bear66
Well-known member
The suitability of them being a restaurant of choice will be being suitably reviewed.Seems to me they're panicking and are scrambling to try and save their reputation that has rightly been badly damaged.
The suitability of them being a restaurant of choice will be being suitably reviewed.Seems to me they're panicking and are scrambling to try and save their reputation that has rightly been badly damaged.
Did they say that? Who said? What exactly was said?So what did suitability for the role to be reviewed mean?
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.
It might be: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'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.
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.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 hasn't been blown out of the proportion and frankly that statement is full of holes.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 might be, but being guided, lawful and moral might not save 500 jobs.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?
There are people on social media who also work for them, saying it's been completely misreported too.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.
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 hasn't been blown out of the proportion and frankly that statement is full of holes.
Every single employee has NOT signed up.
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.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 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.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.
The investor isn't risking his money by not accepting the dealIf investors don't want to back this rip roaring success of a business the staff should do the same, surely?
That is the accusation and the company has had plenty of opportunity to refute it. They haven't.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.
They said what was reported in the BBC is a lie, and there's been plenty of staff backing this up.That is the accusation and the company has had plenty of opportunity to refute it. They haven't.
This stinks.
It's strange that the poorest paid, being paid less and then asked to pay some of that isn't regarded with absolute disgust.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?
And there is your catch all "the end justifies the means" rationale.being guided, lawful and moral might not save 500 jobs.