Albion Named and Shamed

[wellquickwoody]

Not when it came to someone's wages. That is way too important.

It is important, and the mistake was rectified. If a person is doing the wages for a workforce of say 250 people, over three or four years, during which time staff come and go, wage rises take effect, tax codes change etc ad infinitum, you actually think that mistakes do not happen?

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

I have a few business interests and I run my own, very small, one-man investment company. A couple of years ago I was approached by someone much younger than me who wanted to work with me to gain experience and to benefit from the limited knowledge I have. I looked into this and there were various government sponsored programmmes around that I tried to get approval to run the placement with. This resulted in a plethora of regulation and reed tape which meant it never happened. That guy went off and got royally used by someone in a similar position to me but who wasn't interested in the individual.

In the end he did do six months with me and now runs his own successful business employing a couple of others, IF, anyone looked into that six months you'd see he didn't earn a great deal, but did get many, many hours of my mentoring, exposure to a variety of businesses and business situations which have made him the great guy he is today.

This is what work experience is about, companies may not be able to afford to fully employ someone and pay them a king's ransom but they can offer a chance, a chance to learn, a chance to gain invaluable experience and, as importantly, demonstrate this on their CV.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Yes it does: "As a result of the HMRC's decision (to which there is no right of appeal) the club has suspended its work experience programme..."

Seems very knee jerky to me that one press release re one person from HMRC leads the club to suspending a work experience programme.

The "real" reason that BHA are suspending their work experience programme is because they are admitting they are not careful enough in paying their lower earners. This is all on the club. I believe HMRC goes to the lengths it does to shame employers is to make sure they take paying employees more carefully even when those employees are lower wage earners. The club never makes mistakes with the amount they pay to their higher wage earners.............the players, do they? All employees should be given the same respect in the area of being paid wages.

 

[Ernest]

No kind of work should be unpaid, even work experience. It's unfair on those whose parents can't subsidise them whilst they do it

 

[MattBackHome]

No kind of work should be unpaid, even work experience. It's unfair on those whose parents can't subsidise them whilst they do it

I agree.

 

[Giraffe]

I understand why the club are cross with this. It's clearly a bit of admin error that has led to this and therefore they shouldn't have been named alongside serial offenders.

HOWEVER to use that as a reason why they have binned the graduate scheme is feeble. Smacks me of a convenient excuse to do so.

 

[Springal]

I believe HMRC goes to the lengths it does to shame employers is to make sure they take paying employees more carefully even when those employees are lower wage earners. The club never makes mistakes with the amount they pay to their higher wage earners.............the players, do they? All employees should be given the same respect in the area of being paid wages.

I bet they have.

 

[GreersElbow]

It's brilliant that those calling it an over reaction are over reacting themselves.

Any excuse to have a go at the club...

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Well if HMRC have made such a cock up over naming the albion, it calls into question the value of the rest of the list.

 

[coagulantwolf]

The club have no 'graduate scheme'.

Whilst we're on the topic, Sussex cricket employ year long University interns unpaid, which I think is disgusting. They justify it as they can't afford to do so (these aren't interns who make coffee either, they're fully used employees). For a company of Sussex's size to not just pay minimum wage (13kish a year) to me is awful, it makes such a huge difference to the employee.

As a fairly recent (2 years ago) graduate from University, I hate anything unpaid, not because I'm not willing to to do the hard graft, but because I don't have financial backing elsewhere. I can't afford to be unpaid for a period of time to 'work'.

 

[Easy 10]

I just don't think there is ever such a thing as an "honest mistake" when it comes to someone who has "honestly" earned their wages. Simply hire someone who won't make mistakes when their job includes paying people their wages. Payroll is too important to make mistakes.

Oh don't be so pious. Mistakes can and do happen in every walk of life, in every job no matter how important. There is nobody on this planet the club could hire who "won't make mistakes".

The "real" reason that BHA are suspending their work experience programme is because they are admitting they are not careful enough in paying their lower earners. This is all on the club. I believe HMRC goes to the lengths it does to shame employers is to make sure they take paying employees more carefully even when those employees are lower wage earners. The club never makes mistakes with the amount they pay to their higher wage earners.............the players, do they? All employees should be given the same respect in the area of being paid wages.

What a ridiculous statement. How do YOU know that the club has never made mistakes with higher earners at the club ? The only reason we know about this is because of HMRC's public "name and shame" policy on minimum wage earners - which the club had already corrected.

And the club aren't "admitting" anything of the sort. They have explained it was an administrative error that was all sorted out. And this has happened in ONE SINGLE CASE - its hardly indicative of a slapdash attitude to paying low earners across the board, is it.

Have a word with yourself.

 

[Albion my Albion]

I understand why the club are cross with this. It's clearly a bit of admin error that has led to this and therefore they shouldn't have been named alongside serial offenders.

If the "bit of admin error" made your pay 30% less then it should have been I don't think you would call it a "bit of admin error." You would think it a very serious situation with your pay. All employees deserve the same respect with the carefulness in which they are paid their wages.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Oh don't be so pious. Mistakes can and do happen in every walk of life, in every job no matter how important. There is nobody on this planet the club could hire who "won't make mistakes".



What a ridiculous statement. How do YOU know that the club has never made mistakes with higher earners at the club ? The only reason we know about this is because of HMRC's public "name and shame" policy on minimum wage earners - which the club had already corrected.

And the club aren't "admitting" anything of the sort. They have explained it was an administrative error that was all sorted out. And this has happened in ONE SINGLE CASE - its hardly indicative of a slapdash attitude to paying low earners across the board, is it.

Have a word with yourself.

When it is your wage that is effected by the "administrative error" even when it is corrected I believe you would feel very differently. I think the players or player would be very vocal about their pay if it was done incorrectly. The club is much more careful when it comes to higher wage earners because if they make an "administrative error" with their higher wage earners to the good of the employee then it could cost the club much more severely.

 

[beorhthelm]

Why is it any less a shame when only one employee is not paid the minimum wage because the company employs hundreds and hundreds of people.

because it suggests an administrative cock up or isolated oversight rather than a corporate policy to underpay staff.

 

[brightn'ove]

I can see the clubs frustration and unwillingness to do as many placements in the future. The clubs name has been dragged through the mud and placed as the main focal point in being shamed for not paying minimum wage when it was one administrative error that had already been sorted out.

 

[bhachris]

No kind of work should be unpaid, even work experience. It's unfair on those whose parents can't subsidise them whilst they do it

You don't get paid to go to college, same thing really.

 

[beorhthelm]

No kind of work should be unpaid, even work experience. It's unfair on those whose parents can't subsidise them whilst they do it

would you apply that to voluntary work?

 

[Albion my Albion]

because it suggests an administrative cock up or isolated oversight rather than a corporate policy to underpay staff.

To me it shows that "administrative cock ups" are allowable for lower wage earners but I don't think they happen with higher wage earners. Every employee's pay should be handled with the utmost respect and accuracy. BHA were guilty of not handling an employees pay in this manner and deserved to be shamed for it.

 

[BLOCK F]

Maybe they haven't been subject to a HMRC NMW investigation yet.

I have no idea, Gazwag, but they do seem to be the type of company that has looked into the matter pretty thoroughly and have a long standing relationship with the uni my son attends.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

No kind of work should be unpaid, even work experience. It's unfair on those whose parents can't subsidise them whilst they do it

So how do we close the gap between those that have the platform, skills, knowledge and experience people need to gain understanding but either don't have the money or work demand to employ someone? Most companies don't really want to do work experience, because to do it properly you've got to make sure its valuable to the student.