Sports Direct

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/28/sports-direct-staff-zero-hour-contracts


Sports Direct: 90% of staff on zero-hour contracts

Sports Direct's entire 20,000 part-time workforce are employed on zero-hour contracts at a time when 2,000 full-time staff are about to cash in bonuses of up to £100,000.

The contracts, handed to 90% of the company's 23,000 employees, leave staff not knowing how many hours they will work from one week to the next, with no sick pay or holiday pay, and no guarantee of regular work.

Bosses at Sports Direct, the UK's biggest sports retailer, were this month hailing their bonus policy for full-time staff as that of a model employer.

The Guardian has also discovered that the bonus scheme rules give managers the power to exclude a member of staff if they are considered an "unsatisfactory performer", although they do not precisely define this term and it could be subject to abuse, according to employment lawyers.

About 20 current staff are known to have been excluded from the scheme already, while others who had been excluded have since left, according to the Unite union.

The four biggest supermarkets in Britain, Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons, said they do not use zero-hour contracts. Other retailers to confirm that they do not employ staff on these terms include Argos, B&Q, Homebase, John Lewis and Marks & Spencer.

Politicians have been campaigning to ban the contracts and have called on Mike Ashley, the billionaire owner of Sports Direct, to consider introducing part-time contracts with guaranteed hours.

Former and current part-time staff have also spoken out against zero hours, stressing the uncertainty created by the contracts, under which work can be cut with less than a day's notice. Others said regional managers may reduce staff hours if targets are not met.

Meanwhile, some staff still entitled to the bonus – which pays out in the form of shares next month – have suggested it has created a culture of fear that they may lose out if they are deemed to be "unsatisfactory".

Andy Sawford, the Labour MP for Corby, who has submitted a private member's bill to try to ban the use of zero-hour contracts, said: "It would be much better for Sports Direct to instead of offering bonus gimmicks, they should offer their staff the security of proper contracts.

"The zero-hours contracts are highly exploitative and suit the company because it keeps people in a fragile state where they are at the beck and call of their employers."

Alison McGovern, the Labour MP for Wirral South, is also campaigning for businesses to offer fewer such contracts.

She said: "It seems quite bizarre that a company would on the one hand be awarding bonuses in this way, and treating other staff in a completely different way.

"I would want Sports Direct to see if there is a possibility of more fixed term contracts. It appears this has been imposed across the board and is inappropriate. How can there be any investment in employees, or training or progression?

"Lots of workers in retail start off part-time on the shop floor and rise to the top, but with zero-hour contracts there is no incentive at all."

Some 2,000 permanent full-time staff who have been with Sports Direct since 2008 are to get a bonus paid in shares worth about £75,000 each for hitting profit targets. A similar payout, of shares worth about £17,500, was awarded last year.

Sports Direct's chief executive, Dave Forsey, told the Guardian at the time: "The share scheme glues this company together. These schemes are typically only for the executives, but this goes deep into the company. I'm surprised more businesses haven't adopted something like this sooner."

The Guardian has seen a copy of the share scheme rules, stating it is "intended to drive group performance and to motivate and retain permanent employees at all levels of the group, and to align the interests of those employees with those of shareholders".

However, the document adds that employees can be excluded from the scheme.

It says that any "participant who is determined to be an unsatisfactory performer" will not get the shares.

"For the purposes of the scheme, an unsatisfactory performer means a participant who at any time during the period between the grand date of his award and any relevant vesting date has been (a) notified in writing that his performance is unsatisfactory, or he has been given a written warning or other sanction under the company's disciplinary policy in place from time to time, or (b) suspended from his employment by reason of suspected gross misconduct."

By comparison, John Lewis, which runs one of the best-known employee bonus schemes in the country as part of its partnership structure, pays all employees a bonus regardless of disciplinary warnings against them.

Employment lawyers have said the wording is too vague and could be abused.

David Cohen, consultant solicitor at Keystone Law, said: "It is unusual under an all-employee share scheme for the directors to have the power to deprive continuing employees, as opposed to 'bad leavers', of their share awards.

"If workers generally became aware that the scheme was being operated in a capricious and arbitrary way, the company would risk frittering away the reputational and motivational advantages of putting in place such a generous scheme."

Sports Direct declined to comment.

 

This (zero hour contracts) is quite common in retail and call centres at the moment.
A sign of the times.
At the end of the day people are offered these type of contracts from the outset and therefore choose to sign or not.
A complete non story.

 

Don't kid yourself mate. Yes these contracts are common, but for a company to hand them out to 90% of the staff is rare mate.

 

Unfortunately, these types of contracts are becoming more and more commonplace. Whilst I disagree with them in principle, there is very little anyone can do about it. (Unless the law is changed, which I very much doubt will happen!) It's just another way to help the rich and hinder the poor.

 

The contracts appear to be a way of using cheap labour whilst remaining within current Employment Law.
You have to wonder about the morals of this type of contract, but that's MA for you,.

No surprise with the bonuses, if anything the surprise is 2,000 are actually eligible.

Are you saying MA is morally unfit to run NUFC.

 

treating staff like **** on a shoe will bring its own rewards to him, and a couldn't give a **** attitude from the workers, morally i would expect people who have seen what he is up to boycotting his stores . i know i will, remember the Jarrow marches were for less than what he is doing. our lads fought 2 world wars so this **** can treat his staff that way i'm appalled.

 

I think it's a bit strong to call it a "non story".

I feel it's important for people to be aware of the spin and misdirection that gets thrown our way.

When the thread about the bonus scheme was written, I didn't see anyone calling that a non story.

 

Hopefully, he will get his comeuppance on day. But he's that rich him and his like can get away with murder when it comes to how he treats his employees.

Its strange isn't it, NUFC fans have been saying for years now to boycott his stores and other fans just laughed at us if we were stupid. When you actually see what he is like, it's no laughing matter.
The thing with the staff though is that some wil be grateful just to have a job, working for SD or not.

You know there are stores everywhere these days, there is even a LIlywhites on Regent Street. Couldnt beleive it when I passed it a few weeks back.

 

very level headed poster you mate, have some rep

 

MA should be using doctor whites . those that are grateful for a job, will be searching the jobs pages every night, hoping to escape his clutches.

 

Don't think this is a huge issue, a little unethical maybe, but there is much worse going on in the world and I'm sure the people appreciate the pay check every month. If you don't work hard and don't pull your weight you get sacked, same as in any job and if you work hard you will carry on picking up the pay check and get more hours.

 

This isn't anything new. A massive percentage of the younger NHS employees are on these zero hour contracts. Loads of 18-22 year olds are on these sorts of contracts as admin assistants.

I was on one a couple of years ago. I got 24 hours notice that I was no longer needed... Fantastic. Spent a year unemployed afterwards.

When it comes to running businesses, the key is the develop psychopath like traits.

 

I have heard mixed stories from staff who work there, in general its negative however if you are happy to work stupidly long hrs then there is progression there to be had

 

Don't want zero hour contract, don't apply for a zero hours contract job! Have you seen how many students work in places like that? Enough said.

 

Unfortunately, people don't have a choice. Have you seen the job market lately?

 

This.

Lots of firms have these contracts. What next? A thread on how his staff have to wear uniforms

 

It's grossly unfair.

If these people want to take holiday, they take it unpaid.

Yes, if they don't want a zero-hour contract then they shouldn't apply... but where is the incentive to get off benefits?

If people are claiming benefits, they get paid whatever. Working for Sports Direct means you only get paid when you're there.

Christ, even Argos give basic contracts to guarantee holiday pay.

It's easy for people who don't live on a thin line to judge those that do - put in the same scenario themselves, i'm sure many of you would alter your perspective.

 

No wonder your players want to leave soon after they join under MA.

 

Hat's off to Joker for not letting his partisan feelings for his club obscure the exploitative behaviour of its owner.

 

So he is basically acting within the law?

Whilst I do not agree with the contracts, its not really up to Ashley to change the law. Whilst it remains as it is, many hard nosed businessmen will exploit it.

I'm not sure this is big news, I reckon 100% of PL club owners are ****s and have exploited others to get where they are today. I struggle to get animated or surprised when I find out they are exploiting some legal loophole or playing giant twat. Mikes a giant twat, Roman's a giant twat, Ellis is a giant twat etc etc. Wouldn't mind being a bob or two behind these giants twats...............whatever it took