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

I agree with this, we're a business now - its no longer 1888. We participate in a lot of charitable measures, but no one can celebrate in that fact obviously.

 

It does matter and it is a disgrace that we have employees at our club working poor. It makes it even worse that a member of our board votes to remove the state subsidy that keeps these people just above the poverty line.

 

Wish you would..:bbpd:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30431296

If Hearts can pay the living wage then there's absolutely no reason why we can't. The board just don't want to.

 

Unknown cost base, as in much like a footballers contract with goal bonuses etc... Will far outweigh the costs of implementing a living wage for the lowest paid! It's * laughable they use the excuse of a unknown cost base to not implement it!

More excuses from a joke of a board.

 

If it's true that the cost of implementing the living wage at Celtic is £2000 each home match, and they STILL don't do it, that is disgusting.

It actually makes no sense. Am I missing something?

 

Wow

 

Ridiculous. Less than a day of Lawwell's wage. With the difference that these people working for a pittance actually contribute with something for Celtic.

 

:snack:

 

* *, that was close to criticising the board, I'm astonished :smiley-laughing002:

 

IF it would only initially cost £2000, on average, its worth doing.
The argument that it hands control over of our biggest liability to outside forces is probably destroyed, should we have players on goal scoring bonuses that will be a much larger unknown outlay.

 

The board's argument that signing up to being a Living Wage accredited employer would somehow hand over control of the club's cost base externally really doesn't make sense.

It obviously doesn't impact on players as they earn considerably more than the Living Wage rate of £8.25 per hour. Same with the vast majority of the club's employees. It affects a relatively small number of employees whom the club are paying the minimum wage of £6.70 per hour.

So it's not the case that by signing up somehow the club would lose control of its wage structure - the Living Wage is voluntary in any event, and the fiscal impact of introducing it is negligible for a company the size of Celtic PLC.

Worth remembering that the idea behind the Living Wage is that many working families really struggle even with two salaries coming in - a Living Wage creates a bit of financial breathing space for them, with negligible impact on the employer (and associated benefits such as a happier/loyal workforce and an improved public persona).

 

We were formed to help the poor and deprived of the East end.

Now we help to create the poor and deprived of the East end and other parts of Glasgow.

Members of our board decide they can make them even worse of by voting to do away with benefits that the poor need.

£2K a week ( £104K a year) , ffs bar and hospitality would cover it alone.

 

I wish they would give Season Ticket holders a vote on this, ask them if they're willing to pay £2 extra per ST I'm sure they would say yes. I'm not saying that is how it should be funded, just saying I'm sure that's the strength of feeling amongst the support who are the most important people in Celtic.

 

Lets pay an extra £9 a year , it wont cost the board a penny and they can still make a profit.

We had a food donation day from the fans, how many bags did certain members of the board contribute?? Just asking

 

That's what I said on a previous page, takes the biscuit. Griffiths scoring a goal probably costs them 1k! No control over cost base my fat *.

 

Did I hear correctly that the club actually do implement the living wage, but just don't want to commit to being an accredited full-time member?

 

This is from the AGM last year. They agreed to pay permanent staff the same level as the Living Wage but will not be tied into it I'm sure. I don't know if the wage has increased this year. Part time staff won't be paid the same rate.

I stand partly corrected here, I did not realise we were paying full time staff the same rate. Part time staff should be included but the main point stands, we should just agree to be tied into the Living Wage. If other clubs can do it so can we.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30150594

 

That was my understanding of it.

Hearts signed up and made a huge fuss about it. We pay it and don't need to make a song and dance about it.

Without knowing much about the benefits system, I wonder if that's the reason that part time workers might not get the working wage?

If you're getting paid the living wage for a full time job, isn't that supposed to take your earnings to an acceptable level without further benefits? On the other hand, if you get paid for working part time hours, you're still entitled to benefits?

In effect wouldn't that leave the part time workers effectively getting a better deal than full time employees, and although Celtic would be paying the living wage to part time workers, it hasn't avoided them using the benefits system?