Players asked to take pay cuts!

[Old Hob]

It does make me smile, though through gritted teeth, how all the buccaneering, free-market, get government off our back, reduce-taxes entrepreneurs are so quick to demand the government gives them a handout. A handout from people who paid PAYE and didn't salt away their earnings offshore.

Employer wants employees to work. Government will not allow employees to work. Why should the employer pay them rather than the Government? How long do you think employers should pay employees 80% of their wages for doing nothing that benefits the employer?
The smile through gritted teeth doesn't help any pretence or appearance of sanity.

And there it is: I'll only do something if I get a benefit from it. Despite the fact that employees may ( and I say only, may) have given more, made the odd sacrifice or two or even if they haven't old Gradgrind is only going to pay if he gets something back. Charity? Humanity? Common decency? Nah! just profit

[h's dad]

It does make me smile, though through gritted teeth, how all the buccaneering, free-market, get government off our back, reduce-taxes entrepreneurs are so quick to demand the government gives them a handout. A handout from people who paid PAYE and didn't salt away their earnings offshore.

Employer wants employees to work. Government will not allow employees to work. Why should the employer pay them rather than the Government? How long do you think employers should pay employees 80% of their wages for doing nothing that benefits the employer?
The smile through gritted teeth doesn't help any pretence or appearance of sanity.

And there it is: I'll only do something if I get a benefit from it. Despite the fact that employees may ( and I say only, may) have given more, made the odd sacrifice or two or even if they haven't old Gradgrind is only going to pay if he gets something back. Charity? Humanity? Common decency? Nah! just profit

If the employer is paying out his wage bill with zero income coming in, Just how long do you think it will be before the business goes bust? Especially if a high proportion of his costs are wages. Which bit of this do you not understand?

Oh, and speaking personally, just before this hit I announced a substantial pay increase for all my staff. Comments at the time included ' a pay rise. we had one the end of last year, we weren't expecting another one.
Since coronavirus hit, a number of my team have approached offering to forego the new pay increases and bonuses. I've told them not to worry about it, we will manage. All ok except for one person who is refusing to accept their pay increase! We're still arguing about it. Gradgrind is a little harsh just because I understand businesses can't just keep paying out Jeremy.

[Tiglon]

It does make me smile, though through gritted teeth, how all the buccaneering, free-market, get government off our back, reduce-taxes entrepreneurs are so quick to demand the government gives them a handout. A handout from people who paid PAYE and didn't salt away their earnings offshore.

Employer wants employees to work. Government will not allow employees to work. Why should the employer pay them rather than the Government? How long do you think employers should pay employees 80% of their wages for doing nothing that benefits the employer?
The smile through gritted teeth doesn't help any pretence or appearance of sanity.

And there it is: I'll only do something if I get a benefit from it. Despite the fact that employees may ( and I say only, may) have given more, made the odd sacrifice or two or even if they haven't old Gradgrind is only going to pay if he gets something back. Charity? Humanity? Common decency? Nah! just profit

Or... I'll only keep paying them if I have the money to do so. Which I don't. So they are all out of jobs and I have no business. Who wins in that situation? No one.

Some of you have seriously got to get over this mental image of every business owner being some sort of Scrooge-like caricature with dollar signs in their eyes sleeping on a pile of money every night. And while we're at it, you should probably move on from this idea that every employee is a hard-working salt of the earth kind of person. Sometimes employers are b*stards, sometimes employees are b*stards - they're all just human beings capable of all the same things, including kindness and selfishness.

A quote from an email from my employer.

HMRC have made clear that to be eligible for Furlough an employee must not complete any financially valuable work whilst on leave.

Basically if you’re working and it’s helping your employer run the business they pay your normal salary, if you’re at home on extended leave your employer pays you 80% and claims it back from the government.

No confusion no middle ground

The actual explanation from the government is as follows - "While furloughed, an employee cannot undertake work for or on behalf of the organisation. This includes providing services or generating revenue."

I think the main point of uncertainty is when the money will come from the government. Some businesses may be able to pay the 80% wage bill this month but not next. Some businesses are therefore uncertain about whether they can pay wages and still exist in a months time.

Then there are a loans. If we ignore the confusion about who can get them and what the deal will be, a huge number of the companies that would need to take such a loan now are in industries with very low profit margins and therefore may not be able to afford to pay back a loan even once they reopen.

Life is never quite as simple as some people seem to think.

[Tiglon]

Employer wants employees to work. Government will not allow employees to work. Why should the employer pay them rather than the Government? How long do you think employers should pay employees 80% of their wages for doing nothing that benefits the employer?
The smile through gritted teeth doesn't help any pretence or appearance of sanity.

And there it is: I'll only do something if I get a benefit from it. Despite the fact that employees may ( and I say only, may) have given more, made the odd sacrifice or two or even if they haven't old Gradgrind is only going to pay if he gets something back. Charity? Humanity? Common decency? Nah! just profit

Or... I'll only keep paying them if I have the money to do so. Which I don't. So they are all out of jobs and I have no business. Who wins in that situation? No one.

Some of you have seriously got to get over this mental image of every business owner being some sort of Scrooge-like caricature with dollar signs in their eyes sleeping on a pile of money every night. And while we're at it, you should probably move on from this idea that every employee is a hard-working salt of the earth kind of person. Sometimes employers are b*stards, sometimes employees are b*stards - they're all just human beings capable of all the same things, including kindness and selfishness and everything in between. This isn't a battle of good vs evil, or the poor against the rich - it's everyone together trying to survive.

A quote from an email from my employer.

HMRC have made clear that to be eligible for Furlough an employee must not complete any financially valuable work whilst on leave.

Basically if you’re working and it’s helping your employer run the business they pay your normal salary, if you’re at home on extended leave your employer pays you 80% and claims it back from the government.

No confusion no middle ground

The actual explanation from the government is as follows - "While furloughed, an employee cannot undertake work for or on behalf of the organisation. This includes providing services or generating revenue."

I think the main point of uncertainty is when the money will come from the government. Some businesses may be able to pay the 80% wage bill this month but not next. Some businesses are therefore uncertain about whether they can pay wages and still exist in a months time.

Then there are a loans. If we ignore the confusion about who can get them and what the deal will be, a huge number of the companies that would need to take such a loan now are in industries with very low profit margins and therefore may not be able to afford to pay back a loan even once they reopen.

Life is never quite as simple as some people seem to think.

[Tiglon]

And there it is: I'll only do something if I get a benefit from it. Despite the fact that employees may ( and I say only, may) have given more, made the odd sacrifice or two or even if they haven't old Gradgrind is only going to pay if he gets something back. Charity? Humanity? Common decency? Nah! just profit

Or... I'll only keep paying them if I have the money to do so. Which I don't. So they are all out of jobs and I have no business. Who wins in that situation? No one.

Some of you have seriously got to get over this mental image of every business owner being some sort of Scrooge-like caricature with dollar signs in their eyes sleeping on a pile of money every night. And while we're at it, you should probably move on from this idea that every employee is a hard-working salt of the earth kind of person. Sometimes employers are :censored:, sometimes employees are :censored: - they're all just human beings capable of all the same things, including kindness and selfishness and everything in between. This isn't a battle of good vs evil, or the poor against the rich - it's everyone together trying to survive.

A quote from an email from my employer.

HMRC have made clear that to be eligible for Furlough an employee must not complete any financially valuable work whilst on leave.

Basically if you’re working and it’s helping your employer run the business they pay your normal salary, if you’re at home on extended leave your employer pays you 80% and claims it back from the government.

No confusion no middle ground

The actual explanation from the government is as follows - "While furloughed, an employee cannot undertake work for or on behalf of the organisation. This includes providing services or generating revenue."

I think the main point of uncertainty is when the money will come from the government. Some businesses may be able to pay the 80% wage bill this month but not next. Some businesses are therefore uncertain about whether they can pay wages and still exist in a months time.

Then there are a loans. If we ignore the confusion about who can get them and what the deal will be, a huge number of the companies that would need to take such a loan now are in industries with very low profit margins and therefore may not be able to afford to pay back a loan even once they reopen.

Life is never quite as simple as some people seem to think.

[kk20gb30]

In light of the events of this season , this very interesting.
Saracens latest :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/52302741

[loretta]

In light of the events of this season , this very interesting.
Saracens latest :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/52302741

Intriguing. Would the deferred section then count as part of the 20/21 salary bill? Are they now really so strapped for cash, when they seemed to be swimming in the stuff so recently?

[jgriffin]

In light of the events of this season , this very interesting.
Saracens latest :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/52302741

Intriguing. Would the deferred section then count as part of the 20/21 salary bill? Are they now really so strapped for cash, when they seemed to be swimming in the stuff so recently?

I'd take this with a pinch of salt until proven otherwise. Could well be part of another Sarries 'paid in rands' type of scam or a bet on the cap going in a season along with other changes (au CVC) such as ring fencing.

[kk20gb30]

Ulster:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/northern-ireland/52383751

[sapajo]

Seems our players are revolting:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sport ... ssion=true

[TomWeston]

Ulster:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/northern-ireland/52383751

That’s very big hearted of them...given they got a Government grant to extend it!

[BFG]

Furlough is a bit awkward for some sports as I understand it a furloughed employee is not supposed to undertake any employer related work.
It might bring into question fitness training programmes given out by an employer and players readiness to resume playing.
This could mean that a full pre-season might be needed before resuming matches.

[Cardiff Tig]

It does look like the club are trying to screw over the players here.

The club conveniently supports reducing the salary cap by 25% as well so they can make these cuts to the player's wages permanently by default.

[TigerBoy1880]

It does look like the club are trying to screw over the players here.

The club conveniently supports reducing the salary cap by 25% as well so they can make these cuts to the player's wages permanently by default.

Does it? I see it as trying to protect the club from financial woes just like all businesses to be honest.

[Cardiff Tig]

Yes, it does.

They clearly haven't gone to the players and asked them to take a permanent cut to their salaries, just asked them to help out while the club isn't getting any cash. Then at the same time, the club is asking for a significant cut in the salary cap for next season. So are they then going to fire 25% of the squad or make the pay reduction permanent to meet the new cap they are proposing?