Mike Ashley and Sports Direct

[Butts]

No one seems to have mentioned the £77,000 Bonus awarded to the 2,000 staff last year who are not on Zero Hours Contracts - admittedly mainly but not exclusively Managers. I believe the lucky recipients represent about 25% of the workforce.

I'm sure a lot of these staff are from working class backgounds and not born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

 

[pemma]

In all fairness I would suggest that Sports Direct are likely to provide transport to get workers to their warehouse so in the case of the bus running late it would be the bus company that would be fined. Not only that but car ownership tends to be much higher outside of the major conurbations.

Barclays run works buses from Knutsford station to Radbrooke Hall but the employees have to get from their house to Knutsford station or another place they run a works bus from. If Northern cancel a Manchester to Chester service in the morning peak a lot of Barclays' workers will be an hour late for work despite Barclays providing the bus.

Money Supermarket provide works buses from Chester station to their Deeside office but again the employees have to find their own way of getting to Chester station.

I imagine it would be the same with any buses Sports Direct provide.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You can buy branded clothes made in Far East sweatshops, or you can go to Primark and buy cheap clothes made in Far East sweatshops.

There are relatively few options to avoid that origin.

Being made in the far East doesn't automatically mean the employees face poor working conditions even if it means they are paid a lot less than UK workers. You could probably live a life of luxury in India on £10,000 a year.

However, I agree the 'better brands' also make a lot of clothes in Asia.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Deducting 15 mins for 1 min late, or 1 hour for 15 late, would potentially take low paid earners below minimum wage, which then makes the practice illegal.

I think the main reason for most minimum wage breaches is not because employers don't offer the minimum wage or better, it's because of instances like that and not paying for overtime.

 

[Wallsendmag]

With the recent reports about Mike Ashley and Sports Direct, would you still buy from Sports Direct and/or other businesses where Ashley is involved?

I think the cheap prices at Sports Direct is what gets them customers. However, it sounds like they've been breaching employment law to save money so I think buying from them and helping the business to grow would only create more roles where employees aren't treated correctly.

As a Newcastle season ticket holder I wouldn't be seen dead in one of his shops

 

[Chew Chew]

Is isn't just within Sports Direct itself where Sports Direct employ extremely sharp practice.

Look at what they did with USC. One part of Sports Direct put it into administration whilst another took it out of administration dropping £15m of debt in the process. They treated the staff there disgustingly.

Likewise the way they buy shares in their competitors so they know exactly what they are doing.

Personally I don't spend money in any Mike Ashley linked company but it is up to each individual what they decide to do.

 

[backontrack]

Is isn't just within Sports Direct itself where Sports Direct employ extremely sharp practice.

Look at what they did with USC. One part of Sports Direct put it into administration whilst another took it out of administration dropping £15m of debt in the process. They treated the staff there disgustingly.

Likewise the way they buy shares in their competitors so they know exactly what they are doing.

Personally I don't spend money in any Mike Ashley linked company but it is up to each individual what they decide to do.

Neither do I.

 

[pemma]

Look at what they did with USC. One part of Sports Direct put it into administration whilst another took it out of administration dropping £15m of debt in the process.

Unfortunately, that's common practice with other businesses like Barratts Shoes, BHS and HMV also taking advantage of administration rules to get rid of their debt and to off-load some loss making stores and employees in the process. The employees made redundant don't always get proper redundancy pay due to their employer being in administration and unlike the retained employees they aren't TUPEd across to the new trading company. The unpaid debt can result in suppliers going in to administration or/and further job loses.

 

[Chew Chew]

Unfortunately, that's common practice with other businesses like Barratts Shoes, BHS and HMV also taking advantage of administration rules to get rid of their debt and to off-load some loss making stores and employees in the process. The employees made redundant don't always get proper redundancy pay due to their employer being in administration and unlike the retained employees they aren't TUPEd across to the new trading company. The unpaid debt can result in suppliers going in to administration or/and further job loses.

I know they aren't the only ones to do it but the way they asset striped and engineered the situation to leave the rest of us to pick up the bill leaves a bad taste in the mouth considering what their group profits are.

To me, they added fraudulently.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Pre-pack administrations are morally fraudulent, I quite agree. The recent administration of Blue Inc, with the same multi-millionaire owner but staff redundancy paid by the National Insurance fund, absolutely stunk. It shouldn't be left to taxpayers to cough up redundancy pay for people sacked by millionaire owners. But governments of all colours want to be "good for entrepreneurs", so we're stuck with the likes of Philip Green shipping £500m to Monaco before declaring a £500m pension deficit.

Ashley seems to be the poster boy for sharp practice, and he's not even the worst in the sports retail sector, never mind anything else.

 

[IanD]

Here's some good news from the BBC:

Sports Direct chairman, Mike Ashley, interested in BHS stores.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36510270

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It shouldn't be left to taxpayers to cough up redundancy pay for people sacked by millionaire owners.

Well, even at my age in excess of the allotted three score years and ten, I learn new things every day on this website.

Will you be so kind as to point out to me, where exactly in the regulations that govern the payment of redundancy pay from the National Insurance Fund, does it say that having a millionaire owner of a company which, as a result of matters that bring such matters into play, brings the matter of ethical considerations into play. All the staff want in such a situation is their redundancy money and care not a jot where that money comes from.

 

[SS4]

Well, even at my age in excess of the allotted three score years and ten, I learn new things every day on this website.

Will you be so kind as to point out to me, where exactly in the regulations that govern the payment of redundancy pay from the National Insurance Fund, does it say that having a millionaire owner of a company which, as a result of matters that bring such matters into play, brings the matter of ethical considerations into play. All the staff want in such a situation is their redundancy money and care not a jot where that money comes from.

I fail to see, despite such a loquacious post (in which you make another reference to your age from which I can only infer that you're implying that it makes your views more valid than those of a person who's avoided Death's cold hand for less time than your good self), am answer to the ethical statement posed by the forum member you quote.

As I'm sure you're aware National Insurance was created to pay for a welfare state in which no person would go hungry or die from preventable disease. It was not created, at least that I've noticed, to bail out millionaires when they wanted to make more money at the expense of the poorest (pretty much the working definition of capitalism)

The poor worker being made redundant may not care but this taxpayer does!

 

[DarloRich]

Well, even at my age in excess of the allotted three score years and ten, I learn new things every day on this website.

Will you be so kind as to point out to me, where exactly in the regulations that govern the payment of redundancy pay from the National Insurance Fund, does it say that having a millionaire owner of a company which, as a result of matters that bring such matters into play, brings the matter of ethical considerations into play. All the staff want in such a situation is their redundancy money and care not a jot where that money comes from.

I am sure they don't.

I am also sure that most of us would prefer that the capitalist supermen who, we are told take all of the risk in running a business, stood up to their moral responsibility once in a while. Perhaps you don't.

 

[Butts]

I am sure they don't.

I am also sure that most of us would prefer that the capitalist supermen who, we are told take all of the risk in running a business, stood up to their moral responsibility once in a while. Perhaps you don't.

Ironic the ingratitude of the NUFC supporter above. Ashley has probably pumped far more cash down the drain there than the redundancies would have cost and other bits and pieces.

I note no one has commented on the £77,000 bonus payments to staff yet

 

[bnm]

As a Newcastle season ticket holder I wouldn't be seen dead in one of his shops

As a Newcastle Utd season ticket holder are you seen in a replica kit?

 

[DarloRich]

Ironic the ingratitude of the NUFC supporter above. Ashley has probably pumped far more cash down the drain there than the redundancies would have cost and other bits and pieces.

I note no one has commented on the £77,000 bonus payments to staff yet

I am not a Newcastle supporter. I have seen people offered out for less offence. I would also point out that Mike Ashley seems so to be running Newcastle United along sensible business lines, which whilst admittedly odd for a football club, doesn't seem to breach any rules!

I am unsure of the point you make about bonuses. Perhaps you could spell it out.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am sure they don't. I am also sure that most of us would prefer that the capitalist supermen who, we are told take all of the risk in running a business, stood up to their moral responsibility once in a while. Perhaps you don't.

You don't become a "capitalist superman" if you allow "moral responsibility" to hinder your efforts to achieve the goals that you have set yourself. Whilst obviously not holding to that ethos, I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it.

Two notable British business philanthropists in past days who could well be cited as being exceptions to that ethos were Titus Salt and Lord Leverhulme.

 

[Butts]

I am not a Newcastle supporter. I have seen people offered out for less offence. I would also point out that Mike Ashley seems so to be running Newcastle United along sensible business lines, which whilst admittedly odd for a football club, doesn't seem to breach any rules!

I am unsure of the point you make about bonuses. Perhaps you could spell it out.

The fact that his deplorable treatment of some staff is somewhat mitigated by the award of £77,000 in Bonus Payments to staff not on zero hours contracts. 2000 of them in his shops up and down the land.

 

[DarloRich]

The fact that his deplorable treatment of some staff is somewhat mitigated by the award of £77,000 in Bonus Payments to staff not on zero hours contracts. 2000 of them in his shops up and down the land.

Although the treatment of those staff and assignment of that bonus has led to problems.

You don't become a "capitalist superman" if you allow "moral responsibility" to hinder your efforts to achieve the goals that you have set yourself. Whilst obviously not holding to that ethos, I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it.

as can I - however it seems that those who, we are told, take all the risk rarely have to carry the result of that risk. The people who do are the people lower down the chain who stand to loose everything while the owners seem to do very well out of the failure of their company.

Two notable British business philanthropists in past days who could well be cited as being exceptions to that ethos were Titus Salt and Lord Leverhulme.

Indeed - I wonder who from today's crop of "entrepreneurs" could be classed in the same group?

Although the occupants were required to behave and be good little company boys to maintain their housing - so while better than the rest of the world it wasnt all altruistic!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Although the occupants were required to behave and be good little company boys to maintain their housing - so while better than the rest of the world it wasnt all altruistic!

If you saw some of the housing of that period that were the norm of the working classes, the houses provided by Titus Salt and by Lord Leverhulme for their workers would have been far superior dwellings, which the workers would have immediately recognised and would know how fortunate they were to live in, so if for whatever reason they chose to ignore the tenancy rules and no longer could live there, they knew what type of housing then awaited them.

 

[Antman]

As a Newcastle season ticket holder I wouldn't be seen dead in one of his shops

But apparently he's a hero amongst the mackems?

I'm in no way defending him but there are plenty of other employers up and down the country who are every bit as bad if not worse.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Although the occupants were required to behave and be good little company boys to maintain their housing - so while better than the rest of the world it wasnt all altruistic!

It was paternalistic altruism, and there was an element of wanting to pay the best to have the best staff, but it was still altruism. The standard of the housing in Saltaire and Port Sunlight is still higher than the surrounding areas, 150 years on.

Will you be so kind as to point out to me, where exactly in the regulations that govern the payment of redundancy pay from the National Insurance Fund, does it say that having a millionaire owner of a company which, as a result of matters that bring such matters into play, brings the matter of ethical considerations into play. All the staff want in such a situation is their redundancy money and care not a jot where that money comes from.

What is legal and what is ethical are entirely different questions.

Blue Inc paid huge dividends to its directors about 12 months before filing for administration. It then went bust and suppliers and staff were left out of pocket. The NI fund paid the redundancy- but only statutory, not contractual- and some wages, but staff remain out of pocket for the remainder of their unpaid wages.

Directors of Blue Inc included Steven Cohen, formerly of Sports Direct, and a certain Daniel Levy, better known as the Chairman of Tottenham Hotspur.

Of course it is perfectly legal for multi-millionaire owners to walk away, spending their money on football players rather than paying their staff their wages. But ethical? I'm genuinely surprised you think it is morally acceptable.

 

[DarloRich]

It was paternalistic altruism, and there was an element of wanting to pay the best to have the best staff, but it was still altruism. The standard of the housing in Saltaire and Port Sunlight is still higher than the surrounding areas, 150 years on.

If you saw some of the housing of that period that were the norm of the working classes, the houses provided by Titus Salt and by Lord Leverhulme for their workers would have been far superior dwellings, which the workers would have immediately recognised and would know how fortunate they were to live in, so if for whatever reason they chose to ignore the tenancy rules and no longer could live there, they knew what type of housing then awaited them.

I am quite happy to say they offered a fantastic standard of accommodation, education, "betterment" and support to their community. It would be infinitely better than the rest of Victorian Britain. They looked after their workers and provided for them much better than the rest of society. The residents knew the terms and I bet they generally abided by them.

It should be noted however that you were reliant upon the largesse of your chosen philanthropist and dependent on the success of their works for your home and job, more so than than the rest of society. A reliant workforce is a pliant workforce after all. No campaigning for decent wages when speaking up makes you homeless! All of which helps the bottom line

AND there was no pub - which generally reflected the Quaker or Methodist leanings of many of these Victorian philanthropists. Honorable mentions for Cadbury and Rowntree and Hartleys who built villages to house their workers.

 

[pemma]

Will you be so kind as to point out to me, where exactly in the regulations that govern the payment of redundancy pay from the National Insurance Fund, does it say that having a millionaire owner of a company which, as a result of matters that bring such matters into play, brings the matter of ethical considerations into play. All the staff want in such a situation is their redundancy money and care not a jot where that money comes from.

The law may not mention ethics. However, when you were working at the airport how would you have reacted if a major airline used a pre-package administration with the 'new' airline deciding not to fly out of Manchester meaning not only lost future revenue for the Airport but any unpaid debts from the airline would never be paid? Would you have been happy to call through airport employees and make them redundant with redundancy pay coming from the airport's revenue when the airline, which caused the original problem, got money out of the NI fund for redundancies?

 

[Tetchytyke]

It should be noted however that you were reliant upon the largesse of your chosen philanthropist and dependent on the success of their works for your home and job, more so than than the rest of society. A reliant workforce is a pliant workforce after all. No campaigning for decent wages when speaking up makes you homeless! All of which helps the bottom line

But most people at the time were in tied accommodation regardless of whether it was high quality or low quality tied accommodation.

Lord Londonderry had all the miners in Silksworth evicted in 1891 because they dared to criticise him, but the housing in Silksworth wasn't exactly a Model Village.

AND there was no pub - which generally reflected the Quaker or Methodist leanings of many of these Victorian philanthropists. Honorable mentions for Cadbury and Rowntree and Hartleys who built villages to house their workers.

It was only Saltaire that didn't have a pub, Port Sunlight did.

 

[DarloRich]

It was only Saltaire that didn't have a pub, Port Sunlight did.

oh! I wasnt aware of that. Bournville didn't have a pub, neither did New Earswick (but then they were built by Quakers) and assumed it to be a standard. The evil of drink and all that!