So have a party for the ladies and the youth teams. Don’t invite the men’s team. That would send a messageWhy do you care so much about WFH? Is that really your biggest focus right now? We are in a heavy crisis mode as a club (and company). Of course there need to be drastic measures now, and for that, people need to be present and approachable. Has nothing to do with being a boomer. Harsh on the others, yes, but the men's team is still the most important part of the club, and it is shit. So why would we judge the new owners about little things that do not matter but rather focus on what's really important. So far, they have done an excellent job and I personally care about the setup and success of the club on the pitch - everything else, all the nice add-ons, can come back once we're winning again. Like that other idiot fan who has a problem that the WAGs need to pay for their Wembley trip themselves now - how stupid can one be. I dont understand why anything else than success on the pitch (with a professional and top set up) matters right now and whoever employee does not like it, can resign and work somewhere else. It is a free market after all.
I was about to say that these people have workers protection but they don’t. Brexit, the gift that allows billionaires to treat their staff badlyThese people work for Manchester United, not the other way round. The club pay their wages and it’s reasonable for the club to expect certain standards - if one of those is working in the office not at home then so be it.
With specific reference to the emails thing, it was another part of INEOS’s business where a distinct drop in email traffic on a Friday highlighted people taking the mickey with WFH. Whilst that doesn’t necessary reflect what’s going on with Utd staff, it’s not unreasonable to expect them to fall inline with INEOS working practises now they are running the club.
The problem is that more and more companies are taking this approach, so eventually you'll find a job market where you're not applying for 90% of the jobs available. And it should be really important to everyone. How much I'm going to be paid is the primary reason why I'm looking for a job in the first place.But you would know that up front they won't disclose the salary. If knowing that is really important for you, just simply don't proceed with interviewing for that job and it won't waste anyone's time.
These people work for Manchester United, not the other way round. The club pay their wages and it’s reasonable for the club to expect certain standards - if one of those is working in the office not at home then so be it.
With specific reference to the emails thing, it was another part of INEOS’s business where a distinct drop in email traffic on a Friday highlighted people taking the mickey with WFH. Whilst that doesn’t necessary reflect what’s going on with Utd staff, it’s not unreasonable to expect them to fall inline with INEOS working practises now they are running the club.
Okay but if every company is doing it then there isn't any alternative, is there? If that's how everyone does it then we can label it a shitty practice, but it won't have any effect.The problem is that more and more companies are taking this approach, so eventually you'll find a job market where you're not applying for 90% of the jobs available. And it should be really important to everyone. How much I'm going to be paid is the primary reason why I'm looking for a job in the first place.
I agree with @decorativeed. It's a shitty practice and unnecessary.
Good luck explaining basic economics on Redcafe!Okay but if every company is doing it then there isn't any alternative, is there? If that's how everyone does it then we can label it a shitty practice, but it won't have any effect.
The way I look at it is if you are looking for a job, then the company has something you want/need so they will make you jump hoops to get it. On the other hand if it's a company that approaches you, then you have the upper hand and dictate the recruiting process. Like everything else it's about supply and demand.
Why do footballers get paid so much for running around and kicking a ball of air? Because the supply of people who can do that well is less than the demand, so they get to dictate the price and market.
Not for idealogy for sure. It's for real change to save the club. We are in major decline whether you realise it or not. Change must be for all levels. It affects the entire organisation.
What a simple, uncomplicated world you must live in. Invite me over there sometime, I'm begging you!But you would know that up front they won't disclose the salary. If knowing that is really important for you, just simply don't proceed with interviewing for that job and it won't waste anyone's time.
Exactly - thank you!The problem is that more and more companies are taking this approach, so eventually you'll find a job market where you're not applying for 90% of the jobs available. And it should be really important to everyone. How much I'm going to be paid is the primary reason why I'm looking for a job in the first place.
I agree with @decorativeed. It's a shitty practice and unnecessary.
It isn't just the Caf unfortunately. Most of the internet seems to be full of people complaining about the fact that everything is coming easily or being structured exactly how they'd like it.Good luck explaining basic economics on Redcafe!
I do not think that W4H is protected by law anywhere. It is totally at the discretion of the company, pretty much anywhere. Nothing to do with Brexit.I was about to say that these people have workers protection but they don’t. Brexit, the gift that allows billionaires to treat their staff badly
It isn't just the Caf unfortunately. Most of the internet seems to be full of people complaining about the fact that everything is coming easily or being structured exactly how they'd like it.
On the other hand people you meet in real life seem to be much more realistic about the way the world works. But all forums now just seem to be a platform for people coming together to complain. A few years ago it used to be the opposite.
Well said. Applying for a job is a pain in the arse, and you need to know whether the effort is justified before you've jumped through all the hoops, not after.Thing is this isn't "just the way the world works". It's designed like that and doesn't have to be like that. Companies are testing the water now with not giving the salary details up front. If nobody does anything about it, it'll become commonplace as it's in employer's interests. Then there won't really be a choice. It's not in employee's interests to have a job market where you have to go through recruitment processes without even knowing what you'd be paid.
The "way the world works" used to include the following;It isn't just the Caf unfortunately. Most of the internet seems to be full of people complaining about the fact that everything is coming easily or being structured exactly how they'd like it.
On the other hand people you meet in real life seem to be much more realistic about the way the world works. But all forums now just seem to be a platform for people coming together to complain. A few years ago it used to be the opposite.
Thing is this isn't "just the way the world works". It's designed like that and doesn't have to be like that. Companies are testing the water now with not giving the salary details up front. If nobody does anything about it, it'll become commonplace as it's in employer's interests. Then there won't really be a choice. It's not in employee's interests to have a job market where you have to go through recruitment processes without even knowing what you'd be paid.
Turns out it was the women’s academy. My mistake. Apologies.How have the women's team been given their awards when they haven't been awarded yet?
The Caf will try to connect anything to Brexit whether it's true or not. WFH is just a method to do work, that's it. It's not a right or a privilege. Technically, a cornershop can be considered working from home if the owner lives in the same building as the store front.I do not think that W4H is protected by law anywhere. It is totally at the discretion of the company, pretty much anywhere. Nothing to do with Brexit.
It isn't just the Caf unfortunately. Most of the internet seems to be full of people complaining about the fact that everything is coming easily or being structured exactly how they'd like it.
On the other hand people you meet in real life seem to be much more realistic about the way the world works. But all forums now just seem to be a platform for people coming together to complain. A few years ago it used to be the opposite.
The world is not designed to work on supply and demand as if someone invented it. That is literally how humans behave when they want to exchange goods and services, it's natural. Also, what's the salary details got do with anything? Complete non-sequitur. It's also in an employers interests to attract as many people as possible to get the best candidates for a job. Why the hell would they not be upfront about their salary? The most vague they go is to give you a scale, say from 19000 to 23000 a year. That's based on all sorts of things like experience and the role etc.Thing is this isn't "just the way the world works". It's designed like that and doesn't have to be like that. Companies are testing the water now with not giving the salary details up front. If nobody does anything about it, it'll become commonplace as it's in employer's interests. Then there won't really be a choice. It's not in employee's interests to have a job market where you have to go through recruitment processes without even knowing what you'd be paid.
According to Mitten on the latest Talk of the Devils podcast, the awards dinner was cancelled by INEOS as a cost-cutting measure.
They might do, who knowsSo have a party for the ladies and the youth teams. Don’t invite the men’s team. That would send a message
Okay. Now that you've lectured me about how the world worked and how you're a big shot who works on multi million deals and I'm an arrogant twat who wants to maintain the status quo, let me ask you a question. Did this rant or what the other guy is saying suddenly compel employers to disclose salaries during interview process?The "way the world works" used to include the following;
Six day working weeks as standard
62 hour working weeks as standard
No minimum wage
No equal pay laws
No parental leave
No formal negotiations between employees and employers over pay and conditions
Employers didn't have to abide by contracts they signed with employees
No annual leave/holidays
Loose to zero health and safety rules in the workplace
Fortunately the world was able to look at these things and see them for what @decorativeed has already pointed out; shitty.
And another thing; quit with the pompous "oh, look at these people not living in the real world! Oh, for shame! They're like wittle childwen, not understanding what real life is!" I deal with multi million pound projects every year in a very competitive sector, spending my time outside of work raising four kids. I've worked my arse off to get where I am, and I still work my arse off now I'm there. I'm not immature simply for wanting more transparent business practices, and deriding someone for doing so is arrogant as feck - not to mention it probably comes from someone who really wants the status quo to be maintained because they benefit from it.
According to Mitten on the latest Talk of the Devils podcast, the awards dinner was cancelled by INEOS as a cost-cutting measure.
Employers had to be dragged kicking and screaming by a unionised workforce for every single one of the things I mentioned, but OK.It was in the employers interest to have better conditions to attract more talent than the competition.
Don't know how that contradicts what I said but alright.Employers had to be dragged kicking and screaming by a unionised workforce for every single one of the things I mentioned, but OK.
Surely those working from would have realised that after Covid it was more than likely they'd have to return to working from the office.There's no wrong or right here. It's just my opinion on the way it's been handled. You've got staff who've likely been there for years who have been told they can work from home and have likely made adjustments in their lives in those 3/4 years that would make going back permanently a lot more difficult. A grace period could have been a better way to do this but to basically order them in by Monday or find new jobs is incredibly harsh and won't make people feel very appreciated. These people aren't footballers. They don't need to have elite mentalities. They're allowed to want to feel heard and that the club can allow them some flexibility because life happens.
Yeah I just think it's a harsh way to lay them off, forcing them to essentially quit. There's been very little consideration for those who WFH provided a great benefit, those who improve when WFH and those who may have adjusted their lives to suit that since 2020. According to the articles it was all based on a lack of email traffic which feels a bit silly.
I've alluded to that myself. Except that now it's like a stain on your CV when you want to leave.As i understood it the salaries at United were (and I believe still are) less than most competitors because its Manchester United, and working for such an esteemed brand brings its own value. That was the common consensus when I was there.
Surely those working from would have realised that after Covid it was more than likely they'd have to return to working from the office.
Not when the club told them they'd be moving to hybrid working in some cases and guaranteeing WFH to employees who'd been hired on that basis.Surely those working from would have realised that after Covid it was more than likely they'd have to return to working from the office.
This is why people vote for the Tories. feck up people's lives who earn decent to good salary, so the billionaire 'can save the club' and of course himself some money.
Bloody depressing attitude.
Some baffling takes and comments here.
An organization gets better primarily by getting the people that is better at their jobs to work for them. For that you have to A) lure them in and B) don't push them out. Removing benefits usually tied to the employee's way of life (since most of them have families, already arranged living plans, kids that need to attend school etc.), as legal as it could be, isn't pursuing the former and is working actively against the latter.
The typical result of this measures in organizations are that A) the most valuable employees look for the door -and usually go straight to the competition-; B) the ones left are unhappier, overdemanded and understaffed and that obviously takes a toll on their motivation; and C) they start looking for jobs anyway and when they get them, replacing their functions can be a long and costly process. All of this causing the organization to end up worse than before. The canary app (that has its own thread) is a good example on the matter.
Of course, this applies only if the main goal is to get a better organization long term. If the idea is to be the most profitable, then that's a different story. But fans of a football club that want their club to be the most profitable instead of better are IMO, very weird football club fans.
According to Mitten on the latest Talk of the Devils podcast, the awards dinner was cancelled by INEOS as a cost-cutting measure.
IMO, very weird football club fans are fans that start on the new owners when they come in and change a few things at the side of the club no one knows even existed. They have no idea their intentions or what the job entails yet still want to use it as a stick to bash the new ownership because their views don’t align.Some baffling takes and comments here.
An organization gets better primarily by getting the people that is better at their jobs to work for them. For that you have to A) lure them in and B) don't push them out. Removing benefits usually tied to the employee's way of life (since most of them have families, already arranged living plans, kids that need to attend school etc.), as legal as it could be, isn't persuing the former and is working actively against the latter.
The typical result of this measures in organizations are that A) the most valuable employees look for the door -and usually go straight to the competition-; B) the ones left are unhappier, overdemanded and understaffed and that obviously takes a toll on their motivation; and C) they start looking for jobs anyway and when they get them, replacing their functions can be a long and costly process. All of this causing the organization to end up worse than before. The canary app (that has its own thread) is a good example on the matter.
Of course, this applies only if the main goal is to get a better organization long term. If the idea is to be the most profitable, then that's a different story. But fans of a football club that want their club to be the most profitable instead of better are IMO, very weird football club fans.
The world is not designed to work on supply and demand as if someone invented it. That is literally how humans behave when they want to exchange goods and services, it's natural. Also, what's the salary details got do with anything? Complete non-sequitur. It's also in an employers interests to attract as many people as possible to get the best candidates for a job. Why the hell would they not be upfront about their salary? The most vague they go is to give you a scale, say from 19000 to 23000 a year. That's based on all sorts of things like experience and the role etc.
Do you suggest that we all turn a blind eye to shitty practices just because they are shitty practices put in place by a new owner?IMO, very weird football club fans are fans that start on the new owners when they come in and change a few things at the side of the club no one knows even existed. They have no idea their intentions or what the job entails yet still want to use it as a stick to bash the new ownership because their views don’t align.
Every cost counts to your profitability, which would count towards your FFP calculations? Would imagine something like that cost north of 200k, so to completely can it would be a relatively big saving.He said it was about financial fair play and I found that really weird. There is no way an awards dinner counts towards to FFP calculations.
Objectively wrong.Every cost counts to your profitability, which would count towards your FFP calculations? Would imagine something like that cost north of 200k, so to completely can it would be a relatively big saving.