At last. Mike Astley getting his comeuppance

He's squirming and typically deflecting knowledge/ responsibility. About time all theses companies and their hierarchy were reeled in. Fellow humans being treated like this in this day and age, and there are those out there who try to justify it.

 

I was referring to the humanistic side of things rather than business.

 

We, the public, have the power to force company owners like Ashley to get their houses in order but cheap goods are more valuable than principle and morality.

 

I always preferred their Rick.

 

Can't disagree much with that, just to add that unfortunately many people can only afford to shop at these places.

 

I'm pretty sure there are some who fall into that category but there are many others, some that I know, who shop there through choice rather than necessity. I don't have an issue with them making their choice but I do take issue when they start ranting about workers rights and the rich.

 

Only seen clips of him in the Commons Committee but didn't he effectively freely admit to breaking the law by not paying the minimum wage?

If so, shouldn't he now be being detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure breaking rocks in a sweater with arrows on it?

 

Not sure he admitted as such. But I read that only 20% of employees are permanent and the other 80% are agency.

So if it's the 80% that are not being paid the minimum wage then shouldn't it be best connection and transline that are in the wrong as SD will be paying an extra £1.50-£2.00 an hour to the agency for the staff who should then be paying the going rate

Sent from my SM-G800F using Tapatalk

 

Sporting a Slazenger motif?

 

so where does ashley sit..... he pays the minimum wage, but expects the staff to stay back and be security checked! he employs 70-80% eastern european staff and security checks them and the other 20-30% of british staff! he expects a very high level of competence, and stock loss is at an all time low in the distribution side of the business.

i know because i live in the area, my cafe is within spitting distance os his empire, and know some of the floor managers in the business.

Did he bend the rules..... probably.... is he a very successful business man, who employs thousands of staff in stores across the UK who get treat properly?

The only issue is with his distribution business that used to lose a lot of money through theft. which he has got the ******** to sort out!

Im not his biggest fan, and he is an arrogant *****, but bear in mind he tried to rescue BHS, but like all potential buyers he wasn't willing to take on a huge pension black hole that wasn't his making!
He buys failing sports business clothing companies and puts them into his business as exclusive brands. He may not be PC/ETHICAL... but would you pay £50 for a footy shirt??? or go to sports direct and pay £30???

 

I don't really know the story behind anyone of this apart from what I've read on this board but you lost me at the 'he may not be... ETHICAL' bit. If someone is unethical then there can be no defence, surely? I don't care how good he's made his business or how cheaply he sells football shirts you've got to have morals.

 

do you shop in primark? select? new look? nike? adidas?

thats the ethical bit i was referring to, these companies have their clothing made in the same conditions as sports direct!!

and no I'm not defending him, I'm just stating where i see things!! thats all..

 

Actually, no I don't but from conicidence rather than through any knowledge of the situation, I probably accidentally shop at places that are just as bad though. Not saying that ignorance is excusable on my part but it just seemed strange to see the cost of an item being used as a reason to forgive someone being unethical.

 

i do understand, ignorance from these big companies is bliss, but ethics on this scale are common place... and although id like to think that Barnsley have a contract with shirt producers and they have done their homework... do you think we as fans know exactly how the replica shirts are produced????

 

He said they had paid less than the minimum wage in the past, but this had now been addressed.

 

The argument now is that by compulsorily strip searching staff leaving the warehouse in what amounts to their own time he's effectively paying less than the minimum wage. What has also been lost in much of this is that even on minimum wage the taxpayer is subsidising the business because any Sports Direct employee with dependents is probably claiming tax credits.

 

He admitted not paying the minimum wage and therefore committing criminal acts. Not being a bit shady or dodgy or being ethical or not ethical but committing criminal acts to make money. No better than some scrote breaking in your house. Actually probably worse as they act out of need he acts out of greed.

 

But in his defence he was paying the minimum wage as a general rule, the problem was that the security checks at the end of the shift (which many retail employees have to do) were so inefficient that once you had added the time they took and did the maths it put the effective wage slightly below the minimum. It wasnt as cut and dried as him simply paying less than the minimum wage it was a complication due to the security checks.

I have a little sympathy for him as the owner in that originally there wasno intention to pay below the minimum wage and he probably had no idea how long the checks were taking or the legal effect. However as owner he takes ultimate responsibility and that seems to be exactly what he is now doing.

 

One of the questions I found interesting last night. Basically saying if we leave the EU wages will go up, and implied this is a bad thing because we can no longer produce cheap products. Hence its better to have a load of people unhappy on low pay and poorer living conditions than 10 years ago, so we can export to Europe our cheap products!

I understand where they are coming from, but it's not right!

Also, dunno why people are still making out the EU is the bastion of worker's rights on a day where Sports Direct have directly proved otherwise? I'm not particularly of strong opinion in or out, but don't understand how sports direct can get away with this under the mighty EU workers rights watch

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...direct-mike-ashley-workforce?CMP=share_btn_tw


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free