Celtic and the Living Wage - What the Hell Do We Care?

It really depends on the business framework, doesn't it? Working for the club you most likely support isn't seen as a typical job by many. And, many of the employees are part-time.

It's not quite as cut and dried as it would be for a company such as, say, Tesco.

 

Again, doesn't change the fact that people should still be vocal in their support of this and it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be how the club is run today.

I agree with the last bit.

 

Of course people can be vocal about it, but the guys who actually own the shares and make the decisions are the voices that matter, right? I mean, you and I can complain about it, but if Desmond doesn't want to do it, we won't see it done.

 

If people pile on enough pressure it will, because at the end of the day if the majority of the consumers want change it needs to be done. It just depends how many people agree with this and deem it important enough to make their feelings known about it. Your statement there underestimates the power people have and the influence pressure groups and such can have on decisions like this.

 

I guess we'll see. All I'll say on that particular matter is that guys like Dermot Desmond didn't get to where they are in this world by bending to the will of the man in the street.

 

There's a difference between bending to the will of the man in the street and being influenced by your core consumers. Celtic can't afford to alienate any more people from the support and Desmond and co will know that. Attendances are already falling year on year and that's due to a large nnumber of factors, they'd be shooting themselves and their share holders in the foot if they introduce even more reasons not to buy in to the club. But like I said, it will depend on the number of people willing to let their feelings on the matter be known.

 

I think Desmond and the men in charge know that if Rangers gain promotion this year we'll see a spike in season ticket and match day ticket sales.

The bottom line is that the board will do whatever is good for business. If that's giving employees the living wage, they'll do it. if not, they won't.

 

The top bit is probably true, football club owners can kind of get away with anything because something else inevitably steals the spot light after a week or so and football fans forget all about what they were worrying about two weeks earlier and move on to something else. However, this has been going on for a while now and if people are truly bothered about this they need to make their feelings known directly to the people running the gaff - nobody should ever underestimate the power of the consumer, they want you to think you have none, but really you have it all. They need you more than you need them.

 

Point taken about the Jambos' financial standards lol :smiley-laughing002:

Your point on executive pay is also pretty much unarguable - comes back to the old thing of us supporters seeing the club as a social institution, when it is a business under its own terms. If that is the case, are we just consumers demonstrating 'brand loyalty'? Not a pretty thought.

As a more general point, legislation limiting executive pay to a certain multiple of the lowest paid member of an organisation would be a good idea, both for increasing wages at the bottom and decreasing those at the top. As you've said, it's hard to blame a business for acting like a business. Regulation is needed.

 

I doubt such a system would ever work, the people earning the big money would find a way to circumvent it.

 

I think it's already in place somewhere, will have a google later and see if I can dig up a reference.

edit: Here we go, was proposed in Switzerland but failed in a referendum: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/24/switzerland-votes-against-cap-executive-pay

 

Yeah, as I said though, even if something like that did come into effect (which is a very, very long shot) you can bet that the top money men would find ways to get around it, be it through bonuses or suchlike.

Something like that would also put Scottish companies at a distinct disadvantage unless it was implemented worldwide. Our top companies would lose the top performing executives to overseas competitors.

It would basically end up turning the Scottish business world into the SPFL, with all of our top talent * off as soon as possible, and top performing executives laughing in the face of the salaries on offer here.

 

Hi you are right I misread your posts.
Picked on the 2 highlighted posts sorry.

However I don't know what the costumer is getting the credit for
unless it's the fashion / style:icon_mrgreen:

 

Dáibhí, this is getting into deep issues that I'd love to debate but that take away from the core issues here.

1) The moral argument for paying it is pretty water-tight IMO.
2) It would be a proper reflection of the principles and causes our club was founded for and paying poverty wages is not.
3) The majority of shareholders (undeniably) and the majority of fans (I believe) would like to see this implemented.
4) We can afford it.
5) Other big and succesful businesses have done it.

 

I think we have a different view of talent. The general view in our culture sees talent as a limited resource to be cultivated in people when found; whereas I look around and see wasted potential everywhere and people desperately competing for rare opportunities to develop skills. Lawwell wasn't born a great businessman, he developed those skills through experience; if he and his fellows leave Scotland, that leaves gaps for the lucky ones out of 5 million other Scots to develop those skills.

 

Cant be arsed reading the full thread....but

Pay an honest wage for an honest days work.....* relying on a pathetic government standard to decide on what is an "honest wage"

 

You are 100% right,the living wage has been around for quite sometime but it was "supposedly" brought into force as a sort of a stepping stone for the so called common worker,not as a limit with no gain.

Your quote "* relying on a pathetic government standard" is dead on,for the goverments under Thatcher and Regan nearly destroyed every known union,which not just put an end to the best stepping stone which was an apprenticeship,but when you take away the power of collective bargaining,you end up with more people being stuck on the minimum wage and the rich getting richer.

 

New article on this issue:

Celtic and the Living Wage 2 - What the * Do They Care?

http://theshamrockglasgow.wordpress...the-living-wage-2-what-the-hell-do-they-care/




The petition has almost reached 10,000 supporters - please sign up here if you support the idea of Celtic paying all employees a Living Wage:

http://www.change.org/p/the-board-o...&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition

 

Well, why do we as fans not apply that same logic to our players then? When we lose a player such as Hooper or Wanyama due to financial restrictions in the Scottish game why aren't we happy with replacing them with the likes of Griffiths and Berget?

It's the same thing really. We want top class players, and top class players cost top dollar. When you restrict a league, a country or whatever you immediately put them at a disadvantage in comparison to their competitors.

 

Why just stop at players, surely it must run right through the club. If we cannot afford certain players due to restrictions, should this not also apply to the wages we pay our CEO. We are constantly told that we cannot compete with England when trying to sign players, which I'm willing to accept, however, if that is the case, then surely we shouldn't be able to compete with them when it comes to paying the CEO.