60% through.
 
It hasn't been blown out of the proportion and frankly that statement is full of holes.

Every single employee has NOT signed up.
From my reading of the minister's response in the commons it is prohibited to enter into a contract with employees that reduces the furlough payment to less than 80%. Quite simply it's not allowed, whether the employees agree or not.
 
I'm shocked that some people are trying to justify this.

As the GMB pointed out, business loans have never been cheaper, so why look to low paid employees to bail them out?

It's appalling and most likely illegal. At best it is ethically and morally corrupt.
It's not justifying the measure, it's accepting that it might be the only suitable mechanism to keep 500 jobs safer, which is better on the balance of probabilities of what would possibly happen without it.

Business loans are cheaper, to those that can get them. But loads can't get them or have exhausted every avenue over the past year.

It might be illegal (although I doubt it), might even be morally wrong (hard to say without being the owner or having all the information), but having high morals might not be enough to keep the business afloat.
 
From my reading of the minister's response in the commons it is prohibited to enter into a contract with employees that reduces the furlough payment to less than 80%. Quite simply it's not allowed, whether the employees agree or not.
It's irrelevant, as the furlough payment wouldn't be reduced, it would still be the full 80%. All that would be doing is after this has been technically paid, the employee would be privately loaning the company money, which is not preventable and it's perfectly legal, providing both parties agree. This doesn't even need to be shown on the payslip, it could be a private balancing transaction. As long as the company declares where the loan is from, and keeps a record then it's probably legal.

Or they just underpay (or don't pay) the pensions, like loads of massive companies have been doing, which nobody is talking about.
 
Did they say that? Who said? What exactly was said?

But, even if they did, it could be:
1) Staff costing 100% means the company goes broke - so all roles then become not suitable/ viable in that state, ie at 100% the company and job will not exist, the role at that rate could become redundant. If the company knows it will go broke it would just fold instantly, to save the bleeding.
2) Staff contribute 10% (which they get back) means the company doesn't go broke - so the future of that position is viable



All 500 staff have accepted the offer. I trust that the staff and the owners have more information than we do on here, and know what the risk of the alternative is.
That is the accusation and the company has had plenty of opportunity to refute it. They haven't.

This stinks.
 
It's not perfect, it's very much far from perfect, and has been handled very poorly, but this might be the last alternative.

It's strange how this 10% loan for a few month gets worse press and opinions than pausing nurses/ police wages for years so they don't match inflation, and are sat on about 20% effective less pay, permanently. Of course, when the government does this, it's perfectly legal.

Do people even realise how much companies are not paying into their staff pension funds, and have literally said nothing?
 
That is the accusation and the company has had plenty of opportunity to refute it. They haven't.

This stinks.
They said what was reported in the BBC is a lie, and there's been plenty of staff backing this up.

I'm just saying it's probably not as clear as everyone thinks it is (business never is), and everyone loves to shoot down a business owner with 5% of the info.
 
It's not perfect, it's very much far from perfect, and has been handled very poorly, but this might be the last alternative.

It's strange how this 10% loan for a few month gets worse press and opinions than pausing nurses/ police wages for years so they don't match inflation, and are sat on about 20% effective less pay, permanently. Of course, when the government does this, it's perfectly legal.

Do people even realise how much companies are not paying into their staff pension funds, and have literally said nothing?
It's strange that the poorest paid, being paid less and then asked to pay some of that isn't regarded with absolute disgust.
 
Last edited:
being guided, lawful and moral might not save 500 jobs.
And there is your catch all "the end justifies the means" rationale.

Even if you have altruistic intentions, you can't just break the law with impunity. Unfortunately though we live in a world where for some, anything goes as long as you can justify it to yourself.
 
Back
Top