One word....context. The discussion was about Allams generosity or lack of, these were examples listed over a period of time.
All Premier League clubs have agreed to pay the living wage to all full time staff, some have gone further and extended it to also cover part time staff, but we're not one of them. The trust wrote to the Allam's asking them to consider paying all staff the living wage, but they didn't respond. There's something very wrong with a business that pays some staff £50k a week, but doesn't pay a living wage to others.
22% of people in the Uk exist below the living wage. 25% in Yorkshire and the Humber. Are you writing to all employers?
Several places that pay the living wage cut staff to fund it. How many of the people affected actually live off the wage, as opposed to supplementing another minimum wage income with a part time job at home games? The biggest outgoing we have will most likely be player wages. Should we be pressuring them to take a cut to fund it?
Precisely my point PLT. The irony in Strov's reply is that he exposes the other great lie about Allam; that as well as being somehow elevated from criticism because of his generosity to the local community, he is somehow to be trusted on the basis that he is some kind of business genius. 'The laws of demand and supply rule. If he runs his business badly, the inherent inefficiencies will affect his profitability; if he offers low wages, he will get low quality from his workers' Well, I would say that pretty much sums up the way Allam is running Hull City at the moment. Also, you are right; the living wage has no basis in law, but you would think a self professed man of the community and enlightened philanthropist like Allam would be more inclined to set an example by paying the living wage to the people who work for him.
Are the Hull City Supporters' Trust writing to all employers? You don't see how they might have a particular focus on Hull City?
That'd be fair enough in my book. We were facing redundancies at work not long back. I was one of a few that suggested a pay cut to protect the jobs of others. I'd prefer several people employed over a few on a higher wage. It was sad to see the selfisness in some others.
1) I don't know where the evidence is that people lose jobs to fund the living wage, especially given it is not a statutory requirement, but happy to be pointed in the right direction. 2) Going by the Hull City example, unfortunately quite a few work only for Hull City....that is why we rely so heavily on students (who are notoriously unreliable) and people heading for retirement age for our stewards. 3) Given the tiny sum involved, then yes, or channelling a tiny proportion of that extra TV money to fund it
I realise this is a ****ish thing to say before i say it.... but surely minimum wage exists for low-skill roles like stewards?
Yes, lots, we have to use agency workers because not enough people are interested in a minimum wage part time job. The only people who'll take them are foreigners, that's why the concourse staff don't speak ****ing English.