It is not a completely bonkers stance to incentivise staff to help out the business. And stating it's the only way to save your job is not an incentive, it is a threat. That you fail to see the difference undermines anything else you say.
For the record, I've been in business for 21 years and there have been some good days and bad days in that time. Back in 2009 we had to ask our staff to reduce their working hours and pay to 80% to keep the business afloat (there was no furlough scheme to help us out then). That was the most difficult thing I've ever had to do, but at least we still paid people fully for the work they did. And we managed to survive and were eventually able to return people to 100% of their hours and pay (although a couple enjoyed the 4 day week and requested to stay on that basis). So I personally am no stranger to the realities of trying to survive during an economic meltdown.
You might think there's no difference between what we did and what Tomahawk have done, but there is one big difference IMO. The money that their staff are being asked to loan to the company is furlough money. It's morally no different to me than the likes of Spurs and Liverpool paying individual footballers £200,000 a week, then claiming money back off the government through the furlough of low paid staff. More than that however, the legality of this arrangement is questionable as it seems to me to breach the rules of the furlough scheme. If that is proven, I hope that HMRC takes action against the directors for fraud so it hits their personal wealth, and not the business as that would cost jobs.
I'm going to take my own advice and stop posting on this subject until there are any further notable developments. I really do not wish Tomahawk ill and I accept that their intentions may have been honourable, so I will wait for the powers that be to deliver judgement. But if nothing else, they have badly misjudged how their staff and customers would view this arrangement.
It's a fake incentive, which seemingly works on most people, even 10% on a £300 loan for 3 month is about £5 interest, in total. This is not the difference between this being a good or bad idea.
The incentive is to invest 10% in your job or there may be no job, it's brutal and $hit, but it could just be the facts.
I get that it's furlugh money, but that money is still ultimately coming from taxpayers and businesses. But the second it leaves the companies bank (not the government's bank weeks later) then it is no longer furlough, it's up to the staff to do with that as they wish. If they think putting 10% aside will help keep their chance of employment alive then that's up to them, I would definitely take it. I wouldn't want to do it, but I would understand the difficulty of the situation.
I think it will get stopped, but we'll see.
Another thing on the furlough, the company has to pay the furlough money and claim it back, it does not come directly from the government, 500 staff on 1k after furlough is 500k worth of a cashflow problem. There's no furlough for those on dividends (probably directors), despite paying >30% tax on a chunk, and corp tax to get it no doubt.
Good on you for keeping your business going, you seem like one of the good guys just trying to do his best for his company and staff.
Same as myself, I paid all my guys 100% during the first wave, and I took a 75% pay cut, as couldn't get any furlough, had to be done, times were hard (but not even on the same level as leisure). 2008/9 hit us in 2010, we had to lay of 60% of our staff, and sell half our gear at much less than market value, and work for half rates, it was rough.
They've definitely handled it badly, no doubt about that, and massively misunderstood how the public would see this.
