Chelsea lead the way towards Living Wage

[Doon frae Troon]

So I'm guessing you can show the proof that pregnant ladies are being asked to "stand for 6 hours at a till"

Every till operator I see at most supermarkets etc have seats bar places like Next etc who constantly rotate their staff

As for the OP - what is the difference between what the staff are getting paid now to what they will be getting paid ?

Yes..........Well known High Street shop chain where a friend of my daughters has a part time job, they do not have any seats or staff room. As far as rotation of the staff, they will move from till to shelf stacking but work continuously for six hours.

 

[CMAC]

Current employment laws are a total disgrace, we appear to be reverting to Victorian standards.
What next?
Workers queuing up at the supermarket for the taskmaster to say 'I'll take you, you and you today'.

To expect a minimum wage employee to stand at a till for six hours and work non stop without a break is dreadful, especially when in some cases women are pregnant. We should take our life in our hands and start naming, shaming and boycotting these well known companies.

and are you going to do what you so passionately advocate?

your post above would appear like you dont want to practice what you preach!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Yes..........Well known High Street shop chain where a friend of my daughters has a part time job, they do not have any seats or staff room. As far as rotation of the staff, they will move from till to shelf stacking but work continuously for six hours.

A friend of a friend ?

And which high street shop ?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

A friend of a friend ?

And which high street shop ?

No, as stated my daughters friend.

Take your pick as most of them are at the same game.
I would imagine a few Forum members employ folk in a similar manner but would be too embarrassed to come clean.

 

[Blue in Munich]

To quote from an article in The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-league-team-to-pay-living-wage-9918689.html

In a statement from the Blues, the club said it had begun the process of ensuring that external contractors who work for the club would also eventually receive the Living Wage, as well as any other additional agency employees tied to the team. Chelsea said such a development would be complete by July 2017. The club's chairman, Bruce Buck, said in the statement, "We believe the move to the Living Wage underlines our commitment to ensuring that all our employees receive a fair rate of pay for their hard work and dedication. Quite simply it is the right thing to do."

So yup, there's the proof.

That's proof that the club that the club made a statement. It's no proof that they released it before the Living Wage Foundation did, nor that either the BBC or The Independent picked it up from the club website as opposed to the Living Wage Foundation. So not actually proof of Chelsea pushing it into the public domain at all.

Yes, and if a hedge fund or a multi-national bank making million of dollars in profit made an announcement that they now pay some of their staff the living wage they would get exactly the same reaction as Chelsea have got. I agree in principal paying anyone the living wage is good, but it is the very least they should be doing. If a small business struggling in the current economic climate does this then probably worthy of comment. If a multi-billionaires play thing does it then don't stick it on your web site as something to be proud of. http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2014/12/chelsea-to-pay-living-wage.html

What do you suggest; open a wall of shame and post it there for being the only current Premiership club to be doing it? Throw our higher earners off the roof of the stand whilst begging for public forgiveness? I'll agree that it should have been done sooner rather than later but it's been done, and it might help to push others to do it. I'll say it again, Chelsea haven't necessarily made a press release; the statement is on a club website primarily intended for club supporters and the push into the wider arena appears to have been made by the BBC, a national newspaper, the Living Wage Foundation and the Mayor of London. If other agencies have chosen to bring it to a wider audience why blame the club?

For the second time, how about laying into the 19 that aren't rather than the 1 that is?

 

[ColchesterFC]

We should take our life in our hands and start naming, shaming and boycotting these well known companies.

Many High Street Stores

Yes..........Well known High Street shop chain where a friend of my daughters has a part time job

Take your pick as most of them are at the same game.

So despite your big speech about naming and shaming these firms you have refused three times when asked directly to actually do what you were preaching. How are we meant to boycott them if you won't name them?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I will not name the company in public as what my daughter told me was I assume in confidence.

I shall PM Phill and hope he has the decency to respect that.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I will not name the company in public as what my daughter told me was I assume in confidence.

I shall PM Phill and hope he has the decency to respect that.

So why Message Phil?
What will that accomplish?
You don't have to prove anything to him,& it's not going to make anyone boycott the store

 

[ColchesterFC]

I will not name the company in public as what my daughter told me was I assume in confidence.

I shall PM Phill and hope he has the decency to respect that.

So "naming and shaming" but only in private? I think I can see the flaw in your plan to "boycott" these companies if no-one is allowed to know who they are.

 

[Pin-seeker]

So "naming and shaming" but only in private? I think I can see the flaw in your plan to "boycott" these companies if no-one is allowed to know who they are.

Yeah but Phil will stop shopping there,that'll show em

 

[Deleted member 18588]

For the second time, how about laying into the 19 that aren't rather than the 1 that is?

I obviously cannot speak for others but my criticism was not specifically aimed at Chelsea but more generally at all Premier League clubs for thinking that it is OK to pay many of their staff less than a living wage. Also criticism is directed towards the Living Wage Foundation for their supine acceptance of the situation in a business sector that is awash with money and seemingly untouched by austerity measures.

Whilst Chelsea's action should receive credit it should not be forgotten that, until now, they have been as guilty as all others.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I suspect quite a lot of companies exploit lower paid workers to some extent, whether it be cheap Indian call centres or sweatshops in the far east producing garments. To do my bit I will continue not to support Chelsea or indeed any Premier league clubs if none of them are doing it. That will teach them.

 

[Hacker Khan]

That's proof that the club that the club made a statement. It's no proof that they released it before the Living Wage Foundation did, nor that either the BBC or The Independent picked it up from the club website as opposed to the Living Wage Foundation. So not actually proof of Chelsea pushing it into the public domain at all.



What do you suggest; open a wall of shame and post it there for being the only current Premiership club to be doing it? Throw our higher earners off the roof of the stand whilst begging for public forgiveness? I'll agree that it should have been done sooner rather than later but it's been done, and it might help to push others to do it. I'll say it again, Chelsea haven't necessarily made a press release; the statement is on a club website primarily intended for club supporters and the push into the wider arena appears to have been made by the BBC, a national newspaper, the Living Wage Foundation and the Mayor of London. If other agencies have chosen to bring it to a wider audience why blame the club?

For the second time, how about laying into the 19 that aren't rather than the 1 that is?

Yea right, cause that's the way it works, premier league clubs post stories on their web sites that are only for supporters. And in no way do they expect that it will get picked up by today's 24 hour media culture who are desperate to publish any press release in lieu of actually doing some journalism. if only we had access to http://www.chelseafc.com/the-club/about-chelsea-football-club/media-centre.html we would know for sure. With you blue tinted spectacles on you suspect there is nothing in there about this. With my cynical head I I bet a pound to a penny there is.

And to please you, the rest of the Premier League clubs are scumbags for not doing this. But I will cut Villa some slack as they had Acorns Childrens Hospice on their shirts when they could have got as lot more money from other sponsors.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Well done to Chelsea for this, there's one particular premier league club that have given their part time staff 0hr contacts never mind the minimum wage.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I suspect that people employed by premier league clubs are on a similar wage to people employed by other companies for doing the same type of work.
Should a cashier at UTD/Arsenal or Chelsea be on more money than a cashier at Asda just because Rooney or Hazard are on £200k+ pw?
Of course they shouldn't.
It's as stupid as saying Nurses or soldiers should be on more than footballers.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I will not name the company in public as what my daughter told me was I assume in confidence.

I shall PM Phill and hope he has the decency to respect that.

Read the PM and it will come down to the shops manager as opposed to company policy - but i will be amazed if they make a pregnant lady stand for 6 hours non stop without a break - sorry don't believe that

Your story seems to contradict what I have seen

Also suggesting members of this forum act that way towards any of their employees ? That's not on imo

As for the company - well I'm not sure why you won't name and shame them when you state we should name and shame them ? Which is it ?

 

[Blue in Munich]

So until now Chelsea have been paying less than the living wage to many of their employees whilst happily paying some of their players £8m to £10m p.a.

Glad they are now taking some steps but it continues to illustrate how clubs and players, not just Chelsea, have lost touch with reality.

I obviously cannot speak for others but my criticism was not specifically aimed at Chelsea but more generally at all Premier League clubs for thinking that it is OK to pay many of their staff less than a living wage. Also criticism is directed towards the Living Wage Foundation for their supine acceptance of the situation in a business sector that is awash with money and seemingly untouched by austerity measures.

Whilst Chelsea's action should receive credit it should not be forgotten that, until now, they have been as guilty as all others.

MetalMickie, I don't see that you have to justify yourself. Your first post qualified that it was a a football-wide problem rather than limited to Chelsea, but obviously as the first club to do it we are going to be the one most talked about. The comment wasn't aimed at you, my apologies if you felt it was.

I'm not suggesting that we should be receiving credit for it, just that we shouldn't be receiving a kicking for doing it as Hacker Khan continued to do. I see that Hacker Khan has now called out the rest of the Premier League but, according to the post, only to please me, rather than because it would have been the right thing to do in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I give them some credit but it's an absolute disgrace it's taken this long and that no other EPL clubs do it with the money in the game.

Raheem Sterling today said £70,000 a week was "unacceptable"!!! That is why it should stick in their throat any club crowing about paying a living wage IMO and why I don't think everyone will give them a pat on the back.......

That should say " A source close to the negotiations" said!!!

 

[ColchesterFC]

But I will cut Villa some slack as they had Acorns Childrens Hospice on their shirts when they could have got as lot more money from other sponsors.

When I saw Villa and also Barcelona with Unicef (?) on their shirts my immediate reaction was that what they were doing was brilliant. Thinking about it some more I wondered if the charities would've been better off if the club had taken the money from a more traditional sponsorship deal and then donated it to them instead. I don't know what the going rate is to sponsor a mid table Premier League team but it must be £2 million plus a year. And as for Barcelona, to be the first company to sponsor them after they had refused for so many years to have a sponsor must have been worth £10 million a year. Imagine the amount of good the charities could've done with that sort of cash and they would've still got the publicity from the clubs donating and then publicising the "This is what we've done with Barcelona's generous donation...."

 

[Liverbirdie]

So despite your big speech about naming and shaming these firms you have refused three times when asked directly to actually do what you were preaching. How are we meant to boycott them if you won't name them?

Friends of friends re-united?