SPFL Clubs to Vote - Page 14 - General Morton Chatter - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

SPFL Clubs to Vote


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 550
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's a pointless argument, but that's not the case - you said it was a replacement/substitute worker and on that basis that it applies to the CFB guy. When applied to workers it's not just that they are a replacement/substitute, but that they are a replacement or substitute undermining a dispute. I don't know if there's a dispute here but there's nothing to suggest that there is. Maybe the employee feels aggrieved, maybe not. But a lot of the criticism aimed at him for this particular issue (I know there's other stuff in the background to this) seems to be based on the assumption that the employee is unhappy and an assumption about the volunteer's motivations. Like I said before, the strongest criticisms feel like they are ahead of the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pointless argument, but that's not the case - you said it was a replacement/substitute worker and on that basis that it applies to the CFB guy. When applied to workers it's not just that they are a replacement/substitute, but that they are a replacement or substitute undermining a dispute. I don't know if there's a dispute here but there's nothing to suggest that there is. Maybe the employee feels aggrieved, maybe not. But a lot of the criticism aimed at him for this particular issue (I know there's other stuff in the background to this) seems to be based on the assumption that the employee is unhappy and an assumption about the volunteer's motivations. Like I said before, the strongest criticisms feel like they are ahead of the facts.

 

Still, you're wrong aren't you?

 

6758073.jpg?display=1&htype=0&type=respo

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...brought in to undermine a strike. The furlough scheme allows for certain functions to be reallocated (and leaves it to the employer to determine which functions are critical), it allows for volunteers to do work (as well as for furloughed workers to take up employment/volunteer elsewhere). It’s fundamentally different. To accuse him of being a scab is to dilute the term of real meaning or to use it for the sake of it when really all you mean to do is to insult him.

Critical functions can be reallocated to non-furloughed staff. People who have been furloughed can do volunteer work. The two are not connected - it does not say that a volunteer can be brought in to do the work of a furloughed employee. That seems like quite a selfish twisting of the rules which, if widespread, would put many jobs in danger which the scheme is meant to protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critical functions can be reallocated to non-furloughed staff. People who have been furloughed can do volunteer work. The two are not connected - it does not say that a volunteer can be brought in to do the work of a furloughed employee. That seems like quite a selfish twisting of the rules which, if widespread, would put many jobs in danger which the scheme is meant to protect.

The fact that furloughed employees are specifically banned from volunteering *at their place of work* should really have spelled out the intent here, but intent and practice are two very different things. Of course if opportunities like this are available then employers like Morton are going to take advantage of it. Have a worker paid by the government *and* get his work done for free by someone else? Why wouldn't they do it?

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critical functions can be reallocated to non-furloughed staff. People who have been furloughed can do volunteer work. The two are not connected - it does not say that a volunteer can be brought in to do the work of a furloughed employee. That seems like quite a selfish twisting of the rules which, if widespread, would put many jobs in danger which the scheme is meant to protect.

I wouldn’t say it’s a particularly twisted interpretation of the rules for Morton to decide that communication is a critical function (they might, for example, want to advertise season tickets before the furlough scheme officially comes to an end) or for that work done by a furloughed employee to be reallocated to an existing volunteer who has been working on that side of things. There’s a different argument about whether it’s critical to know Aidan Nesbitt’s favourite songs but I wouldn’t get too hung up on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critical functions can be reallocated to non-furloughed staff. People who have been furloughed can do volunteer work. The two are not connected - it does not say that a volunteer can be brought in to do the work of a furloughed employee. That seems like quite a selfish twisting of the rules which, if widespread, would put many jobs in danger which the scheme is meant to protect.

What the volunteer thing is to enable someone who has been furloughed to do some good in the community eg. Deliver soup to the Elderly etc. Not doing what this cunt is doing which is an abuse of the spirit of the system.

 

Morton aren't a charity, despite what folk think nowadays.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the volunteer thing is to enable someone who has been furloughed to do some good in the community eg. Deliver soup to the Elderly etc. Not doing what this cunt is doing which is an abuse of the spirit of the system.

Morton aren't a charity, despite what folk think nowadays.

There are loads of volunteers who work in football, some of them at Morton. Whether that should be the case or not, that’s long been the case. That being so, we’ve asked an existing volunteer to take on an additional function while the employee is furloughed along with colleagues in order to maintain their paid jobs at the other side of the crisis. I wouldn’t say that particularly offends the letter or the spirit of the scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t say it’s a particularly twisted interpretation of the rules for Morton to decide that communication is a critical function (they might, for example, want to advertise season tickets before the furlough scheme officially comes to an end) or for that work done by a furloughed employee to be reallocated to an existing volunteer who has been working on that side of things. There’s a different argument about whether it’s critical to know Aidan Nesbitt’s favourite songs but I wouldn’t get too hung up on that.

The guidelines quite clearly state a non-furloughed member of staff can cover critical tasks. A volunteer is not a non-furloughed member of staff. A volunteer shouldn't be covering the tasks of a furloughed employee.

 

We could also get into what should and shouldn't be expected of a volunteer in relation to critical tasks of an organisation of the size of Morton. And you would need to be very careful when it came to something like season tickets. Replacing an employee with a volunteer in relation to the promotion or sale of a product is very shaky ground indeed. But I don't think that's what's going on here. I don't think this is a case of getting a volunteer to cover critical work. I suspect what both parties thought was a mutually beneficial arrangement arose to keep social media stuff ticking over, and they took it. Nothing more, nothing less. It was poorly thought through, but that's all.

 

At least we didn't try to get a volunteer coach to fill in for David Hopkin. I suppose 'Coordinator of the Morton First Team' would've looked good on someone's Linkedin though, even if he had no players to actually coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are loads of volunteers who work in football, some of them at Morton. Whether that should be the case or not, that’s long been the case. That being so, we’ve asked an existing volunteer to take on an additional function while the employee is furloughed along with colleagues in order to maintain their paid jobs at the other side of the crisis. I wouldn’t say that particularly offends the letter or the spirit of the scheme.

I'm well aware that there are volunteers in Football, and I'm well aware that you wouldn't see anything wrong with what's happening here. It's scab like behaviour.

*insert signature here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see both sides of the argument as far as the rights and wrongs of it go. If the club had asked somebody who knows a wee bit about social media to take over the accounts and post the basics, I think that would be fair enough as it’s reasonable to call it an essential role; the problem here is that that’s not what has happened and somebody has been brought on board to post all sorts of rubbish, serving their own personal agenda in the process.

 

It’s really not a great look for either party.

AWMSC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A volunteer is not a non-furloughed member of staff.

I don’t think that’s obviously the case - staff is quite an ambiguous term (here I’d imagine intentionally so given that ‘employee’ is used elsewhere in the guidance) that could easily extend to unpaid staff/volunteers (some times it does in law and guidance and sometimes it doesn’t). If, say, a charity relied heavily on volunteers to perform critical functions and carried only one paid member of staff I’m not convinced it would be in the spirit of the scheme to say that those volunteers couldn’t pick up any of the functions of the furloughed employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance that this tedious debate all-round can be split into its own thread? This one should be reserved for pointing and laughing at Partick, Grangemouth and all their horrible, snake players and staff for the seaside league diddies that they now/still are.

 

Thank you.

The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before..

 

So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think that’s obviously the case - staff is quite an ambiguous term (here I’d imagine intentionally so given that ‘employee’ is used elsewhere in the guidance) that could easily extend to unpaid staff/volunteers (some times it does in law and guidance and sometimes it doesn’t). If, say, a charity relied heavily on volunteers to perform critical functions and carried only one paid member of staff I’m not convinced it would be in the spirit of the scheme to say that those volunteers couldn’t pick up any of the functions of the furloughed employee.

Critical functions of a charity should really be performed by an office holder of the charity in this case, whether that be the treasurer, secretary, or other other trustee. They will, of course, be non-paid but a different matter.

 

It will also be the case that volunteers will ordinarily help out with some tasks, and they will be helping out with such tasks at this time. But it would be completely unacceptable to promote one to a position similar to the paid employee.

 

I work for a small charity, so I know exactly the type of situation you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...