Author Topic: Clubs urged to pay living wage (Read 3761 times)

redbyrdz · « **on:** February 16, 2015, 07:19:53 pm »

I'm sure there was a thread for it, but I can't find it.

With the new TV deal, there has been a renewed urge for clubs to support the living wage campaign and pay all their staff at least the living wage, currently £7.85 outside of London (where it's £9.15).

Apparently after the Abramovich's toyboys Chelsea the next club to sign up to the living wage campaign are our forever skinned cousins from across the park. Surely we must be the next?

Butter Keks · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2015, 10:07:58 pm »

Should be mandatory to be honest. No excuse for teams with so much money to not be paying the people who help the club tick a proper wage.

dave 5516 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2015, 10:13:34 pm »

Quote from: Butter Keks on February 16, 2015, 10:07:58 pm

Should be mandatory to be honest. No excuse for teams with so much money to not be paying the people who help the club tick a proper wage.

Ditto.

Latenight Surfer · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2015, 10:14:35 pm »

Just make this happen for Rooney

DutchRed · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2015, 10:24:31 pm »

Inexcusable to pay players forty grand a week on average and not to bother forking out a decent wage for other employees. Not to bash Sturridge(so please don't read it that way either), but taking his weekly wage just once would solve the problem, I suppose. That's plain disgusting for a club with a revenue over €300 million, only set to rise even further. Even more so when all that money flows into Anfield largely because of one man: a socialist whose statue is in front of The Kop. He would be apalled.

OOS · « **Reply #5 on:** February 16, 2015, 10:49:20 pm »

The staff are on zero hour contracts and only work about 5 hours for the match day.

Awful from Liverpool and other clubs to not pay them a decent hourly wage.

Il Capitano · « **Reply #6 on:** February 16, 2015, 10:50:08 pm »

This might be expensive for the clubs, though...

redbyrdz · « **Reply #7 on:** February 16, 2015, 11:09:16 pm »

Quote from: Il Capitano on February 16, 2015, 10:50:08 pm

This might be expensive for the clubs, though...

How?

This will mostly affect hospitality staff, cleaners, stewards maybe? All of them will be on minimum wage. Paying the living wage instead is about £1.35 more per hour. Say there's 200 staff, working 5 hours each per match, that's a whopping £1350 per match more for the club to find.

If Everton can do it, so can we. No excuse really.

Redman0151 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 16, 2015, 11:19:10 pm »

Quote from: Il Capitano on February 16, 2015, 10:50:08 pm

This might be expensive for the clubs, though...

Aww diddums

Skidder. · « **Reply #9 on:** February 16, 2015, 11:20:34 pm »

Quote from: Il Capitano on February 16, 2015, 10:50:08 pm

This might be expensive for the clubs, though...

Well Everton should pull their finger out and start winning things - toting up some cash.

Em5y · « **Reply #10 on:** February 16, 2015, 11:48:52 pm »

Good on the clubs who've signed up for this - but not enough to say only those directly employed by the club should get the living wage - anybody working for on the clubs behalf should get this.

yslee · « **Reply #11 on:** February 17, 2015, 01:07:25 am »

Yes, I can't believe it'll cost that much more. We're already paying a lot for footballers anyway!

kavah · « **Reply #12 on:** February 17, 2015, 02:40:11 am »

Great idea, I think the other thread was about unpaid internships and the fact some clubs used that method to get labour for free (and insidiously blocking those positions to all but the privalaged rich kids that are subsidized by their parents).

I saw an article the other day were a club spokesman (ít nights have been Liverpool) said words to the effect of "well the people that aren't employed directly by us - in catering, security, parking and what not are nothing to do with us"

That kind of short sighted and naive selfishness makes my blood boil.

Take fucking responsibility for all aspects of your business and strive to make sure everyone employed in football is treated fairly.

(I'll try and find the article)

It was Scudsmore - the blert

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/feb/11/richard-scudamore-premier-league-responsibility-living-wage

Frank Fields in The Echo

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/birkenhead-mp-calls-liverpool-everton-8629193

Sir Harvest Fields · « **Reply #13 on:** February 17, 2015, 08:03:14 am »

Uh, im on 6.50 an hour on a zero hours contract. Is minimum wage different to the living wage?

SamAteTheRedAcid · « **Reply #14 on:** February 17, 2015, 08:04:45 am »

Quote from: Sir Bobble Clops on February 17, 2015, 08:03:14 am

Uh, im on 6.50 an hour on a zero hours contract. Is minimum wage different to the living wage?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20204594

Yes. Living wage is £7.85 outside London.

LionheartCFC · « **Reply #15 on:** February 17, 2015, 08:25:15 am »

Every Premier League club should be paying the living wage. It should be mandatory, especially with this ridiculously high TV deal.

With the size of the parachute payments for relegated clubs, it shouldn't be a problem for clubs that go down to continue paying it either. About time the wealth in football was spread around, instead of even more money going istraight into agents and players pockets.

L666KOP · « **Reply #16 on:** February 17, 2015, 08:43:44 am »

Is it just as easy as putting someone's wage up ?
Are those on zero hours contract/temporary contracts actually employed by the club, or supplied by an agency ?

I'm assuming stewards and other ancilliary staff have other jobs as well and maybe due to their main job maybe can't work every match ?

Anyone know for sure how this works ?

In the grand scheme of things paying say 250 matchday employees an extra £1.35 an hour is buttons to a top level club. And it would be a nice, if not extravagant gesture by them to pay a living wage. As per usual though, it might cause repercussions elsewhere throughout their organisation, there's always someone going to pull their face if they see others getting a better deal.

JohnHobbes · « **Reply #17 on:** February 17, 2015, 08:54:47 am »

With all the money in the PL then this should have been done a long long time ago. No excuses.

LovelyCushionedHeader · « **Reply #18 on:** February 17, 2015, 10:00:15 am »

As a performance analyst I can attest to this.

Before I got the job I am in now, I was stuck in a minefield of unpaid internships. After leaving Uni I was employed by a Premiership team, full time, unpaid (bar expenses). I was happy enough to take the role as I thought I could impress and get a paid position afterwards, or at least get a great reference - but no. After the 12 months is up the Club simply say thank you and goodbye, before bringing in another unpaid intern for the following season.

Afterwards, I spent two years looking for jobs in the field but they were all the same. Unpaid internships. Eventually I found one but I was extremely lucky!

No company should be able to employ someone full time without pay. As someone said earlier, it completely rules out people who can't afford to have no income.

SamAteTheRedAcid · « **Reply #19 on:** February 17, 2015, 10:15:58 am »

Quote from: LovelyCushionedHeader on February 17, 2015, 10:00:15 am

No company should be able to employ someone full time without pay. As someone said earlier, it completely rules out people who can't afford to have no income.

It's the way the Tories like it. Unemployment is 'technically' down, and it gives those with moneyed backgrounds the best possible chance to succeed as they can hang around the longest before having to jack it in for a position that actually pays rent, etc. Same in media, journalism, etc. etc.

Il Capitano · « **Reply #20 on:** February 17, 2015, 10:29:48 am »

Quote from: redbyrdz on February 16, 2015, 11:09:16 pm

How?

This will mostly affect hospitality staff, cleaners, stewards maybe? All of them will be on minimum wage. Paying the living wage instead is about £1.35 more per hour. Say there's 200 staff, working 5 hours each per match, that's a whopping £1350 per match more for the club to find.

If Everton can do it, so can we. No excuse really.

Sarcasm

Lfsea · « **Reply #21 on:** February 17, 2015, 10:41:36 am »

The focus comes on football clubs because of the glamorous lives the clubs assets lead, but in reality football clubs are small fry in comparison with the likes of Tesco, and Arcadia - for example - who are major employers in this country. The accounts for the year May 2012 through May 2013 show us that only 8 of the clubs made a pre-tax profit, and 4 of those had profits so close to zero, as to be considered negligible.

That the media targets football clubs in these 'campaigns' really deflects from the Living Wage campaign as a whole. The Government themselves should be pressing this issue on all large, profitable companies - the employees of whom are the main conduit for that success - whether they are cleaners or managing directors. But they won't at the concern for taking a few quid out of the pockets of their mates. It's a thoroughly shit situation, but just because a new finance package has been agreed shouldn't mean any breathing space from the other shitehawk companies who pay their workers a pittance.

CraigDS · « **Reply #22 on:** February 17, 2015, 10:55:41 am »

Quote from: Sprouts on February 17, 2015, 10:41:36 am

The focus comes on football clubs because of the glamorous lives the clubs assets lead, but in reality football clubs are small fry in comparison with the likes of Tesco, and Arcadia - for example - who are major employers in this country. The accounts for the year May 2012 through May 2013 show us that only 8 of the clubs made a pre-tax profit, and 4 of those had profits so close to zero, as to be considered negligible.

That the media targets football clubs in these 'campaigns' really deflects from the Living Wage campaign as a whole. The Government themselves should be pressing this issue on all large, profitable companies - the employees of whom are the main conduit for that success - whether they are cleaners or managing directors. But they won't at the concern for taking a few quid out of the pockets of their mates. It's a thoroughly shit situation, but just because a new finance package has been agreed shouldn't mean any breathing space from the other shitehawk companies who pay their workers a pittance.

Was just about to post something similar.

Football clubs should be paying it, but as you said they are small time employers in comparison to a lot of the actual huge businesses in this country - and those tend to make much higher profits than football clubs do too.

Narwin Dunez · « **Reply #23 on:** February 17, 2015, 12:37:58 pm »

I echo the two posts above. Yes football clubs should pay it (and you can argue if it's spread across the whole league noone is at a disadvantage by paying it) but the real issue is that EVERY employer should pay its staff enough to fucking live on.

Zero hour minimum wage contracts all round and the Tory scum can say unemployment has dropped.

helen the llama · « **Reply #24 on:** February 17, 2015, 07:16:34 pm »

In Scotland Hearts signed up months ago. Celtic pay the living wage for there in-house staff.

helen the llama · « **Reply #25 on:** March 27, 2015, 03:35:13 pm »

Premier League Clubs to pay living wage. Apparently only to the clubs employees.

GreatEx · « **Reply #26 on:** March 29, 2015, 08:13:45 am »

Quote from: LovelyCushionedHeader on February 17, 2015, 10:00:15 am

Unpaid internships.

A fancy term for slavery. So many companies just have a revolving door policy of unpaid work, and though I've never been a part of it, it makes my blood boil just thinking about it. Just a horrible, horrible modern business practice.

CornerFlag · « **Reply #27 on:** March 29, 2015, 08:44:47 am »

Quote from: helen the llama on March 27, 2015, 03:35:13 pm

Premier League Clubs to pay living wage. Apparently only to the clubs employees.

The least they could do.

capt k · « **Reply #28 on:** March 29, 2015, 11:31:02 am »

It should be illegal to have anyone work for no pay..

footballers can make upto 300k{Quid} per week.so why should the club/s be holding back on paying dome poor twat who looks after the turnstiles, 7 quid an hour?

why not pay the players 10% less and have a kitty big enough to feed the rest?

S.Red please · « **Reply #29 on:** March 29, 2015, 01:14:37 pm »

Slightly off topic but I feel the FA, especially with all the money surrounding it now and the first point on their list there about grassroots facilities, need to provide more and also better paid opportunities for coaches at that level.

The living wage, like CF said its the least they could do!

PhaseOfPlay · « **Reply #30 on:** March 29, 2015, 06:26:59 pm »

Quote from: Serbian Red on March 29, 2015, 01:14:37 pm

Slightly off topic but I feel the FA, especially with all the money surrounding it now and the first point on their list there about grassroots facilities, need to provide more and also better paid opportunities for coaches at that level.

The living wage, like CF said its the least they could do!

Forget paid opportunities. Just make more courses available, at lower prices. Have two tracks - a proper fast track for only pros and ex-pros that focuses more on the teaching of the game (because their game knowledge is already exceptionally high for the most part, but their teach knowledge is virtually non-existent), and longer track for amateur players/ex-players that develops both the knowledge of the game and knowledge of coaching methods. Then have the fast track fees subsidise the long-track fees. Because I remember when I was a young budding amateur coach paying for my own badges, over a grand at a time, plus travel, plus the loss of earnings or holiday time to take the courses, that could have been offset if the courses were either half the price, or subsidised by money filtering down from the professional game to the clubs for the purposes of coach education. Takes people like me way longer to get to the top licences than it takes a pro player, at about 3 times the cost if not more. Sorry to go off topic, but that one little thing would mean that the people who are actively involved, for no money, in the development of the game, would at least see some sort of recognition for their daily and weekly efforts from the trough of money that pours into professional football, relative, of course, to the level of professional football available in each nation.

S.Red please · « **Reply #31 on:** March 29, 2015, 07:25:43 pm »

Quote from: PhaseOfPlay on March 29, 2015, 06:26:59 pm

Forget paid opportunities. Just make more courses available, at lower prices. Have two tracks - a proper fast track for only pros and ex-pros that focuses more on the teaching of the game (because their game knowledge is already exceptionally high for the most part, but their teach knowledge is virtually non-existent), and longer track for amateur players/ex-players that develops both the knowledge of the game and knowledge of coaching methods. Then have the fast track fees subsidise the long-track fees. Because I remember when I was a young budding amateur coach paying for my own badges, over a grand at a time, plus travel, plus the loss of earnings or holiday time to take the courses, that could have been offset if the courses were either half the price, or subsidised by money filtering down from the professional game to the clubs for the purposes of coach education. Takes people like me way longer to get to the top licences than it takes a pro player, at about 3 times the cost if not more. Sorry to go off topic, but that one little thing would mean that the people who are actively involved, for no money, in the development of the game, would at least see some sort of recognition for their daily and weekly efforts from the trough of money that pours into professional football, relative, of course, to the level of professional football available in each nation.

I based my point more on paid opportunities because of the first key area for investment in that ITV article posted, but with regards to courses I definitely agree and it should be high up on their to do list. Unfortunately I can't see a change any time in the near future.